In spite of the 'completed' status of projects many of them on physical verification were found to be incomplete, let alone the poor quality of the work done. From the whole litany of allegations we pick out some to underline the level of indiscipline and misfeasance: frequent changes in engineering designs, appointment of consultants and posting of project directors together with inclusion of new items and contractors drawing bills without providing services.

Of the three responsibilities vested in the IMED i.e. implementation, monitoring and evaluation, only the last one seems to have been attended to by the important wing of the Planning Ministry. The point we would like to stress here is why the oversight role of the IMED was not played out in the first place to prevent irregularities occurring in project implementation. For all we know, whilst the ERD negotiates foreign assistance, IMED is associated with looking after the rules and regulations aspects. More to the point, a purchase committee dealing with a procurement worth above Taka 25 crore takes on board a representative from the IMED itself. So it appears that the IMED is involved in every important step of the way. That being the case, it has to take its share of the blame for the implementation related deficiencies and malpractice. Rather than evaluating 'completed' projects in a post-facto manner it must intervene at the implementation stages as and when required to stop messing around with projects.

But there is a point about sidelining the IMED within the Planning Ministry although potentially it is as important as the planning division of the ministry itself. Our suggestion is while the oversight capacity of the IMED must be strengthened, its findings about the various ministries' handling of projects should be taken seriously by all concerned.

The IMED is credited with having unearthed the irregularities and corruption in project implementation. Now that it has done so, action should follow against those guilty of such wrongdoing.