Sri Lanka: North East Community Restoration and Development Project

Horizontal Tabs

Lessons

A demand-led, devolved implementation approach fosters local ownership and enables projects to respond to urgent needs with solutions most suited to the local context.

This project used a demand-led approach whereby, after consultations with the divisional agencies, communities, and local governments, district governments proposed subprojects, mostly civil works, to meet their priority needs, provided the subprojects fell within the broad sectoral budget provisions of the project. Coupled with the delegation of implementation to the provincial project coordination committees, which also reviewed and approved the subprojects, the approach closely aligned the project to the local needs and context. While developing strong local ownership, it also promoted broad support and cooperation from all stakeholders, and by including donor representatives, helped prevent the duplication of initiatives. The approach provided a model for coordinating restoration work across various levels of governance, with the local agencies and communities in the forefront.

Project Cycle Stage:

Preparation

Implementation

Project implementation is extremely challenging in conflict and post-conflict situations.

This project was designed for post-conflict rehabilitation but also got caught in the resurgences of the conflict for over half of its implementation period. During periods of conflict, it operated under very difficult, frustrating, and fluid security conditions, contending with restricted access due to the hostilities and changing exclusion zones. Work was often conducted in areas controlled by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a situation that required utmost care and patience as services must be delivered to all parties, including the warring government armed forces and the LTTE, civil agencies, and communities. Despite these constraints, project implementation fared largely well and overall outputs exceeded the appraisal targets. Delays in subproject implementation were frequent, and many subprojects required re-restoration. The three-time extension, necessitated by the delays, the on and off hostilities, and the provision of supplementary loans/additional financing, enabled the completion of all the project interventions three years after the ceasefire agreement in 2009. This was no ordinary feat for the project staff who dared the security and other risks to deliver services in the project areas.

Project Cycle Stage:

Preparation

Implementation

Use of local contractors for post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation, besides being beneficial to local economies and the local population, will also expedite project completion.

Most of the project contracts were small and within the capabilities of local contractors who generally performed well. During the peak conflict period, 2006 to 2009, many civil works were disrupted and could not be completed on time, as contractors faced transport restrictions and scarcities in construction materials. Access to work sites and deliveries were prevented on many days by the intermittent outbreak of conflict or the establishment of military exclusion zones. While civil works steadily progressed only after the ceasefire agreement in 2009, contractors intermittently went back to work in previous years, whenever this was possible. Resumption of works in 2009 and before then would not have been as expeditious with foreign contractors. Therefore, even as it gave incomes to the local people and prevented fueling more community and ethnic tensions, use of local contractors ensured faster completion of civil works.

Project Cycle Stage:

Preparation

Implementation

Baseline data are vital to ensuring the efficacy of post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation.

By significantly contributing to the restoration of basic infrastructure, services, and livelihoods, the project also helped build the condition for the cessation of conflict in 2009 and the ensuing peace in the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka. However, a thorough assessment of the project benefits and impacts cannot be completed. While the management information system (MIS) developed under the original project was maintained, no project performance monitoring system and baseline data and indicators were established. Updating of the MIS was not consistent, with progress recorded only on the physical and financial aspects of the subprojects. Midterm reviews were also not conducted because of the security risks and fluid peace and order situation, although an ADB resident mission officer attended all meetings of the project coordination committees, review missions were fielded, and some monitoring was combined with that of other ongoing projects. More effort could have been made by the resident mission to actively encourage the project management and coordination units to establish the baseline data and monitor progress throughout the project period. This would have enabled an adequate and reliable assessment of the project and subproject benefits and impacts.

Project Cycle Stage:

Preparation

Implementation

Having a gender action plan (GAP) aligns a project’s design and implementation approaches to women’s distinct needs and interests and enables their significant capture of project benefits.

The absence of gender and minimal reference to social impact in the original project was corrected in the subsequent interventions, the focus of this report. Incorporation of a GAP, prepared for the second intervention and updated for the succeeding supplementary loan, wove gender into the subproject selection criteria. This resulted in the implementation of specific activities targeted at women. Women’s rural development societies were reactivated and received livelihood microfinancing and training. Reconstructed or newly built health and education facilities, particularly in remote areas, included accommodations for women. While generally gender-neutral, all the infrastructure improvements supported by the project, including in shelter and water supply and sanitation were also beneficial for women in terms of increased access and time-savings. However, as with other non-physical infrastructure improvements, there is minimal data to support a thorough evaluation of the gender benefits and impacts of the project.

Project Cycle Stage:

Preparation

Implementation

Background

The North East Community Restoration and Development (NECORD) project comprises four overlapping interventions, each designed to meet the requests of the government of Sri Lanka for support to rebuild basic services and livelihoods in the northern and eastern provinces damaged or disrupted by 20 years of armed conflict between government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Asian Development Bank (ADB) was the lead agency for the projects, which ran from 2002 to 2012, and had the common objective to rapidly improve the living standards and well-being of a significant number of people in conflict-affected areas through the restoration of basic social infrastructure, community and public services, and livelihoods. The total budget was $93.3 million, comprising ADB loans of $48.9 million, an ADB grant of $14 million, Sri Lanka government funds of $20.7 million; and grants by the government of Sweden ($5.9 million, for access roads) and the government of Australia ($7.3 million, for livelihood assistance to returning displaced persons).

This report focuses on the last 3 NECORD projects that envisaged providing benefits to (i) meet the urgent needs of some 1.5 million people, including the poor, displaced, and disabled; (ii) restore sectors that form the backbone of the economy; (iii) rebuild communities; and (iv) help stabilize the economic base of the population. Support was to be provided to several sectors, mostly through civil works. Following the procedures successfully initiated under the original NECORD I project, subprojects within sectors were proposed by the district governments, after consulting with divisional agencies, communities, and local governments. Provincial project coordination committees (PPCCs) reviewed the subprojects against approved selection criteria to ensure equitable support to diverse communities and avoid overlaps with other development programs.

Under the follow-on projects, 956 subprojects were completed. Health and education received half of the investments. Training was an important cross-cutting activity, and as envisaged at design stage, about 70% of the expenditure was on civil works. There was a reasonable balance of expenditure between the two provinces: 49% in Northern, 34% in Eastern, and 17% common to both. Project contributions in health comprised the restoration of physical infrastructure, consisting mainly of district and base hospitals, provision of equipment, and training of health care staff and HIV/AID awareness-building. Over 1,100,000 people benefited from these project contributions in the health sector.

Schools, classrooms, and other education facilities were reconstructed and upgraded. So were student hostels and teachers’ quarters, particularly in remote locations. Catch-up classes were sponsored; teachers, especially primary level ones, and government education staff received training. Improvements in water supply and sanitation facilities, linked to village development activities, made living conditions better and provided incomes in small and medium-sized towns. Using labor-intensive methods, rural roads to connect villages to the main road network, irrigation schemes, or community centers were rebuilt, and some sites received vehicles, a ferry, and road construction/maintenance equipment. Irrigation schemes and ancillary structures were reconstructed/rehabilitated. Research and seed production,

agrarian service centers, agriculture training centers, agriculture and veterinary offices, a livestock farm were reestablished. Agricultural extension services were improved/expanded and agricultural implements distributed.

Local and district government services were reestablished/improved through infrastructure restoration, equipment provision, and capacity development activities. Houses were repaired and shelters for returnee families were constructed. Upfront and welfare grants were disbursed, benefiting more than 31,000 families, mainly comprising internally displaced persons. Village development and livelihood activities such as livestock, home gardening, and fisheries were supported through training and microfinance. Women’s rural development societies and gender-oriented enterprise development programs, tested under NECORD I, were reactivated/expanded, and received microcredit revolving funds that created self-employment for over 1,500 women. Local livelihoods were also improved through household electricity and water supply reconnections.

Overall, the project was thus successful in meeting its development objective to restore basic social infrastructure, community services, and livelihood in the project areas. All the component interventions were completed in a way that maintained the NECORD brand of being respected by all stakeholders for its quality, balance, transparency, and the tenacity of the project staff to deliver services despite extreme difficulties. High-level support from the provincial governors enhanced the effectiveness of the implementation arrangements in overcoming the severe challenges borne by the highly volatile political and security conditions until the 2009 ceasefire agreement. The Ministry of Provincial Councils and Local Government was the project executing agency. The northern and eastern provincial councils, through their provincial departments and agencies, were the lead implementing agencies.

Project Information

Project Name:

North East Community Restoration and Development Project

Report Date:

September, 2013

Main Sector:

Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development

Education

Finance

Health

Public Sector Management

Country: