By: Staff Writer
September 10, Colombo (LNW): Sri Lanka’s decision to spend Rs.173.86 million on a consultancy contract for an Asian Development Bank (ADB)-funded tourism programme has raised questions over whether such an expensive external consultancy is genuinely necessary
or whether the Government’s own tourism, archaeological and planning institutions could have undertaken much of the work.
The Cabinet has approved the contract for the Sustainable Tourism Sector Development Program, a US$30 million programme financed through an ADB loan. The programme is intended to improve tourism facilities in the Dambulla-Sigiriya and Trincomalee areas and upgrade infrastructure at selected tourist attractions.
The Government says the consultancy is required to prepare detailed plans and provide implementation support for the investments. The Transport, Highways and Urban Development Ministry called for expressions of interest, attracting 15 consultancy firms. Six were subsequently invited to submit full proposals, of which five responded.
Following evaluation, the Cabinet-appointed Consultancy Procurement Committee recommended awarding the contract to M/s Resources Development Consultants Ltd., in association with M/s Novel Interdisciplinary Consulting Enterprise Ltd.
But the central question remains: was hiring such a consultancy an ADB condition, or a Sri Lankan administrative decision?
The distinction matters because the programme itself is being financed by an ADB loan. Every rupee spent on consultancy therefore ultimately adds to the cost of a development programme that Sri Lanka must repay. At Rs.173.86 million, the consultancy represents a substantial expenditure relative to the US$30 million project envelope.
The Government has yet to publicly establish whether ADB financing rules specifically require an external international or private consultancy for the detailed planning and implementation-support functions described.
If the consultancy is an ADB procurement requirement, the Government should disclose the relevant loan agreement, procurement provisions and terms of reference so taxpayers can understand why the expenditure is unavoidable.
If it is not an ADB requirement, a more fundamental question arises: why could Sri Lanka’s own tourism, archaeological, engineering, urban-development and destination-management professionals not be assembled into a specialist project panel?
The Dambulla-Sigiriya region, in particular, involves highly specialised archaeological, cultural-heritage, environmental and tourism-management considerations. Sri Lanka already possesses government institutions with decades of experience in these areas.
The Department of Archaeology, Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority, Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau and relevant engineering and planning agencies collectively possess technical knowledge directly connected to the programme.
An expert panel drawn from these institutions could potentially provide institutional ownership while reducing consultancy expenditure.
The issue is not whether outside expertise should ever be used. Complex ADB projects may require specialised skills unavailable within government. The issue is whether Sri Lanka is paying a premium for expertise that already exists within its public institutions.
The Government should therefore publish the consultancy’s detailed scope, selection criteria, cost breakdown, ADB procurement requirements and expected deliverables.
Without such disclosure, the Rs.173.86 million bill risks becoming another example of development financing where substantial resources are spent before the public is shown why the expenditure is indispensable.
The post Rs.174 Million Consultancy Bill Raises Tourism Project Questions appeared first on LNW Lanka News Web.
