Opm report Template version 5

4.1Operational support

4.1.1Essential systems development and strengthening

Although INAS and its partners have invested significantly in the development and improvement of systems and processes over several years, this is an ongoing process and there is a continued need to ensure that essential systems are in place and operational. The most critical systems in need of finalisation and implementation are the MIS and payment systems.

DFID should prioritise support to ensure MIS and payment systems operationalisation, which should be a precondition for further programming support. Only when the MIS and payment process are operationalised can DFID support the development/strengthening of other vital processes like PMT, M&E and grievance redressal. The full set of interventions required is summarised below.

Table : Actions required in relation to key systems

Areas	Activities
MIS	review current status of previous investment in MIS identify constraints and barriers, and strategy for overcoming support roll-out of MIS
Payment systems	review process to date and related research (including that carried out by the World Food Programme (WFP), and World Vision International (WVI) support tender process for development of non-manual payment support roll-out of non-manual or combined manual/electronic payment process recalibrate wage in line with programme objectives and index link
PMT	support process of phased introduction introduce system for action research and cost–benefit analysis (economic and social) of PMT and feed back into design
M&E	implement M&E (including on asset quality)
Grievance redressal	ensure grievance procedures (including targeting and injury compensation) are in place and operational

4.1.2Improvement of PASP asset quality

4.1.2.1Shift institutional mandate for asset selection

PASP is currently reliant on INAS’s inputs to select the assets to be built. This duplicates efforts by the district administration to identify strategic priorities (also based on community priorities) and results in the creation of assets that are not perceived as high quality or strategically relevant by the district authorities.

The importance of selecting appropriate assets is reflected in a couple of ongoing initiatives to support this process. The World Bank is currently supporting INAS in the development of operational guidelines, and this provides an opportunity for further engagement to streamline the asset selection procedure and also increase district-level ownership, although the list of CCA activities in the guidelines indicates that there is a need to engage critically with this guideline to ensure its appropriateness in the context of the capacity limitations and operational challenges identified in this report.

There is a need to realign PASP-related institutional roles and responsibilities in relation to asset selection in order to make use of the existing district-level asset selection prioritisation and selection process and thus avoid duplication of activities. In this way, the districts, rather than INAS, would select assets in line with their strategic priorities, technical specifications and mandates and the mandate for selection and implementation would be shifted away from INAS and be the sole responsibility of district services, with INAS’s role limited to verification of asset eligibility and financial inputs. Instead of implementing a parallel asset selection process then, INAS should hand responsibility for PASP asset selection over to the district administrations. This would not only reduce the operational burden on INAS and lead to the selection of assets identified as priorities by the district, but would also create the right incentives at local level.

District administrations would see PASP as a resource to allow them to achieve their own goals, rather than as a separate programme that represents an additional workload. Furthermore, inasmuch as the districts are using the Local Adaptation Plans (LAPS) this process would link PASP directly with the climate resilience priorities that were integrated in the asset selection process. DFID, or other development partners, may also choose to provide support to improving the existing infrastructure prioritisation processes at district level as resource constraints limit the potential for district development planning and the periodic preparation of district development plans as intended.

In those districts with LAPs CCA priorities would already be internalised and could inform PASP asset selection, but in the majority of districts that lack LAPs this would not yet be a realistic expectation. Since PASP does not have the capacity to promote CCA directly, it is likely that in many districts PASP will continue to finance assets or activities which are not directly contributing to resilience.

It may be more feasible for the PASP to contribute to “soft” CCA activities such as using the programme to bring awareness about climate change among recipients, building community-based early warning systems, or carrying out information dissemination act, but given the capacity constraints outlined above it is not recommended that INAS should currently play a role in promoting resilience assets or ‘soft’ activities that are not priority to the local government. Only after the core capacity requirements are satisfied should the implementation of progressive resilience-related activities, including “soft” CCA “activities” be considered.

The role of the district level ‘Local Adaptation Plan’ process led by MITADER is also relevant here, as there is a possibility for the PASP to contribute to the implementation of LAP (see recommendations in Irish Aid and IIED, 2016 and Kardan et al 2016). However, given the INAS constraints outlined above, and the proposed shift in the inter-institutional architecture for asset selection, support to this process should be separate from PASP and not provided through INAS, but rather directly through MITADER and the districts as appropriate.

DFID could however play a role in supporting the use of LAPs, where they are operational, as a component of the INAS asset approval criteria, as part of the World Bank asset selection criteria discussion currently underway as part of the package of support on asset quality. In addition to supporting LAPs, DFID could support this area either by promoting incremental change in the administrative and institutional arrangements governing asset selection or by piloting an alternative/improved approach. In our view, the dual implementation modality already adopted in the programme based on donor support (with WFP and World Bank implementation areas) has not yielded positive results. Moreover, there are already a significant number of initiatives already being, or about to be tested, which together represent are more than the programme can implement effectively. This congestion of initiatives puts into question the desirability of further piloting and suggest that at this stage the promotion of incremental change based on administrative and institutional revisions seems the best alternative.

4.1.2.2Adopt lump sum annual district funding for asset creation

Consideration should be given to further streamlining the administration of the asset creation process by providing an annual lump sum to the three participating district technical services for asset creation (or directly to the district for allocation across the series), with the total value determined by capitation of PASP employment to be provided (the number of employment workdays created). This should be provided either up front annually on the basis of INAS’s confirmation that the assets proposed are in line with INAS criteria or, alternatively, on an annual repayment basis once the assets are completed on the basis of a quality check review as part of asset quality component of the M&E system.

4.1.2.3Consider multi-year financing to districts for strategic asset selection

These funds should be guaranteed on a three-year basis, reflecting the three-year cycle of support under PASP in order to enable districts to plan the use of the PASP resources strategically rather than on an ad hoc and project-by-project annual basis.

4.1.2.4Include asset oversight and quality control in MIS and M&E

DFID should support the World Bank and INAS in a review of asset quality and asset selection; implementation and functionality should be included within the ongoing MIS and also the M&E system to ensure quality control and accountability for PASP assets.

4.1.2.5Increase budget allocation to capital inputs

The PASP budget allocated to capital inputs (materials, tools, etc.) should be raised from 15% to a percentage consistent with district capital input norms for asset production, given the adverse impact of inadequate resource allocations for capital inputs on the quality of assets created.

4.1.2.6Support district skills in employment intensive infrastructure creation

Support is required for district skills in employment intensive infrastructure provision by linking the relevant ministries (at central or district level as appropriate) with support from the International Labour Organization, which runs regional training schemes and has specialist advisers and materials relating to the use of unskilled labour in labour-intensive infrastructure creation in rural contexts. This would enable districts to use unskilled labour and labour-intensive methods without compromising the quality of outputs or increasing costs. The inputs would include advice on labour-intensive asset design and could be provided from either the International Labour Organization or other regional experts in labour-intensive infrastructure creation. These inputs may be useful in revising the technical design specifications in the PASP manual and also district planning guidelines. If the PASP were to be linked with resilience further, there would also be a need to strengthen district capacity to use climate change information in a more meaningful way.