Strategic Plan 2020 by Transparency International Sri Lanka

2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

STRATEGIC PLAN

TISL STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 - 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 01 COUNTRY CONTEXT 03 ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT 06 IMPACT GOALS 11 PROGRAMME STRATEGIES 15 OPERATIONAL PRIORITIES 17 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 19 MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING

FINANCE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Â© Transparency Inernational Sri Lanka 2016

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

INTRODUCTION TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL SRI LANKA’s (TISL) niche as a leading organisation in the governance and social accountability space in Sri Lanka depends on our ability and agility to consistently review and realign our impact areas, programme strategies, organisational structures and institutional practices to the dynamic and shifting external environment in which we operate. Recognising that the environment for engaging in advocacy and accountability work in Sri Lanka has changed dramatically since January 2015, TISL initiated a comprehensive strategic planning process entitled STRATEGIC PLAN 2020 in November 2015. The six month reviewing and planning exercise was designed to give the Board and staff of Transparency International Sri Lanka the opportunity to explore major national trends and developments, review the current portfolio of activities, assess impacts and outcomes and develop a long-term plan to help address the critical issues facing Sri Lanka over the coming four years. For several reasons, 2015 was an opportune time to update TISL’s strategic plan. The Second Strategic Plan (2011-2015) was coming to an end and the last phase of the Plan witnessed major changes internal and external to the organisation. The rapidly shifting political ecology and context necessitated a rethink in the way in which TISL operated. In parallel, revised donor priorities globally and nationally also pointed to the need for consolidating existing partnerships and exploring new pathways. Coinciding with these developments, TISL had become more visible in the public eye following the change in government in January 2015 and expectations on TISL’s role and mandate has increased among various stakeholders. The organisation also has a young and dynamic leadership in place to rise up to the emergent opportunities. Given the antecedent internal and external changes that informed and influenced TISL’s approach and

activities in the last phase of the Second Strategic Plan, the first goal for the Third Strategic Plan was to help build consensus and shared ownership around the future directions, goals and strategies TISL will pursue over the next four years. This involved consultations with the staff and Board of TISL and constant review of emergent ideas and thoughts by a dedicated steering group that consisted of the Executive Director and staff members of TISL. A second goal was to review, interrogate and create a shared understanding of how the economic, social and political changes taking place in Sri Lanka today are likely to affect the focus and direction of TISL’s programmes and its institutional presence and profile in the country. The third goal was to use the strategic planning process to examine TISL’s organisational strengths and weaknesses, identify ways of enhancing effectiveness and improve the way TISL works. A key outcome of this exercise was gaining fresh insights into TISL’s comparative advantages and unique niche within a dynamic and constantly shifting national context. A final goal was to explore domains and sectors to stay engaged in over the next four years. A key challenge addressed through this strategic plan was finding the right mix of existing activities and potential activities to guide TISL’s mission in its next phase of development. This required balancing aspirational and pragmatic objectives, keeping in perspective Sri Lanka’s potential transition to an Upper Middle Income country1. To achieve these four goals, the TISL 2020 strategic planning process included three inter-related components: 1) an environmental scan (Country Context); 2) an internal and external organisational assessment; and 3) a review of the current activity portfolio and identifying impact goals to map potential activities. Addressing each of these

1.In July 2013, the World Bank revised the classification of the world’s economies based on estimates of gross national income (GNI) per capita for the previous year. The new classification for Upper Middle Income is between $4,126 to $12,735. Sri Lanka’s current GNI per capita is $3,440 and it is estimated that Sri Lanka will soon break into the Upper Middle Income club soon.

STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

components involved a combination of internal staff resources and external consulting expertise. As part of the environmental scan, a careful study into the existing social, political and economic ecologies was carried out to delineate defining trends. For the organisational assessment, the TISL Board and staff reviewed past activities and reassessed TISLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strengths, weaknesses, competencies and gaps. Apart from these internal deliberations, structured interviews were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders to secure an independent assessment of TISL in the governance and accountability landscape in Sri Lanka. An outside consultant, Dr. Gopa Kumar Thampi, voluntarily coordinated the external stakeholder assessments, facilitated the organisational assessment and also served as a facilitator and drafter of the overall plan. The narrative TISL 2020 Strategic Plan that follows below is intended to set out a blueprint of TISLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s positioning and engagement in the governance landscape of Sri Lanka for the next four years.

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

COUNTRY CONTEXT Since the end of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2009, the country’s political and economic development landscape was dominated until January 2015 by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s political alliance, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). In the immediate post-war period, the discourse on the nature and character of Sri Lanka’s governance paradigm was dominated by two narratives. The first was to consolidate political power by ensuring that no credible political opposition emerged. Rajapaksa successfully consolidated his power in the name of national stability by quelling all opposition and resisting full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which includes provisions for the devolution of decision-making powers to the provincial level. The second was to pursue an ambitious plan for an economic leap forward by centralising political and economic power with a corresponding retrenchment of power devolution to the subnational level. The aggressive pursuit of these agendas, backed by heavy state resources including the visible presence of the armed forces in public areas, had called to question the narrow focus of the country’s development trajectory and its impact on larger political, economic and social issues which can be potentially destabilising factors in Sri Lanka’s recently-established peace. These issues included the lack of equity in economic development progress across geographic areas and social groups; limited space for autonomous civil society action; quality of public service delivery which are limited to the national level and in economically-advantaged regions; and shrinking space for devolved units of government to strengthen democracy at subnational levels, especially in the post-conflict Northern and Eastern Provinces. The Presidential elections in January 2015 and the change of government following the surprising defeat of Rajapaksa by Maithripala Sirisena - his one-time close aide and former Cabinet minister - have completely altered the landscape of democratic governance in Sri Lanka. The high voter turnout (unprecedented in Sri Lanka’s postindependence history) and Rajapaksa’s defeat were largely seen as a mandate for good governance

STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

and accountability. Under new President Sirisena who rode to power as the ‘common candidate’ on the rhetoric of yahapaalanaya (good governance), the new government quickly demonstrated intent to fix some of the severe lapses committed by its predecessor. This included restoring faith in core institutions of governance through the revival of independent bodies to manage key institutions such as the police and the judiciary, and reiterating its commitment to uphold core tenets of democracy. The new national government which was formed in March 2015 consisting of UNP and SLFP members also dismantled most of the restrictive conditions placed on freedom of expression, autonomous civil society actions, functional autonomy of provinces (especially in the North and East through the appointment of civilian governors), and on security through withdrawal of armed forces from the public arena. These were hailed as significant steps aimed at strengthening citizens’’ confidence in the rule of law and security, especially for minority communities. However, what significantly bolstered the credibility of the new government and demonstrated its commitment to restore fundamental democratic norms and practices was the passing of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution on April 28, 2015. This has been widely seen as marking the beginning of a new chapter in Sri Lanka’s contemporary political history. The legislation envisages the dilution of many powers of the Executive Presidency in force since 1978, including restoration of a two-term presidential term limit. The other major impact of the 19th Amendment is its recognition of the Right to Information (RTI) as a constitutional right for all citizens. This has been a long-standing civil society demand and its constitutional protection has positively impacted the discourse on accountability and probity. All of the above changes were interpreted as positive steps towards fulfilling the mandate bestowed on the new government in early 2015. Despite these optimistic changes, events that followed this historic transition have undermined some of the upbeat mood. The ‘100 days programme’ which was launched as a flagship

programme by President Sirisena lost steam and fell woefully behind schedule. To add to the rising public disenchantment with the pace of reforms, cracks have begun to appear in the hastily cobbledup common front that defeated the Rajapaksa government. To counter growing criticism within the national government and to stem the tide of rising frustration among the public, Parliamentary elections were held on August 17, 2015, ten months ahead of schedule. The verdict of the Parliamentary elections was an extension of the mandate for change expressed strongly by Sri Lankans for good governance. Though the United National Party (UNP)-led United National Front For Good Governance (UNFGG) could not secure an absolute majority in Parliament, it was able to form a national government with support from UPFA members who are loyal to President Maithripala Sirisena. The overall report card on the new government is a mixed one. On one hand, the regime is credited with liberating human rights defenders and activists and unshackling media from a culture of fear and silence. There is unquestionably a more open space for civic mobilisation and engagement. However, on the other hand, less progress has been made so far to address the root causes of mal-governance, resulting in growing frustration among the public. There is also the inevitable friction between the two power centres – the President and the Prime Minister. Within this politically dynamic environment, two critical sectoral governance lenses – one economic and the other democratic – become useful to examine the wider ramifications of the dramatic January 2015 political transition and the Parliamentary elections in August 2015. Opinion is divided on the positive impact of the transition on economic governance post-Rajapaksa. While efforts to curb largesse and ceremonial spending, and committed interventions to strengthen Parliamentary oversight by setting up 16 oversight committees and a powerful Committee on Public Finance were lauded as positive and proactive steps, the decision to increase expenditure by Rs. 256 billion in the face of a revenue shortfall of Rs. 74 billion was criticised as a move to win mass support before the August elections; this move resulted in the budget deficit ballooning to 7.4% of the GDP. Further, the government’s handling of the planned Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) between Sri Lanka and India drew considerable criticism from trade unions,

professional bodies and the media. Conflicting stances between President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremasinghe, the former making a public statement that he will not approve anything that is inimical to national interests and the latter asserting that the government will proceed with the agreement come what may, have driven accentuated public perception of a growing divide between the two power centres. Under gridding these contestations are the historical antecedents of the two parties in power – SLFP and UNP; the SLFP has a history of being more statist and welfare-oriented, while the UNP has a history of opening up trade and markets. How these contrasting visions play out in the gritty political arena is still uncertain. From a macro perspective, Sri Lanka’s economic future looks bleak if recent predictions are to go by. Foreign-exchange reserves fell by a third between late 2014 and the end of March 2016 to $6.2 billion and Moody’s Investors Service, a credit rating company, in a report released in April 2016 noted that general government debt was around 76 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2015, up 71.6 per cent from five years earlier. On April 28, 2016 Sri Lanka inked an agreement with the IMF for a $1.5 billion bailout as it faced heavy fund outflows and overseas debt payments amid declining foreign-exchange reserves, which could have caused a severe balance of payments crisis. The IMF has also cut its projections for Sri Lanka’s economic growth in May 2016, forecasting 2016 and 2017 at 5.0 per cent each, down approximately 1.5 percentage points from its October 2015 World Economic Outlook forecasts. This bailout has come with many costs. The country has pledged to cut its fiscal deficit to 3.5 per cent of GDP from the 2015 figure of 7.4 per cent. This would however require many tough decisions on the part of the government. Key among them would be increasing revenue collection and reforming the debt-ridden public sector (estimated to have accumulated $15 billion in liabilities). Both of these are not going to be easy political decisions. For instance, the government’s recent decision to increase the VAT from 11.6 per cent to 15 per cent was met with severe criticism as it disproportionately burdens the middle and lower income taxpayers and also it is seen to be largely ineffective in addressing more systemic problems on the revenue collection front. The narrative on reforming the State Owned Enterprises is more or less similar given the UNP’s past track record in TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

privatising industries, which met severe political backlash. Given these pointers, it is unlikely that any far reaching structural reforms will be undertaken by the current government in light of political considerations for its own survival. The onus will be to bolster the accountability framework through better, evidence-based and participatory public finance management practices. On the democratic front, the government’s performance has been much better. A series of strategic moves that targeted agendas of openness and reconciliation has bolstered public confidence in the mandate of good governance that was the key rhetoric in the election campaigns of the UNFGG. The tabling of the RTI bill in the Parliament is largely seen as a significant move towards instilling a culture of probity and accountability in public affairs. Sri Lanka’s standing in the global and regional arena received a major fillip when the country formally joined the Open Government Partnership in 2015. Subsequent to this, an Open Data Portal was set up by the government (https://www.data. gov.lk); currently, nine government organisations (including Sri Lanka Police) have contributed 89 datasets to the portal. Similarly, the government’s decision to institute a Public Representation Committee to receive recommendations for the proposed amendments to the Constitution has been widely lauded as an initiative to bring in more inclusion and participation in the democratic and governance spheres.

A key destabilising trend that could potentially undo the work commenced by the current government are the elusive political resolutions to the continued and evolving ethnic contestations. In the political domain, a rift has formed along ethnic lines in the perception of unequal and ethnic influence over the government’s agenda. Many perceive Rajapaksa’s defeat largely as a victory of a pro-Sirisena Tamil and Muslim minority alliance (especially in the North and East) against the largely pro-Rajapaksa Sinhalese majority (particularly in Southern and Uva Provinces). Sinhalese see the post-war and post-Rajapaksa revitalisation of the North and East – through large resource flows and infrastructure projects for these provinces that suffered the most war-time damage – as Sirisena’s reward to the minorities for his victory. Simultaneously, the Tamil-Muslim political relationship is strained. Muslims feel betrayed by the government’s seeming favouring of Tamils, especially to causes of the Tamil-dominated North rather than the East where all three ethnicities are equally represented. A Tamil push for a North-East re-merger is fiercely opposed by Muslims not wanting to become a small minority in a larger Tamil-majority province. There are reasonable apprehensions that competition for benefits of ethnically oriented political patronage in accessing the state will intensify, which in turn could severely erode the delicate social fabric and undermine existing social capital in the future. Inclusive governance thus becomes key in Sri Lanka’s development trajectory.

On the reconciliation front, creating a new Ministry on National Dialogue and the setting up of the Office of National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) have sent strong signals about the government’s commitment to secure the peace dividends and work out mechanisms to ensure long term peace and stability. However, on the anti-corruption front the scorecard looks less flattering. Despite setting up the Financial Crimes Investigation Department (FCID) in February 2015 to investigate cases of serious financial fraud and misuse of state resources, no significant inroads have been made to bring key culprits to book. Of the 41 investigations completed by the FCID, only five cases have been taken up in courts (as of May 2016). High profile figures who were arrested on various counts obtained bail easily or took refuge in hospitals quoting medical reasons leading to rising public scepticism on the real intent of these moves. Further, there are also increasing apprehensions that the FCID is engaged in political vendetta by selectively targeting key opponents of the current government. STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT In an effort to understand TISL’s strategic advantage in the governance landscape in Sri Lanka, a series of internal and external consultations were carried out. Internal consultations commenced with a daylong intensive workshop to explore and map key changes and transitions that happened in the external and internal environment of TISL and discuss the impacts of the same. Open discussions and follow up meetings amongst the staff of TISL resulted in the creation of the following matrices that mapped key developments, their impacts on the working of TISL and the response of the organisation to mitigate the negative impacts and leverage the positives: External developments2 (pre 2015 January)

Impact

Response

1. Visibility of corruption increased.

Positive: Environment to discuss and engage in anti-corruption activities

Trained investigative journalists; Trained public officials; Created a Coalition Against Corruption; Held press briefings on corruption issues; Issued press releases; Decision to lay low for a period of time; Utilised own website to publish anti-corruption position papers and opinions in the absence of support from the media.

Negative: Threats to TISL; Immobility to function at full capacity; Faced ‘blackout’ of media space to voice opinions; Work overload: lacked capacity to engage, to plan and carry out effective advocacy

2. Increase in public concern on unbridled corruption.

Positive: Increased demand from CSOs for Planned awareness campaigns training Negative: Unable to meet the demand due to hostile political environment.

3. Efforts to malign TISL’s image

Negative: Impacted the function of overall activities.

Initiated several precautionary actions to mitigate the threat talking to editors, government officials etc.

4. Shrinking space at national level for CSOs engaging in governance work.

Positive: Value of the work TISL was doing at the local governance level became visible and was recognised and endorsed by local government authorities

Created a Civil Society Movement; Held protests; Maintained activity lines like Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres (ALAC)

Negative: Circulars to NGOs restricted TISL activities; Inability to work with public officers and government institutions 5. Government insecurities led to continuous election scheduling

Positive: Stage and space to conduct TISL activities, publish TISL research, policy briefs; Created a space for TISL to build its image as an election observer

Conducted election observation to a very high standard e.g. Exposures made on misuse of state property are currently being heard before various public institutions

2.External developments refer to changes in the external environment (political, economic, social etc.) that had an impact on the organisation’s functioning. In such instances, the organisation has very little influence over the events and has to adopt mitigation strategies to counter ill effects.

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

External changes (post 2015 January)

Impact

Response

6. New demand for good governance with the new regime

Positive: Space to work with the government; Opportunity to conduct awareness programs with government institutions; TISL board members and members were invited to participate in the new committees and commissions being set up; Space and opportunity to enhance TISL’s image.

Seized new opportunities like involvement in the development of the RTI bill; Direct interactions with ministries and politicians

Negative: More pressure on the organisation to show quick results on the anti-corruption front. Challenge to continuously maintain our objectivity. 7. Change in media culture

Positive: Created a space for TISL to engage with the media again; opportunity for TISL to enhance its brand image in the public eye.

TISL has the potential to utilise this space better

Internal Changes3

Impact

Response

1. Leadership (Management/Board)

Positive: During the period of having to face a hostile environment, the previous ED’s credentials as a well respected civil servant helped to build bridges with subnational level public institutions and initiate pilot programs. With the appointment of a new ED and the reconstitution of the Board, TISL has got a dynamic image makeover.

During the transition in organisational leadership, the second line leadership within the organisation ensured that project activities progressed.

Negative: Not having an ED for sometime gravely affected fund raising and resulted in low visibility of TISL in public domains. 2. Funding pipeline (Project/ Core)

Negative: The shift from core to project funding reduced opportunities to pursue emergent opportunities as existing funds were tied into committed activity streams.

TISL had to forego some opportunities.

3. Staff attrition and capacity gaps

Negative: Reduced institutional bank of experience and knowledge; critical technical gaps were hard to fill in at short notice.

Managed by outsourcing work and increasing intake of interns; however, these had major cost implications.

3.Internal changes refer to changes within the organization’s internal environment (leadership, personnel, resources etc.) that had an impact on the organisation’s functioning. In such instances, the organisation has a large influence over the events.

STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

Following up on these matrices, the team deliberated to identify key defining challenges as part of the strategic planning exercise. Four elements were identified as critical to be kept in perspective while visioning TISL’s future directions and activities: 1. Need to transit from a ‘reactionary ecology’: The period 2010-2014 was an extremely trying one for TISL. Faced with a hostile government at the centre and a shrinking base of active civil society organisations, TISL was forced to operate in a low visibility domain. This long duration of ‘lying low’ has resulted in risk aversion creeping in across the organisation. Events post January 2015 have opened up spaces for an active civil society to engage in the governance and accountability discourse. However, this sudden opening up of democratic space has also resulted in crowding in of organisations, resulting in competition for limited resources. There is a need for TISL to reiterate its position as the leading anti-corruption organisation in Sri Lanka by being ambitious and setting the agenda for change and reforms. For this to happen, there needs to be a shift in the mind-set of staff to be more innovative and imaginative in defining their fields of action. 2. Addressing the insider-outsider dilemma: Post January 2015, TISL is being sought after by the incumbent government to support the reform processes in multiple ways. Further, members of the Board of TISL have been part of high profile government established committees. While there is a lot of merit in aligning with a reformist government, there is also the need to protect the autonomy and neutrality of the institution. TISL needs to view this opportunity to partner the state with caution and ensure that clear terms of engagement are laid down to protect the non-partisan image of the organisation. 3. Avoiding mission creep: The exigency of organisational sustenance requires seeking project funds. With project funding cycles becoming shorter, there is the key challenge of staying on course on the mission and key objectives of the organisation. Blindly following funding opportunities will result in mission creep for TISL and thereby impact the organisation’s relevance and credibility. 4. Investing in capacities or outsourcing skills: Given the trend of staff attrition during the last strategic plan period, limited efforts have gone into investing in in-house capacities and competencies. There is however an opportunity cost involved in building in-house capacities when high quality skills of a similar nature are available. There is a need for a high level decision to identify skillsets that need to be embedded internally and those that could be outsourced. The question of TISL’s relevance, perceived impact and niche was explored with a diverse set of stakeholders through a semi-structured questionnaire. To place TISL in the larger context of national priorities, stakeholders were queried on the top national concerns. The four key responses in order of relative importance were: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Reconciliation Political stability Corruption Development

While the stakeholder cohort was not strictly representative in nature, the feedback gave a strong hint that post-conflict issues still loom large in the national narrative. On the question of how TISL is perceived, the consensus was that it was seen as credible with high potential but low visibility. However, the stakeholders also echoed the concern that in the new environment, TISL should remain politically neutral and committed to the cause of impartiality and non-partisanship. On being asked how best should TISL engage in anti-corruption work, the majority of respondents recommended the following:

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

• • • • •

Mobilising and engaging with citizens (directly) Working more with local organisations Working with watch-dog agencies Bringing more evidence to the table Setting the agenda for building integrity

Building on these perceptions regarding TISL’s niche, four specific roles were identified through which TISL can make a lasting impact in Sri Lanka’s governance landscape:

MOBILIZER

 

PARTNER

TISL



KNOWLEDGE

CONVENOR/ INTROLOCUTOR

 AGENDA SETTER To ensure that we remain focused on impact, TISL has adopted an integrated set of four goals that serve as the organising framework for our work in the country. Linked directly to the critical national issues that emerged in the consultative and reflective phase of the TISL 2020 process, we believe that the successful attainment of these goals would represent significant progress toward our vision of a nation that upholds integrity. The main goals of TISL are to:

ENHANCE CIVIC MOBILIZATION

SUPPORT OPEN GOVERNMENT

STRENGTHEN ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE

ENSURE INCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE

INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

Cutting across all the sectors and geographies in which we work, these areas of strategic emphasis reflect opportunities for maximising our impact and aligning with our organisational strengths. While TISL acknowledges that the achievement of these goals lies beyond the reach of any single organisation, we believe we can achieve discernable impact by pursuing these goals. These goals also closely aligned with the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), especially Goal 16, agreed upon by the 193 Member States of the United Nations in September 2015. For each of these four goals, we have identified a set of outcomes that collectively signal progress toward achieving the goals. These programmatic outcomes are intended to be relatively few in number and will help us ensure we are on the right track and to assess our impact.

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

IMPACT GOALS GOAL #1: ENHANCE CIVIC MOBILIZATION TISL will continue its role as a key catalyst in the civic arena at both national and subnational levels, forging effective collaborations to combat corruption. This outcome reflects a commitment to past engagements with peer civil society actors, as a member of the cohort and as a convener of civil society engagement forums. TISL will build on its relationships with trade unions, media collectives and partner organisations in the governance sphere, including partners engaged through our civil society focal point role in the Open Government Partnership process. We will deploy tested tools and approaches on varied thematic areas like monitoring and auditing of infrastructure and construction projects, mapping financial flows, for example in areas such as procurement and climate finance, the latter enabling environmental organisations to hold the government accountable for financial allocations and educating and empowering youth and citizen watch groups. The outcomes anticipated under Goal #1 and the respective portfolio of activities are provided below: Impact Goal #1 Outcomes

Proposed Activities

#1. Enhanced contributions of civil society actors towards accountable and inclusive governance

1.1. Convene Civil Society in government policy collaborations and facilitate regular consultations between CSO coalitions and relevant State institutions 1.2. Incorporate Civil Society feedback and engagement into the development and implementation of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) National Action Plan 1.3. Engage trade unions and other civil society actors to champion anti-corruption issues, such as infrastructure development and climate finance

#2. Space for anticorruption activism broadened

2.1. Review restrictive legislation obstructing media freedom and lobby for required changes 2.2. Expand ambit of ALAC to provide legal support for anti-corruption activists 2.3. Lobby for the adoption of a law that guarantees protection for whistle-blowers

#3. Public anti-corruption 3.1. Identify and celebrate anti-corruption activists through the National Integrity engagement solidified Awards 3.2. Existing citizen coalitions supported and strengthened to champion anticorruption work 3.3. Social media platforms and new technology activated for more effective citizen engagement in anti-corruption 3.4 Respond to emerging national level anti-corruption issues through advocacy and public engagement

STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

GOAL #2: SUPPORT OPEN GOVERNMENT This Goal exists because of TISL’s commitment to three key areas. Firstly, it marks a continuation in the long-standing commitment of TISL in advocating for a Right to Information Act. Secondly, it covers TISL’s focus on enhanced state openness through initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership (OGP). Thirdly, it signifies TISL’s continued commitment to work with journalists and the media with a clear focus on principles of open governance, an area of organisational expertise. Through the multifaceted activities under this pillar, TISL will look to mainstream principles of Open Government in Sri Lanka. Specific outcomes of Goal #2 and identified clusters of activities to support them are depicted below: Impact Goal #2 Outcomes

Proposed Activities

#1. Citizens informed and empowered by Right to Information and Access to Information

1.1. Conduct public outreach campaigns on RTI and freedom of expression, including radio, print, billboard and social media campaigns 1.2. Shelter for Integrity established as a centre to publicise and facilitate citizen engagement with RTI 1.3. Conduct widespread training programs to sensitise CBOs on accessing information through RTI provisions 1.4. Conduct programs to make citizens and officials aware of existing A2I provisions to access information at the subnational level

#2. Institutions of the 2.1. Develop and implement a strategy to engage with the State for the rollout of state adopt a culture the National Action Plan of the Open Government Partnership including tracking of Open Governance progress 2.2. Promote Sustainable Development Goals among State institutions with special focus on goal 16 2.3. Unpack restrictive regulations, such as the Establishment Code, to promote open government 2.4. Conduct a review of RTI compliance and engage with the Commission on strengthening processes related to RTI administration 3.1. Train journalists and bloggers on RTI / A2I / OGP and other relevant policies #3. Media holds the and legislation to hold the State accountable state accountable to the principles of Open 3.2. Promote public interest RTI / A2I requests and disseminate findings through Government Media

3.3. Publish press articles and create social media platforms to disseminate information about open government principles and developments

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

GOAL #3: STRENGTHEN ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE This pillar explores the different facets of citizen - state accountability in Sri Lanka which includes holding peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s representatives and policy makers accountable and open to probity, empowering citizens to demand accountability and strengthening existing accountability mechanisms. This will build on TISLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evidence based data gathering through the Shelter for Integrity, the monitoring of abuse of public resources during elections and through working closely with specialised anti-corruption agencies like the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to champion legal amendments and strengthening of corruption preventive measures. TISL will also strive to improve national integrity systems through advocating for the strengthening of parliamentary scrutiny bodies such as the Committee on Public Enterprise (COPE) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), whilst also engaging the private sector to enhance the quality of corporate governance in Sri Lanka. Specific Outcomes targeted by Goal #3 and suggested activities include: Impact Goal #3 Outcomes

Proposed Activities

#1. State held accountable on anticorruption efforts through evidencebased advocacy

1.1. Receive, process and pursue action on corruption related complaints through the Shelter for Integrity 1.2. Pursue public interest litigation on corruption issues and open government linked legislation 1.3. Initiate anti-corruption campaigns based on the Shelter for Integrity database 1.4. Support clients in their communications with independent commissions through Shelter for Integrity

#2. State anticorruption authorities strengthened and integrated to initiate inquiries, investigations, prosecutions and preventive measures

2.1. Lobby for the revision / strengthening of existing anti-corruption related legislation (e.g. Bribery Act, CIABOC Act, Amendment Bill to Asset Declaration Law etc.) 2.2. Research and publish on state anti-corruption system reforms 2.3. Conduct regular public surveys and other studies to assess the level of corruption and improvements needed to strengthen the integrity system (e.g. opinion surveys, corruption barometer etc.) 2.4. Constructive engagement with the CIABOC to support national level anticorruption initiatives

#3. Electoral integrity enhanced through stronger regulatory and enforcement mechanisms

3.1. Monitor the abuse of public resources during election period and support the Election Commission to take preventive and remedial action

#4. Accountability standards of state institutions enhanced through anticorruption initiatives

4.1. Strengthen the Parliamentary governance mechanism by engaging with the legislative oversight committees, COPE, PAC etc.

3.2. Lobby for stronger regulations to strengthen the electoral process (e.g. electoral system, campaign expenditure ceiling etc.) 3.3. Strengthen coalitions promoting clean politics and voting for candidates with demonstrated standards of integrity among citizens and political representatives

4.2. Provide anti-corruption training and capacity building to State institutions based on the Shelter for Integrity database 4.3. Advocate for stronger transparency disclosure mechanisms (e.g. - proactive disclosure regulations)

#5. Enhanced levels of 5.1. Engage the private sector in compliance with international standards and corporate governance regulations (e.g. ISO 37001, UNCAC) in the business sector 5.2. Developing TISL capacity on promoting anti-corruption within corporate governance 5.3. Strengthen private sector coalitions and forums to promote business integrity STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

GOAL #4: ENSURE INCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE The rationale of this Goal is to ensure interventions on anti-corruption and good governance are sensitive and responsive to marginalised and underrepresented groups. While the other three Goals address TISL’s core objectives, the impact of corruption and accountability deficits on women and marginalised groups such as ethnic minorities, differently abled persons and indigenous groups amongst others may not be exclusively addressed or may get pushed to the side-lines. Therefore, this Goal is a reflection of a stated commitment by TISL that gender and social inclusion are central to the organisation’s mandate and activities. Outcomes and activities proposed under Goal #4 include: Impact Goal #4 Outcomes

Proposed Activities

#1. Enhanced engagement and contribution of underrepresented sections in policy and decision-making forums and bodies.

1.1. Conduct studies on emerging issues linking good governance and social inclusion and the disproportionate impact of corruption on marginalised and underrepresented groups in Sri Lanka 1.2. Develop and implement strategies to advocate for the effective adoption of a women’s quota that solidifies women’s political representation in elected bodies. 1.3. Advocate for the concept of gender budgeting in local level budget processes 1.4. Mobilise under represented groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, indigenous groups, differently abled) to contribute and participate in policy processes 1.5. Building the capacity of public officials in identified State Institutions on inclusive governance

#2. Anti-corruption legislation strengthened to protect/safeguard rights and entitlements of marginalised groups

2.1. Lobby for stronger anti-corruption laws and governance standards to prevent and prosecute forms of corruption with a discriminatory element 2.2. Enhance knowledge of legal rights and entitlements of groups more susceptible to corruption (e.g. migrant workers, indigenous communities, female headed households) 2.3. Activate existing mechanisms of grievance redress available to marginalised groups whilst working towards further enhancement

#3. Principles and practices of inclusive governance mainstreamed within and among key stakeholders

3.1. Create a coalition of actors committed towards mainstreaming inclusive governance in all spheres in Sri Lanka 3.2. Engage with the Ministry of Education to develop and introduce curriculum for school children on inclusive governance 3.3. Introduce ICT where appropriate to promote inclusive governance

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

PROGRAMME STRATEGIES STRATEGY #1: MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY TO FLUID POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT.

Strategic Plan 2020 has been conceptualised and designed to operate in a technically rigorous and politically feasible manner. While TISL has over the years developed tools and approaches that bring in technical rigor backed by empirical evidence, TISL’s key strength lies in embedding and implementing interventions within a challenging and shifting political ecology. TISL’s core strategy, therefore, is to work closely with key stakeholders – both individuals and institutions – as a catalyst – providing increased access to information; helping to bring diverse interests together; working to create open channels of communication; fostering increased understanding and cooperation between government and civil society organisations; and devising local strategies for advancing reform. This ‘working politically’4 approach of TISL gives it a distinct advantage in the constantly shifting political sands in Sri Lanka.

STRATEGY #2: ALIGNING INTERVENTIONS WITH STATE INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES. TISL recognises that programme solutions that fall outside of government structures

and processes will not likely be institutionalised and sustained over time. TISL will consciously seek to align programme activities with existing institutional processes like planning and budgeting cycles. Aligning activities with the roll-out of plans and programmes of national ministries and departments and subnational governments will ensure better convergence of objectives, rationalised use of resources and enhanced local-level ownership. Embedding interventions into existing processes will also enhance the sustainability of programme results through the building of tools, systems and models that domestic bodies can adopt and continue to use beyond the life of the programme.

STRATEGY #3: ITERATIVE AND ADAPTIVE PROGRAMMING. TISL’s programming approach will be developed with a high degree of flexibility in order to respond to the complexity of Sri Lanka’s political environment. Traditional programming approaches often focus on linear and highly prescriptive initiatives that are ineffective and often counterproductive in complex environments. There is a need for constant reflection and analysis to inform action and highly responsive activities that complement conventional development approaches in order to support reform efforts in real time. TISL’s approach will centre on generating a robust evidence base and fostering endogenous solutions from within Sri Lanka and, where applicable, from the wider experiences of Transparency International. TISL will support and catalyse governance reforms by shaping the strategies and building the capacity of key actors and by strengthening tested reform mechanisms, processes and tools. This approach will allow TISL and funding partners to identify and leverage entry strategies, supporting a process of learning through iterative problem solving and adaptation. This flexible approach will be used to design, develop, test, implement, monitor and evaluate innovative activities and models to achieve results, generate learning and contribute to outcomes.

4.Since November 2013, a group of senior officials from major donors, along with practitioners and researchers, have been working together to promote thinking and working politically (TWP) in development. TWP approaches share some common features. First, they apply iterative problem solving, or stepwise learning. Second, they involve brokering constructive relations among key players to discover shared interests and smart ways of dealing with vested interests. Third, they involve initiatives that are locally led, at least in the sense of addressing problems that are salient for domestic actors, rather than selected by donors.

STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

STRATEGY #4: ENHANCE AND PROMOTE ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

Leveraging emergent opportunities like the Open Government Partnership5 (OGP) and the rollout of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), TISL will actively promote citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; access to public information. The much-anticipated RTI legislation will certainly be a key enabler for this. TISL will also host all primary and secondary information collected by the organisation in public domains and in easy to access formats to enable wider use of data and information.

STRATEGY #5: LEVERAGING NEW PARTNERSHIPS.

TISL is conscious of the changing aid and development paradigm in Sri Lanka, especially in the context of Sri Lankaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s potential transition to Upper Middle Income status. In this realigning landscape it is critical that TISL explores new partnership models from non-traditional sources (e.g. Corporates, Expats, Crowd funding), with the aim of merging core competencies, increasing programmatic impact and delivering greater fund efficiency for our donors and programme beneficiaries.

5. OGP was launched in 2011 to provide an international platform for domestic reformers committed to making their governments more open, accountable, and responsive to citizens. Since then, OGP has grown from 8 countries to the 69 participating countries. In all of these countries, government and civil society are mandated to work together to develop and implement ambitious open government reforms. TISL was the sole Sri Lankan civil society representative at the OGP 2015 annual summit in Mexico City, where Sri Lanka bacame an OGP signatory.

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

OPERATIONAL PRIORITIES The series of internal and external consultations that were held as part of developing this Strategic Plan have highlighted several aspects of TISL’s operations where improvements are needed in order to enhance our effectiveness. Over the next four years, TISL will concentrate managerial focus on the following operational priorities to ensure that the organisation continues to deliver high impact interventions.

OPERATIONAL PRIORITY #1: PROMOTE VALUE FOR MONEY (VfM) PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES. In designing and implementing interventions, TISL has and will continue to promote

VfM so that funds and resources are used effectively and maximise each programme’s contribution to outcomes. TISL’s VfM strategy will balance the 3E’s of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Economy – TISL’s established long-term on the ground presence in Sri Lanka, coupled with its strong relationships with partners and stakeholders facilitates efficient programme start-up through rapid resource mobilisation at minimal cost, time and effort. Further, by leveraging the successes of TISL’s long programmatic experience in Sri Lanka, it becomes easy to build on existing knowledge products, tools, approaches, political capital, networks and momentum. Efficiency - To maximise the efficiency of fund usage, TISL will develop and implement innovative mechanisms to ensure high productivity in driving inputs towards outputs. For instance, in lieu of providing traditional advance-payment sub-grants to partners without performance requirements, new programs will have target-based Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) mechanisms to ensure satisfactory performance against agreed-upon outputs. These MoUs will set mutually agreed upon deliverables for which assessment of success will be derived from empirical baseline data. Further, by strategically deploying ICTs, TISL intends to reduce transaction costs in operations (e.g. by shifting to mobile technology based surveys, the entire resource spread on data entry, data analysis and report generation can be avoided). TISL will also make sure that the benefits in investing in ICTs will accrue to its programme partners as well, thereby multiplying the savings in cost and time.

OPERATIONAL PRIORITY #2: INTEGRATING MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING (MEL) THROUGHOUT THE ORGANIZATION. TISL’s focus on innovation,

testing and learning through model building necessitates a MEL approach that allows for regular, iterative and learning-focused tracking and assessment of whether and how activity results contribute to outcomes. This allows for course correction to improve contributions throughout the life of the programme. As such, TISL’s technical approach will be grounded in utilisation-focused6 monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in which evidence is collected and applied to continuously improve programme management, ensure accountability and test underlying development hypotheses. TISL will conduct regular and rigorous monitoring of programme inputs and outputs to ensure accountability and high quality implementation. TISL will complement rigorous output and activity monitoring with innovative, process-oriented approaches to measuring outcomes in Sri Lanka’s politically complex and fluid environment.

6.Developed by Michael Quinn Patton, utilisation-focused evaluation is an approach based on the principle that an evaluation should be judged on its usefulness to its intended users. Therefore, evaluations should be planned and conducted in ways that enhance the likely utilisation of both the findings and of the process itself to inform decisions and improve performance.

STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

OPERATIONAL PRIORITY #3: MAINSTREAM GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSION (GESI)7 AS A CROSSCUTTING THEME. TISL strongly believes that effective mainstreaming of

gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) strategies is essential for maximising outcomes in sustainable development programs. Inclusion is the process of improving the terms by which individuals and groups take part in and influence society. It aims to empower poor and marginalised people to take advantage of opportunities and create new ones that are gender-responsive and flexible enough to respond to the constraints and strengths of disadvantaged men and women, including consideration of other aspects of social identity that intersect with gender to further constrain opportunities. It ensures that people have a voice in and influence over decisions affecting their lives. TISL will continue to actively pursue opportunities that increase people’s capacity to express their views and the ways in which they do so through a variety of formal and informal channels and mechanisms. While this provides a good start, this needs to be taken a step further to ensure that representation is increased not only for citizens in general, but also with particular attention to the participation and increased influence of marginalised groups (based on ethnic, religious, age, gender, disability and other parameters) through a GESIsensitive approach. TISL will formulate and integrate a GESI strategy and framework into its activities to ensure support for GESI sensitization in programme planning, implementation, and MEL. The GESI framework will ensure that all interventions provide equitable participation, representation and access to information and resources to women and socially, economically and physically marginalised groups. Particular attention will be paid to the degree to which GESI groups are able to influence outcomes. Application of the framework will be done in two ways: (i) integration of a GESI-sensitive lens across the whole programme to inculcate GESI sensitivity in programme stakeholders and actors; and (ii) integration of a GESI lens in concepts and approaches within programme activities. TISL will also create a feedback loop during implementation to allow for continual adjustment of the GESI framework based on the baseline assessment to ensure that inclusion targets are met. A GESI framework cutting across and within the programme will help to address the structural and cultural bottlenecks to equality, and eventually promote an inclusive and engendered approach to subnational governance.

OPERATIONAL PRIORITY #4: RAISE TISL’S BRAND VISIBILITY WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS. A key message that came through from the external consultations was the relatively low profile of TISL in the public eye. A large part of this perception is the result of a conscious strategy adopted by the organisation during the last few years till January 2015. However, TISL is conscious that brand visibility and strategic communications will help the organisation to succeed and achieve greater impact in fundraising, public recognition and thought leadership goals. In pursuit of this, TISL will evaluate and use the most appropriate and effective outreach platforms to achieve these goals.

OPERATIONS PRIORITY #5: PRIORITIZE STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION.

Due to operational constraints as a result of the political context during 2010-15, TISL could not devote much resource towards staff development. In the new phase of the organisation, TISL is committed to investing in the development of the staff’s professional competencies, which will be important to ensuring high-quality performance and retention. Realising the criticality of transitions in key staff positions, TISL will prepare succession plans. In line with this, TISL will also invest in strengthening its Knowledge Management functions by developing documentation protocols that would ensure retention of organisational memories and experiences in a curated and easy to reference manner.

OPERATIONS PRIORITY #6: STRENGTHENING BOARD OVERSIGHT. TISL reconstituted

its Board of Directors in 2014. Given the diversity and mix of experiences and competencies in the new Board, a sub-committee has been formed within the Board to support the organisation in guiding and advising on strategic issues. The Board is expected to play a more strategic advisory role as TISL positions itself to pursue new avenues over the next four years.

7. GESI refers to a concept that addresses unequal power relations between women and men and between different social groups. It focuses on the need for action to re-balance these power relations and ensures equal rights, opportunities and respect for all individuals regardless of their social identity.

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE To achieve the goals and priorities set forth in the TISL 2020 Strategic Plan, the existing organisational structure needs to be modified to better align with the overall vision and priorities of the organisation. For purposes of internal alignment and clarity, it is critical that a simpler organisational structure that best leverages resources and skill sets is implemented. The structure proposed under the last Strategic Plan proved to be unwieldy and presented an array of programs, themes and projects that appeared disconnected to outside audiences, involved complicated resource allocation and performance measurement, and created multiple levels of management control. In light of these observations, a simpler organisational structure is proposed:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SENIOR MANAGER PROGRAMMES

PROGRAMME MANAGERS (INCL. 1 MEL AND 1 GESI FOCAL POINTS

SENIOR MANAGER ADVOCACY & COMMUNICATIONS

SENIOR MANAGER FINANCE / HR / ADMIN

SENIOR MANAGER FUNDRAISING

MANAGER FINANCE

MANAGER HR & ADMIN

The Executive Director will continue to be the chief executive for TISL. Four senior managers will lead and coordinate key functions of the organisations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Programmes, Advocacy & Communications, Finance/Human Resources/Administration and Fundraising. These four senior managers along with the ED will form a Leadership Team over the course of Year 1 of the Strategic Plan, which will function as a collective leadership model on certain strategic and programmatic areas. The restructuring with a Senior Manager Programmes, Senior Manager Finance/Human Resources/ Administration and a Senior Manager Fundraising mark a significant step in the Institutional Development of TISL. This will best equip TISL to deliver programmatic excellence, coupled with rigorous financial management and strategy. Two programme managers under the senior manager for programmes will hold additional responsibilities as focal points for GESI and MEL. The programme manager for MEL will also have a reporting line to the senior manager for Fundraising. This core team will be supported by consultants and interns depending on the scope of activities and availability of resources.

STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING Thinking and working politically in a complex political ecology has made us increasingly aware that conventional M&E methods are inappropriate for flexible programming necessitated in dynamic environments. Conventional M&E assumes that clearly defined objectives and outcomes can be identified from the outset and that there is a linear cumulative path to achieving them. Monitoring is primarily the logging of the achievement of pre-determined benchmarks and milestones. Where the development problem is only partially understood at the outset and a non-linear â&#x20AC;&#x153;searchingâ&#x20AC;? process is needed to find a good sustainable solution, there must be a flexible approach to illustrative benchmarks, milestones or indicators against which to assess progress. TISL will complement robust input and output monitoring with complexity-sensitive MEL methods to evaluate programme outcomes, both intended and unintended. These methods are designed to, through a process of iterative reflections and analysis on a regular basis, make empirically grounded estimates about the contributions of programming towards change.

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA

FINANCE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TISL has developed a strong internal system to ensure that financial management conforms to best practices and the standards established by the national professional accounting body – The Institute of Chartered Accountants. This is ensured by the annual audit carried out by a reputed audit firm. All financial management information summaries are presented to the Board of Directors on a bimonthly basis. In addition, annual stock verifications are undertaken and reported on. These practices will continue and will be further enhanced by optimizing the use of IT. The need for a systematic fundraising approach is paramount in ensuring TISL’s sustainability. In order to ensure that the function of Resource Mobilization is given priority within the organizational structure, the new strategic plan will see the creation of a Senior Manager Fundraising, who will report directly to the Executive Director. Early in the new strategic plan TISL will create a fundraising strategy, which will be cognizant of the changes that are taking place in the funding landscape. In the current context, the scope for driving innovative anti-corruption and governance outcomes has increased, as highlighted by TISL’s pioneering strategic goal to support open government in Sri Lanka. However, the need for core support remains, as TISL looks to sustain and strengthen its responsiveness to emerging corruption and governance issues as and when they arise. Therefore TISL will incorporate within its fundraising strategy new fund raising tools, which will look to open lines of individual fundraising from citizens, in addition to using emerging crowd funding platforms. This alternative fundraising is a long-term strategy, which requires swift implementation to ensure it can provide a material contribution in the medium term. In the meantime, TISL will look to continuously strengthen and increase donor partnerships, with a focus on delivering transformative outcomes through efficient and well-rationalized programming.

STRATEGIC PLAN 2020

2020 STRATEGIC PLAN

5/1, Elibank Road, Colombo 05, Sri Lanka www.tisrilanka.org

TRANSPARENCY INERNATIONAL SRI LANKA