Appendix - DOCUMENTS PREPARED DURING THE PROJECT
The agricultural sector in Sri Lanka provides employment for 45% of the active labour force and accounts for one quarter of the gross domestic product (GDP). The most important food crop is rice, which is grown on 600 000 hectares, mostly under irrigated conditions in the dry and intermediate zones. Tree crops, covering 900 000 hectares, are mostly in the wet zone and include important export crops such as coconut, rubber and tea. Since the late 1980s, production of both tree and field crops has stagnated, while cereal imports have increased to 900 000 tons. The reasons for this poor domestic performance are related to the policy environment, the pattern of public investment and ownership and non-economic factors such as the security situation and below-average rainfall.
As part of its programme of structural adjustment, the Government has given high priority to the process of institutional restructuring. In the agricultural sector the programme supports measures to rationalize the current goals, objectives and responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture (DOA). The DOA is a complex institution which covers the following activities: research, seed and planting material production, seed certification and plant protection, inter-provincial extension, agricultural education and training, botanical gardens, the conservation of plant genetic and national resources, agricultural policy development and agricultural machinery development. It employs over 6 500 people and has its head office and many facilities in Peridenyia (near Kandy), with a large number of research stations and units in the different agro-ecological regions of the country.
As a result of concern over the output of the Department, a restructuring plan was drawn up by DOA senior management with the aim of decentralizing, reducing overstaffing, cutting wasteful expenditure, transferring extension functions from the Mahaweli Authority to the Department and bringing about a more cost-effective structure. This would be achieved by utilizing modern systems of management. FAO provided assistance through its Technical Cooperation Programme in March 1994, in the form of a project preparation/formulation mission. The mission analysed the organizational and structural background as well as the technical requirements of the DOA and identified the main constraints to its restructuring. This led to the formulation of project TCP/SRL/4453, "Restructuring of the Department of Agriculture".
The project was scheduled to start in December 1994, with an FAO contribution of $US 270 000 and a scheduled duration of 13 months. The Project Agreement was finally signed in January 1995 and the project commenced in November 1995, with a revised completion date of October 1997. The Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Forestry, Department of Agriculture, was designated the counterpart agency responsible for project execution.
The objectives of the project were to assist the DOA in its restructuring process through the development of organization and management procedures and the introduction of a Management Information System (MIS) in order to improve the monitoring and evaluation of DOA activities. It was also planned to assist in the training of senior and middle-level staff to enable them to introduce improved management and monitoring systems.
A series of visits was made by the international consultants to plan, design, undertake training and monitor the programme. The design visit lasted for two months and the resulting design reports contain the main proposals for the development of systems. During this phase, the consultants each conducted three training courses or workshops, the results of which moulded the thinking on systems development.
The national consultants were provided for a period of about 10 person-months. They contributed inputs to the workshops and prepared specialist reports in their own topics.
An extensive programme of training and training workshops was carried out. During the inception phase, the DOA requested that management training be targeted at the staff below director level. The training therefore focused on deputy directors, senior research officers and monitoring and evaluation staff.
The project organized six workshops (three for management and three for monitoring and evaluation). The workshops were essential in setting the scene for the development of systems as well as in obtaining feedback on the constraints faced by staff. About 25 people took part in each two-day workshop.
Five management and human resources development (HRD) training courses, each lasting five days, were given in Colombo by a specialist training organization. Approximately 25 DOA staff members took part in each course. Although the feedback on these courses was mixed, there were some very positive reactions, particularly for HRD.
In-country training in monitoring and evaluation was provided for 25 DOA staff with responsibilities in this field. The two-week course was well received and established the necessary understanding of systems for the piloting of the proposed system.
Two key staff for the development of monitoring received a month's training abroad in computer systems in agriculture. One of these trainees subsequently became the head of the Progress Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (PMEU).
Fourteen staff members participated in a one-week farmer/client monitoring workshop, followed by practical field training. The programme concentrated on the conduct of client-level monitoring studies and was well received.
Comprehensive documentation was produced by the project, including draft management handbooks for the Research and Development Institutes (RDIs) and the Regional Agricultural Research and Development Centres, a complete compendium of monitoring forms, comprehensive implementation guidelines and a management training manual. It was also hoped that the software of the Computerized Integrated Government Accounting System (CIGAS) would be modified to meet the needs of the DOA, but this did not prove possible.
A logical framework analysis was also prepared for the programme. It should be noted that, although the two main areas of activity were tackled separately, close liaison was maintained throughout the design phase.
A comprehensive framework for monitoring and evaluation and management information was prepared, composed of three subsystems. Throughout the main period of the project, emphasis was placed on subsystem I, the piloting of the designed monitoring system. This was carried out in four units, the Field Crop RDI, Bombuwela Regional Agricultural Research and Development Centre (RARDC), the Seed and Planting Material Production Centre and the Extension and Communication Centre. By the time the monitoring review was conducted (April 1997), sufficient experience had been gained in the four pilot centres for the PMEU to be in a position to commence a time-bound programme for the installation of the system throughout the DOA, the necessary modifications to formats being undertaken as the need arose.
Given the progress achieved, it was possible to move on to a limited piloting of subsystem II, regarding client/farmer-level monitoring studies. This was undertaken with the support of a specialist consultant in farmer evaluation. Two topics were investigated in studies carried out for both training and piloting purposes. The studies examined farmer feedback on the acceptance of DOA-recommended maize varieties and farmer audience response to DOA radio/television programmes.
During subsystem III, regarding external evaluations, the Council for Agricultural Research Policy conducted a number of reviews, evaluating, among other things, the utility of the many Agricultural Research Stations and Units. The Director General was advised to approach the Council for Agricultural Research Policy to set up a structured programme of evaluations, to be agreed at the start of each year on the basis of national priorities.
New management systems, to be implemented immediately in only one RDI (the Rice Research and Development Institute) were piloted. Of the other RDIs, the Field Crops Research and Development Institute (FCRDI) was involved in piloting monitoring systems, while the Horticultural Research and Development Institute (HORDI) was the test-bed for new financial management proposals. A number of systems common to both management and monitoring and evaluation were also tested at the FCRDI. After a slow start, some activities, such as the preparation of job descriptions, had taken place by the time of the progress visit (September 1996). By June 1997, all the immediate systems had been tested and the terminal workshop endorsed all the key proposals.
At the design stage, it was proposed that medium-term systems be presented by the Chairman of the Management Implementation Team (MIT) to the Directorate for review and further action as soon as the design report had been approved by the DOA and FAO. In the event, medium-term systems for institutes and centres were not presented until the terminal workshop, where they were well received. The Directorate formally agreed to their adoption and, at the time this statement was written, a time-bound plan for making the systems operational was under consideration. Directorate management systems were also discussed briefly at the terminal workshop.
The first draft of the management handbook was prepared by the end of the design phase and a copy, also on diskette, was given to the RRDI. The aim was to encourage RDI staff to assume "ownership" of the handbooks and to turn them into effective working documents. A second and more complete draft of the handbook was later prepared and circulated to all the RDIs, while a modified version was prepared for the RARDCs.
Although urgently required, change in financial management was impeded by the need to work with the CIGAS. The DOA was slow to adopt the system, which was found to be incomplete as far as department needs were concerned. Modifications were agreed by the installation team, but institutional difficulties will delay their implementation. Ongoing support for financial management improvement was still being provided when this statement was prepared.
It is recommended that a management development committee be set up consisting of the Director General, two senior directors and the head of the PMEU as secretary. This should replace the MIT, which has no authority to order the different units to install and operate systems. Once the committee is formed, a time-bound programme of implementation for both management and monitoring should be initiated in the DOA. The PMEU should also be fully staffed as soon as possible. At least one further senior staff member is required in addition to the proposed immediate appointments.
Provision should be made for regular training in management and monitoring and evaluation as part of the in-service training programme of DOA, and bar examinations should include these topics.
The DOA should adopt an integrated view of developing computer systems with special emphasis on intra-DOA communication, networking and information sharing. Further technical assistance and provision of equipment should be sought as part of a development project. Items to be requested should include support for the development of hardware and software systems. Periodic technical assistance in software development and in the expansion and use of the MIS should be provided, as well as follow-up support for the development of the in-house evaluation of subsystem II.
It is recommended that periodic technical assistance be sought to help in the development of management systems and to participate in in-service training programmes in management and HRD, and that special assistance be provided for the development of improved management systems in the Seed and Planting Material Production Centre. Ongoing support for the development of financial management systems is also required.
Adequate numbers of staff grade officers and mid-level support staff should be appointed, with the necessary background and aptitude for MIS and for farmer-level monitoring and evaluation activities. Each relevant DOA centre and institute should employ one full-time middle-level technical staff officer and one part-time staff officer for MIS/monitoring and evaluation duties. The responsibilities of all staff involved in monitoring should be spelt out in the duty lists of each staff member.
Each RDI/RARDC should appoint programme leaders to monitor research and development activities and to keep basic records. Administrative records, particularly those relating to labour and physical inputs and the costs of research activities, should be streamlined to enable proper monitoring.
The PMEU should extend the MIS to various centres and institutes of the DOA and commence the preparation of summary and aggregate reports. These should be presented to the Directorate and fed back to the individual units. Decision-taking based on these summaries should be carried out at both levels. The PMEU should also begin to integrate MIS-related activities with the establishment of a data-base and external reporting requirements, in order to avoid duplication of effort.
Action should be taken to establish formal procedures for the implementation of a regular programme of client/farmer-level monitoring studies (subsystem II) with appropriate feedback mechanisms to thrust/programme planning and implementation.
Management committees should be established at each unit and at the Directorate. These should be small committees, consisting of staff with general management or administrative responsibilities. They should be quite distinct in size and function from the existing Directorate and staff meetings at each unit and should examine all monitoring information on a routine basis.
A dual-path promotion system should be introduced with promotion through research and technical grades (to Chief Research or Technical Officer) running parallel to administrative grades. Increased responsibility would be identified with each step up the technical ladder. Grades and bonuses should eventually be rationalized to reward advancement, while promotion should be based on merit rather than seniority.
All DOA staff should be required to record their use of working time, initially under broad categories (such as meetings, field supervision, research, administration and leave) and later under individual activities. HRD and personnel functions should be included among the specific responsibilities of certain senior staff and the terms and conditions of service, in particular the preparation of duty lists, annual appraisals and the rules on staff transfers between units and locations, should be rationalized and formalized.
Financial management should be improved by the adoption of a variety of systems including partial budgeting, shadow ledgers, increased spending limits and the use of the CIGAS.
Monitoring and evaluation design report. May 1996.
National systems analysis report. May 1996
MIS software development report. September 1996.
Report on financial systems. June 1997.
Report on management systems.
