Multitranche Financing Facility India: Rural Road Sector II Investment Program (Project 1)

Transcription

1 Validation Report Reference Number: PVR-326 Project Number: Loan Number: 2248 October 2014 Multitranche Financing Facility India: Rural Road Sector II Investment Program (Project 1) Independent Evaluation Department

2 ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank CPF community participation framework CSP country strategy and program EIRR economic internal rate of return km kilometer MFF multitranche financing facility MORD Ministry of Rural Development PCR project completion report PIC project implementation consultant PIU project implementation unit PMGSY Pradhan Mantri Gram Yojana (Prime Minister s Rural Roads Program) TSC technical support consultant NOTE In this report, $ refers to US dollars. Key Words adb, asian development bank, assam, independent evaluation department, india, lessons, mord, orissa, performance evaluation, pmgsy, project completion report, rural road, west bengal The guidelines formally adopted by the Independent Evaluation Department (IED) on avoiding conflict of interest in its independent evaluations were observed in the preparation of this report. To the knowledge of IED management, there were no conflicts of interest of the persons preparing, reviewing, or approving this report. In preparing any evaluation report, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, IED does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

3 PROJECT BASIC DATA Project Number: PCR Circulation Date: Mar 2012 Loan Number: 2248 PCR Validation Date: Oct 2014 Project Name: Rural Road Sector II Investment Program (Project 1) Country: India Approved ($ million) Actual ($ million) Sector: Transport and ICT Total Project Costs: ADB Financing: ($ million) ADF: 0.0 Loan: Borrower: OCR: Beneficiaries: Others: Cofinancier: Total Cofinancing: Approval Date: 31 Jul 2006 Effectiveness Date: 90 days from 18 Oct 2006 loan agreement Signing Date: 29 Aug 2006 Closing Date: 31 Dec Jun 2009 Project Officers: Location: ADB headquarters ADB headquarters Peer Reviewer: From Aug 2006 Feb 2009 To Jan 2009 Dec 2009 H. Iwasaki O. Tonkonojenkov Validators: B. Palacios, P. V. Srinivasan, Evaluation Consultant Specialist, IED2 F. D. De Guzman, Senior Evaluation Officer, IED2 Quality Reviewer: E. Gozali, Principal Director: B. Finlayson, IED2 Evaluation Specialist, IED1 ADB = Asian Development Bank; ADF = Asian Development Fund; ICT = information and communication technology; IED1 = Independent Evaluation Department, Division 1; IED2 = Independent Evaluation Department, Division 2; OCR = ordinary capital resources; PCR = project completion report. A. Rationale I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. India s road network consisted of national highways, a secondary system of state highways and major district roads, and a tertiary system consisting mainly of rural roads. In the rural areas, where 70% of India s population lived, many villages relied on earth tracks that were unsuitable for motorized traffic and unpassable in the rainy season. During project preparation, about 40% of 850,000 habitations 1 did not have all-weather roads. In areas with all-weather road connections, the road standard was low, maintenance was poor, and many roads needed rehabilitation. These conditions cut off rural communities from economic centers, thus slowing growth and development. 2. The tertiary road in India covered about 2.7 million kilometers (km), most of which were rural roads. A typical rural road network consisted of zilla parishad roads, gram panchayat roads, 1 A habitation is a distinct cluster of population with houses, occupying an area, having a local name. In the rural areas, a village may include more than one habitation.

4 2 and community roads. 2 Under India s Constitution, the panchayati raj institutions were to manage the rural roads. However, most states retained these rural roads under their respective jurisdiction and responsibility. 3. The Prime Minister s Rural Roads Program (PMGSY) was launched in 2000 to address the lack of rural road connectivity. To fund the PMGSY, an estimated Rs1,320 billion or about $30 billion was required. Fifty percent of special excise duty on high-speed diesel was identified as a source of funding. However, this was estimated to be only about Rs24 billion annually or $0.5 billion, which was not sufficient. The government sought funding assistance from external agencies such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB). In 2003, ADB approved the Rural Roads Sector 1 Project 3 to improve about 1,000 km of PMGSY roads in the states of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. 4. The government requested ADB for a multitranche financing facility (MFF) of $750 million over a 5-year period. ADB approved the MFF on 31 July to finance the first tranche of the MFF for the states of Assam, Orissa, and West Bengal. The MFF, under each subsequent tranche or subproject, was to cover about one-third of the annual financing required for the planned investment program. It was an appropriate instrument for long-term cofinancing of a government program involving multiple state agencies since it allowed for predictable financing sources and a more flexible financing arrangement. B. Expected Impact 5. The envisaged impact of the MFF and the first tranche was to help reduce poverty and deprivation, and support the economic growth of rural communities connected by the road investment program. About 3 4 years after completion of the subproject, poverty rates in the areas connected by the project roads were expected to decrease by 5%. Social indicators in rural areas served by the investment program roads, such as maternal and infant deaths, safe delivery, immunization rates, post-primary dropout, and primary school teacher attendance, were expected to improve by 10%. C. Objectives or Expected Outcome 6. The expected outcome for the MFF, including the first tranche, was improved connectivity of rural communities to markets, district headquarters, and other centers of economic activity via the road investment program. Outcome targets were all-weather roads for habitations with a population of 1,000 and more, and better access to markets and health and education facilities, to be measured by lesser disruption of access to these facilities (from 25% of the year to less than 15 days a year). Another performance indicator was diversified income opportunities in rural areas to be measured in the number of people obtaining work outside the village and changes in cropping pattern and agricultural-produce marketing. 2 A panchayat is an assembly of the village elders, directly elected by the people of the village. Gram panchayats refer to those at the village level, intermediate panchayats are those at the block level, and the zilla panchayats are at the district level. They are collectively called the panchayati raj institutions. 3 ADB Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan to India for the Rural Roads Sector I Project. Manila. 4 ADB Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility to India for the Rural Roads Sector II Investment Program. Manila.

5 3 D. Outputs 7. The MFF was designed with two major components. First, the road connectivity component focused on building and upgrading rural roads to all-weather standard. This was to be implemented in batches, generally coinciding with the PMGSY annual project approval and fund allocation cycle. The first MFF tranche or subproject (which is being validated) was to cover 3,144 km. The whole MFF was to cover about 30,000 km and connect about 19,000 habitations. The remaining subprojects or tranches were to be implemented in the subsequent three annual batches of future MFF-financed projects. 8. The second component was for capacity building to assist local agencies in implementing the subproject. Technical support in the form of consultant services in road safety and impact monitoring, among others, was to be provided. Another intended output was greater community participation, putting in place a better community consultation process, which would be evidenced by the community s higher satisfaction of the process. E. Provision of Inputs 9. ADB was to finance civil works of the planned 3,200 km of rural roads, and provide 12 person-month inputs of technical support consultants (TSC) to each participating state under the capacity-building component. At appraisal, the total project cost was estimated at $250.2 million, with a foreign currency exchange cost of $194.2 million and a local currency cost equivalent of $56.0 million. Of the $180 million ADB loan, $179.6 million was to fund the road connectivity component and $0.4 million for the capacity-building component. Civil works were expected to be completed by the end of At completion, ADB financed $173.7 million of the civil works, $0.2 million for the capacity-building component while $6.1 million was canceled. 10. The project was completed at a cost of $233.4 million, 6.7% lower than the appraisal cost of $250.2 million. The lower cost was attributed to the shorter road length completed. Some work packages were either moved to later tranches of the MFF or funded by the government later on. Despite the lower overall cost, the unit cost of road construction was actually higher because of engineering revisions and escalation of material prices. Civil works commenced one quarter late for the three states and completion took 2 years longer than scheduled. The monsoon rains and peace and order problems in a few project areas exacerbated implementation bottlenecks. The government s internal process delayed the mobilization of the TSCs by 15 months. The government was to pass on loan proceeds in local currency to the Ministry of Rural Development (MORD). MORD, in turn, was to pass on the proceeds to the governments of the participating states on a grant basis. The government was to shoulder the foreign exchange risk on the loans. 11. The TSCs were made up of environment specialists, social development experts, and road safety experts. They provided technical support to the project implementation units (PIUs) in road safety, and trained contractors on social and environment safeguard requirements. The TSCs also conducted an impact and monitoring survey and a traffic survey. At completion, the TSCs provided 92.8 person-months of services. The project completion report (PCR) 5 rated their performance highly satisfactory. 5 ADB Completion Report: Rural Roads Sector II Investment Program (Project 1) in India. Manila.

6 4 12. The project s environmental impact was assessed as category B in accordance with ADB s Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003). 6 An environment code of practice checklist and an initial environmental examination indicated that the rural roads would not generate any adverse environmental impact. Also, no affected persons were relocated because of the minor scale of land acquired for shoulder adjustment and drainage construction (PCR, Appendix 7, page 27, Status of Compliance on Loan Covenants item 12). 13. A total of 392 civil works contracts were awarded. The PCR indicated that, in general, the contractors performance with respect to deployment of personnel, supervision, checking quality of work, and field inspections, was considered satisfactory. F. Implementation Arrangements 14. As proposed at appraisal, the executing agencies responsible for supervising and executing the project were the MORD at the central level and the governments of Assam, Orissa, and West Bengal at the state level. The National Rural Roads Development Agency was to provide technical and management support. A coordination committee chaired by the MORD joint secretary was to be set up within 3 months of loan effectiveness. The committee was to monitor the use of loan funds and overall project implementation. 15. The implementing agencies were to be the state rural road development agencies in the three states. Each state was to establish a project implementation committee chaired by the executive officer of the state rural road development agency. The district PIUs of the implementing agencies were to perform the technical work. During implementation, the National Rural Roads Development Agency engaged a TSC to support PIUs. The implementation arrangements were carried out as planned. The necessary counterpart staff was made available and the coordination committees at the central and state levels were established under PMGSY guidelines. 16. Of the 44 covenants in the loan agreement, 2 covenants were not complied with because project implementation consultants (PICs) were not engaged as anticipated. Implementing agencies were to engage PICs who were experts in social development and environmental management to help implement the provisions of the community participation framework and the environmental assessment and review framework. They were to (i) prepare additional subprojects, (ii) supervise civil works, and (iii) support social and environmental safeguard and road safety. This noncompliance with the engagement of the PICs did not create any major problem. The PIUs were able to carry out the tasks using their own resources. 17. For environmental safeguards, an environmental specialist visited the project states during implementation. Likewise, the checklists for the environment code of practice were completed for all roads. Environment mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project design. The PCR indicated that an ADB mission conducting a detailed review of environmental safeguards did not find adverse environmental impact. On land acquisition, the PCR reported that communities and/or households agreed to voluntarily contribute land for the road construction; this was confirmed by verbal and written records and verified by gram panchayats (village or small town governments). Landowners and non-titled people were consulted on site 6 Projects under category B are judged to have some adverse environmental impacts, but of lesser degree and/or significance than those for category A projects. An initial environmental examination (IEE) is required to determine whether significant environmental impacts warranting an environmental impact assessment (EIA) are likely. If an EIA is not needed, the IEE is regarded as the final environmental assessment report.

7 5 selection. Grievance redress mechanisms were in place in villages, and proper attempts were made at implementing community participation frameworks. 7 The implementing agency ensured that voluntary land donations and/or transfers were transparent, properly documented, and avoided any kind of coercion. II. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AND RATINGS A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 18. The PCR rated the project highly relevant, noting that it was consistent with the government s Tenth Five-Year Plan and ADB s country strategy and program (CSP) for India. The project supported the PMGSY, the government s program to address the lack of rural road connectivity. The project was also in line with the poverty reduction programs of ADB and the government. The project was implemented in three states that had a higher poverty incidence than the national rate. Agriculture and rural development was a key sector in ADB s CSP for India. The CSP recognized that rural development was important to mainstream poverty reduction. To complement the government s Tenth Five-Year Plan, ADB assistance focused on promoting equitable growth by supporting, among others, rural infrastructure in states with high poverty incidence. 19. This validation finds the MFF modality appropriate. The government established the national rural roads program, which covered a large number of subprojects to be implemented by several state agencies with differing absorption capacity, skill levels, and financial preparedness. The MFF approach allowed for greater flexibility in financing and implementation arrangements and enabled the central and state governments to focus on rural development policies. 20. This validation, however, noted that the implementation of the MFF tranche 1 did not progress as expediently as envisaged. The PCR (paras and 42 46) enumerated various implementation challenges arising from risks, which should have been known from past ADB projects in the sector, especially under the PMGSY including design issues such as (i) the need for more time to complete each subproject on average, (ii) delays caused by the required relocation of electricity poles, (iii) the need for an allowance to cover escalation of material prices and prevent underfunding of contracts, and (iv) limited availability of good contractors. As a result, the PCR, in Appendix 1, suggested that the whole MFF covers only 13,198 km instead of about 30,000 km originally envisaged at appraisal. Given the prospect of a more conservative MFF coverage and design issues, this validation rates subproject 1 relevant instead of highly relevant. B. Effectiveness in Achieving Project Outcomes and Outputs 21. The PCR rated the project highly effective. A total of 2, km of all-weather rural roads were constructed and upgraded ( km in Assam, 1, km in Orissa, and km in West Bengal) under the project, benefiting 1,503 habitations (527 in Assam, 276 in Orissa, and 700 in West Bengal). This fell a bit short of the targeted outputs of 3,144 km envisaged for construction and 1,769 habitations connected. However, the PCR 8 indicated that the number of beneficiaries was 40% more than the original estimate because larger habitations were connected and the original estimates were inaccurate. 7 PCR, Appendix 7, page 27, Status of Compliance on Loan Covenants item PCR, para. 7.

8 6 22. The design and monitoring framework recorded an achievement of another outcome metric: improved access to markets, and no disruption (zero days per year) to health and education facilities. A higher percentage of inhabitants employed outside their households (1% higher) indicated that income opportunities were diversified. Over the 6-month period, the number of days of employment per year increased by 10 days. 23. Aside from the 7% shortfall in road length, two other output metrics pertaining to road quality were achieved. The result of the fourth output goal, which was to improve community consultation to be measured by satisfaction of affected communities was not clearly measured. The PCR reported that the community participation framework was introduced to all affected communities. On the whole, this validation rates the project effective. C. Efficiency of Resource Use in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 24. The PCR rated the project efficient. The economic internal rate of return (EIRR) was reestimated at 21.4% for the entire project. The appraisal EIRR was 18% and the higher-thanexpected traffic volume resulted in a higher EIRR at completion. However, this validation notes that 10% was added to vehicle operating costs and time cost savings to reflect other benefits such as socioeconomic development in the project area, poverty reduction, reduced accident cost, and savings in maintenance costs for the without-project case. This is arbitrary and needs careful justification. 25. Monsoon rains and peace and order problems in a few project areas delayed project implementation (para. 10). For the civil works component, the actual completion date was about 18 months later than scheduled at appraisal (PCR, para. 16). For the capacity-building component, the PCR indicated that the TSC was mobilized in April 2007 instead of January 2006 as envisaged at appraisal, and completed service on 31 March Notwithstanding these, the project s economic benefits appear to be of sufficient magnitude. Thus, this validation rates the project efficient. D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 26. The PCR rated the project likely sustainable in view of the PMGSY s continuous implementation with the assistance of development partners. Contractors were to maintain the roads built under the PMGSY for 5 years after construction and, after this 5-year liability period, state rural road development agencies were to be responsible for operation and maintenance. The PCR noted that project roads were well maintained and the funds and capacity for road maintenance were generally sufficient. The PCR highlighted certain risks of possible funding gaps in operation and maintenance between the end of the 5-year maintenance period by contractors and continued funding from routine budgets. There is also sustainability risk from road damages caused by the higher-than-expected traffic volume. Under the ongoing PMGSY program, attention needs to be paid to these risks. Overall, this validation rates the project likely sustainable. E. Impact 27. The PCR did not rate the project s impact. No adverse environmental impact was reported as mitigation measures were put in place and adequate drainage measures were incorporated in project design. The roads also improved many aspects of socioeconomic activities in the rural area.

9 7 28. The design and monitoring framework indicators for impact (para. 5) showed some improvements in school completion rates for grades 5 to 12. These were below the 10% expected improvement although a positive change in all levels ranging from 2% to 4% was noted. The PCR also reported a 2% increase in hospital visits, which it attributed to better accessibility. 29. The TSC conducted in 2009 a socioeconomic impact survey to assess between May 2008 and January 2009 the project s impact on road users and inhabitants living along the road. An ADB mission validated the results in May Socioeconomic indicators of project villages showed positive changes and while these changes could not be attributed to the project alone, the project was a major factor. The after-project conditions showed that project villages were connected by public transportation, high school enrollment was higher, there were new private schools, land value was higher, access to finance was better, agricultural output was higher, and security improved. Health services were also more accessible, contributing to improved neonatal and maternal health. Ambulatory care was also reported to be quick and dependable. This validation rates the project impact significant. III. OTHER PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS A. Performance of the Borrower and Executing Agency 30. The PCR rated the performance of the borrower highly satisfactory. Counterpart funds and support were provided in a timely manner. The executing agency complied with specific project implementation covenants especially on timely provision of sufficient support and funds from the central government. The central and the state coordinating committees were set up as agreed and the project was implemented according to PMGSY guidelines. All financial, and performance monitoring and progress reports were submitted as required. This validation rates borrower performance highly satisfactory. B. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 31. The PCR rated ADB s overall performance highly satisfactory. ADB fielded 3 specific consultation missions, 10 review missions, and 2 PCR missions. The PCR noted that ADB conducted regular procurement and disbursement audits and provided substantial advice during the different stages of project implementation. This validation rates ADB s performance highly satisfactory. IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT, LESSONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Overall Assessment and Ratings 32. Overall, this validation rates the project successful, the same rating given by the PCR. This validation gives lower ratings for relevance and effectiveness. This validation rates the project relevant. The project was consistent with the country and sector strategies, including ADB country and sector assistance strategies. However, weaknesses were noted in project design such as insufficient attention to design alternatives. This validation rates the project effective, lower than the PCR s rating of highly effective. The PCR did not discuss the effectiveness of the capacity-building component. It appears that the capacity of road agencies remain unchanged. This validation rates the project efficient and likely sustainable (see table).

10 8 Overall Ratings Criteria PCR IED Review Reason for Disagreement and/or Comments Relevance Highly relevant Relevant There is concern of a mismatch between the scale of interventions proposed at appraisal (funding, technical solution, risk mitigation) for the MFF and outputs realized (para. 20). Effectiveness in achieving project outcome and outputs Efficiency in achieving outcome and outputs Preliminary assessment of sustainability Highly effective Effective Outcomes were achieved but the scale of output (road coverage) was lesser than expected. The extent of citizen participation is not fully known (paras ). Efficient Likely sustainable Efficient Likely sustainable Overall Assessment Successful Successful Borrower and executing agency Highly satisfactory Highly satisfactory Performance of ADB Highly satisfactory Highly satisfactory Impact Not rated Significant Quality of PCR Satisfactory Refer to para. 36. ADB = Asian Development Bank, IED = Independent Evaluation Department, MFF = multitranche financing facility, PCR = project completion report. Source: ADB Independent Evaluation Department. B. Lessons 33. The PCR drew out five valuable lessons. First, a longer implementation period of months is more realistic than the stipulated 12 months. Second, the methodology for traffic forecasts should be strengthened, taking into account the previous under forecasting of traffic volume. Third, the capacity of the construction industry should be increased substantially to address constraints in construction and maintenance. Fourth, utility relocation and preparation to address these needs should be done during the early stages of the project. Fifth, there should be adequate consideration for price escalations. This validation agrees with the lessons and finds them appropriate. C. Recommendations for Follow-Up 34. This validation agrees with the following PCR recommendations: (i) baseline surveys should be carried out before or at the start of project implementation; (ii) capacity building for maintenance and state-based research and training on rural roads and road network management at the central level should be emphasized. This validation offers no additional recommendation.

11 9 V. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP A. Monitoring and Evaluation Design, Implementation, and Utilization 35. As covenanted, monitoring of the socioeconomic impact, including baseline and followup surveys, was carried out and reports were submitted to ADB. Independent consultants and auditors also conducted project performance audits annually; and audited financial reports were submitted to ADB. Implementing agencies submitted monthly progress reports regularly. There was no discussion of a project benefit monitoring system. The design and monitoring framework was generally satisfactory although some areas could have been strengthened by providing more specific and measurable impact and outcome indicators and performance targets. B. Comments on Project Completion Report Quality 36. This validation rates the PCR quality satisfactory. The PCR generally followed the PCR guidelines under Project Administration Instructions However, the discussion on the project s relevance and effectiveness is rather limited and did not give adequate evidence to support the highly relevant and highly effective ratings. The PCR offered sufficient information and a clear perspective on compliance with loan conditions. It also gave useful lessons and recommendations for future interventions. In quantifying economic benefits, the PCR added a 10% extra benefit to account for other socioeconomic benefits. While reasonable in amount, these benefits need to be better specified. Also, the PCR could have provided more information on the project s capacity-building achievement. C. Data Sources for Validation 37. Data sources for this validation included the project s report and recommendation of the President, the PCR, the report of the PCR mission, and the Country Strategy and Program for India. D. Recommendation for Independent Evaluation Department Follow-Up 38. The PCR recommended a project performance evaluation. This validation is of the view that a project performance evaluation is not necessary. Instead, a project performance evaluation report for the whole MFF would be more useful.