When advising governments on PIM I often try to make the case for a preliminary screening of project concepts (even before prefeasibility and feasibility studies). Linked to a formal approval to proceed, such a process has the potential to raise the overall quality of the investment programme because:
• It forces project promoters to clarify the project logic (the problem being addressed, the purpose of the project and the target beneficiaries), and to consider alternative solutions before dedicating resources to project preparation.
• Project objectives can be verified at an early stage for compliance with government policy and expenditure priorities, and the project can be rejected where this consistency cannot be demonstrated.
• The scope of the project can be verified to ensure that it represents a complete solution to the problem being addressed and not just a component of a larger project.
• Where project preparation is unlikely to inform the investment decision further, screening at identification stage forces an early decision on priorities and helps to prevent resources being used up preparing unaffordable or irrelevant projects. An example would be the case of social projects where cost-benefit analysis is difficult to perform and the investment decision is more policy-based.
• By requiring rough cost estimates at identification stage, it is possible to determine whether and when the project can be fitted into the 'fiscal space'available over the medium term.
• Early recognition of any significant recurrent financing needs allows more time to develop the necessary coherence between the capital and current parts of a spending agency’s budget.
• Any important design issues, including possible project alternatives, can be identified early and built into the terms of reference for studies.
• The preliminary screening process disciplines spending agencies, by guiding them towards priority areas for investment and causing them to think in terms of developing a ‘pipeline’ of projects for implementation within MTEF limits.
• Monitoring and evaluation results from ongoing and completed projects can be fed more easily into the later project preparation stage.
One of the more important advantages might be to identify and kill off 'white elephant' projects early on before they gain political and planning momentum.
Some governments are interested, but others seem to think this kind of process rather trivial compared to the important business of getting on and doing feasibility studies and cost-benefit analyses. Officials in some countries cannot conceive of how it might work in an environment where project ideas are dictated from the political level, rather than being generated out of a systematic process of problem identification and demand analysis. Certainly the political and institutional environment is important: just like any other tool, preliminary screening can become an empty bureaucratic exercise in an environment where the incentives for better performance are weak.
