Civil society silent on 10-year plan

As a part of the budget 2007, in November 2006, the “ Mahinda Chinthana: Vision for a new Sri Lanka – A Ten Year Horizon Development Framework 2006-2016” was published as a discussion paper and was presented to the International Community at the Development Forum in Galle last month.

The civil society of Sri Lanka, led by religious, business and civil society leaders as well as professionals, academics and media have been silent all these many months! Are they blind, incapable, frightened or just not interested in this National Development Strategy? This publication was to form a discussion paper to be reviewed even at the grass root level and the voice of the community ascertained. This community review, given pride of place by the Ministry of Finance and Planning, has also not taken place as yet.

The first issue the civil society needs to know is “who takes ultimate leadership accountability for the delivery of this vision?” In a business it is the CEO and the top executive team? Does the President take ultimate accountability, especially as it bears his name and philosophy in the headline? Is he assisted in this task by his 54 or over 100 executive ministerial colleagues? If so, how many of them have been associated in the strategy development? How many of them accept it, commit to it and have the capability to deliver with accountability? Can such a big team support this task? With the President having all the key functions and budget lines under him, where will his support come from?

Who will maintain the required management information and dash boards to help monitor progress? Will it be the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Plan Implementation, Central Bank, National Council for Economic Development and its clusters, newly appointed Economic Advisory Council or even some individuals or group of Presidential Advisors?

If it is the President and his Cabinet that takes accountability, did they review it together as a team, align the vision, objectives, strategies and action plans and tie them up to the agreed assumptions of the expected governing internal Sri Lanka and global environment? Did they agree an overall measurable national vision for Sri Lanka to be achieved by 2016? Did they review risks, possible scenarios and plan mitigation strategies and back up plans?

As one reads the Vision document, there are strong indications that separate parts have been written by different ministries, teams from the Planning Department of the Ministry of Finance or groups and have been pieced together by the National Planning team, without following the expected best practice.

The overall vision for Sri Lanka is not clear – is it limited merely to achieving an annual 8% growth target (though not explicitly stated as the vision achieving a per capita GDP by 2016 of $4000).

The other key elements in some of the private sector-published Vision 2020, Way Forward Strategies and House of Sri Lanka are clearly missing and are replaced by project tag lines bearing the President’s name- can this by itself mobilize committed aligned action by all? Only sector related visions are present. Can leaders mobilize the civil society to align and commit to a vision driven only by a growth target? Effective and binding communications and building a Sri Lanka Inc, definitely requires a more compelling and binding vision, than mere reference to a “Chinthana”!

There are two very significant missing pieces in the published document- assumptions and matching financial forecasts, matching resources and cash flows.

What assumptions regards the war, conflict resolution, constitutional framework, India’s role in the subcontinent, Sri Lanka’s relations with India and other key developed nations, political stability, oil prices (reality of assumption in page 233), energy demand/supply situation, WTO regime, regional and other trade block policies, human resource capability backing the vision and strategy are not clear especially in section 16 dealing with the macro economic framework.

Further, information set out in page IX of the executive summary and pages 232 and 233 is incomplete without matching financial forecasts, matching resources and cash flows despite the section 16 on macro economic framework.

There are significant investment plans in all sectors but there is inadequate clarity as to backing the funding sources.

The adequacy and implementation capability of the strategies relating to education, human capital development, science and technology and public administration reforms, in the context of some key elements of “Mahinda Chinthana”, to provide the core human capital, efficient systems of administration and intellectual capital required for delivery of the vision are highly questionable.

The significance of the war, conflict resolution, and constitutional framework on the outcome of the development strategy are highly underplayed. Similarly, the availability of development assistance, international public image and goodwill, are highly leveraged to geographic equity (lagging development of conflict/tsunami affected North/East affected areas), law, order and human security.

These aspects are ignored in the strategy. In addressing poverty there appears to be less than required emphasis on estate areas, and conflict affected areas.

The focus on skills and human development needs more geographic equity emphasis. The need for identification of lagging areas not covered by the census-related poverty assessments are not sufficiently emphasized.

The impending crisis in the area of pensions funding (including war related W & OP and compensation payments) and the high spend on servicing the debt burden in addition to an unreformed public administration are inadequately emphasized.

The dependence, of the planned consistent year on year high growth targets in agriculture of 4.5 %, on good weather received on a timely basis supported by effective irrigation management is not highlighted. Is this likely with the changes in the global weather patterns and increasing deforestation and poor environmental management? It is unlikely to be realized, unless effective land policies are in place and implemented with efficiency within a long term policy accepted on a bi-partisan basis. There is inadequate emphasis on the need for private sector’s committed participation, with a high degree of technology and best practice transfers.

The planned annual growth in industrial and other associated sectors, increasing from 7.9% to 10.5% and a consistent high growth in fisheries (both marine and inland) are entirely dependent on major policy changes outside the present “Chinthana” practiced on a bipartisan way in the long term.

Infrastructure spends planned in power, water, irrigation, roads, ports, airports, (emphasis on the role of railways and its required structural changes inadequate –page 94) is dependent on the conflict and war coming to an end. Can civil society accept the year on year lower defence spends to GDP as shown in the outcomes reducing from 3.5 % of GDP to 2.8% based on the “Chinthana” now in practice? The plans for both coal and LNG fired power generation to be in place simultaneously; in a small energy importing nation is an old debate, not adequately justified.

Civil society maintains that the planned national development, growth and prosperity of the people are all at significant risk with the financing and macro management policies that now appear supported by the Treasury and a silent Monetary Board, where long dated foreign commercial debts that are annually rated (effectively short term) are secured to meet the budget shortfall and balance of payment support without long term conditionality embedded long term debt from international financial institutions.

There is inadequate reference to good governance, transparency, improved accountability, anti corruption measures, effective communications, right of information and village leadership-led governance monitoring the voice of community.The assumptions and predicted fiscal and monetary outcomes in section 16, with emphasis on defence spend, cost of subsidies; external commercial debt quantum, debt service, budget deficit, inflation target, and balance of payments need to be closely critiqued by civil society.

Civil society, it is time to act together, wake up, be vigilant and proactive – It is your future that is in this vision!