Loan 1467-PAK: Bahawalpur Rural Development Project
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Validation Report Reference Number: PCV: PAK 2009-46 Project Number: 26479 Loan Number: 1467-PAK December 2009 Pakistan: Bahawalpur Rural Development Project Independent Evaluation Department ABBREVIATIONS ADB – Asian Development Bank ADF – Asian Development Fund BME – benefit monitoring and evaluation BTOR – back-to-office report EA – executing agency EIRR – economic internal rate of return IED – Independent Evaluation Department IsDB – Islamic Development Bank M&E – monitoring and evaluation NGO – nongovernment organization OCR – ordinary capital resources OED – Operations Evaluation Department PCR – project completion report PMU – project management unit RRP – report and recommendation of the President NOTES (i) In this report, “$” refers to US dollars. (ii) For an explanation of rating descriptions used in ADB evaluation reports, see: ADB. 2006. Guidelines for Preparing Performance Evaluation Reports for Public Sector Operations. Manila. Key Words adb, asian development bank, rural development, rural roads, watercourse improvement, small- scale infrastructure, rural electrification, institutional strengthening, bahawalpur, pakistan, project completion report, evaluation, validation Director R. B. Adhikari, Independent Evaluation Division 1, Independent Evaluation Department (IED) Team leader G. Rauniyar, Senior Evaluation Specialist, Independent Evaluation Division 1, IED Team members A. Morales, Evaluation Officer, Independent Evaluation Division 1, IED V. Melo, Operations Evaluation Assistant, Independent Evaluation Division 1, IED In preparing any evaluation report, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Independent Evaluation Department does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT VALIDATION FORM A. Basic Project Data PCR Validation Date December 2009 Project and Loan/ 26479, 1467-PAK Approved Actual Grant Number: Project Name: Bahawalpur Rural Total Project Costs 64.8 48.2 Development Project ($M): Country: Pakistan Loan ($M): 38.0 31.8 Sector: Agriculture and Rural Total Cofinancing ($M): 26.8 16.4 Development ADB Financing ADF 38.0 Borrower ($M): 9.0 6.0 ($M): OCR 0.0 Beneficiaries ($M): 10.8 5.3 Cofinanciers: IsDB Others ($M): 7.0 5.1 Approval Date: 26 Sep 1996 Effectiveness Date: 8 Apr 1997 11 Jun 1997 Signing Date: 8 Jan 1997 Closing Date: 30 Jun 2003 12 Oct 2007 Project Officers: Location (HQ or RM): From To N. Kim Long HQ 1997 1998 R. Renfro HQ 1998 1999 T. Matsuo HQ 1999 2006 A. Cauchois HQ 2006 2007 Validator: A. Rijk Consultant Director: R. B. Adhikari, IED1 Quality Control Ganesh Rauniyar Reviewer/ Senior Evaluation Peer Reviewer: Specialist, IED1 ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, IED = Independent Evaluation Department, IED1 = Independent Evaluation Division 1, IsDB = Islamic Development Bank, M = million, OCR = ordinary capital resources, PAK = Pakistan, PCR = project completion report, RM = resident mission. B. Project Description (summarized from report recommendation of the President [RRP]) (i) Rationale. The Bahawalpur Rural Development Project was designed for the now defunct Bahawalpur Division of Punjab Province.1 The project rationale stemmed from the Government’s recognition that the division was considered one of the least developed divisions in Pakistan, with more than 50% of the population living below the poverty line. The Project intended to target poor communities in newly settled areas within the division that were least served by infrastructure services and most isolated from social services. The poverty level in the newly settled areas was much higher—about 80%—so urgent attention was required. Surveys during project preparation determined the perceived problems of the rural communities to be lack of irrigation water, followed by poor roads. Women emphasized lack of electricity as a major problem, while the need to improve or rehabilitate other infrastructure (e.g., community buildings, water supply, and road drainage) was also considered important. (ii) Expected impact. The expected impact of the Project was poverty reduction. Rural roads were expected to lower costs of transport and marketing, increase access to inputs, and encourage more shops and value-added production. Watercourse improvement was expected to increase yields, cropping intensities, and shifts to high-value crops. Small-scale infrastructure was expected to provide better access to drinking water, and improve sanitation and drainage, while electricity would increase the level of household comfort and encourage small-scale industry development. 1 The division level of administration was devolved to the district governments during the local government reforms of 2001. 2 (iii) Objectives or expected outcomes. The expected outcome was increased rural incomes, employment, and improvement in quality of life through better infrastructure services (i.e., rural roads, watercourse improvements, small-scale infrastructure, and rural electrification), increased agricultural production, and more economic activities, including marketing. The institutional strengthening and capacity building was expected to support participatory approaches to implementation. (iv) Components and/or outputs. The project scope, components, and targets were as follows: (a) Rural roads: improvement of about 100 existing roads totaling an estimated 400 kilometers (km), with emphasis on roads linking agricultural areas with markets. Targets were the widening of about 60 km of the existing road from Ahmadpur East Town to Yazman Town from a single-lane to a double-lane paved carriageway, upgrading of 10 existing farm-to-market roads, and upgrading of 90 existing link roads or tracks. (b) Watercourse improvement: organization of about 480 water users’ associations, and improvement of 1,440 km of watercourses with an irrigated area of about 52,800 hectares. (c) Small-scale infrastructure: implementation of an estimated 450 works identified by the communities, such as community buildings, simple drinking water systems, wells, tubewells, ponds, feed processing units, small flour mills, oil pressing units, saw mills, fruit and forest nurseries, road drainage structures, and social facilities. (d) Rural electrification: connection of about 150 selected villages to existing transmission lines. (e) Institutional strengthening and capacity building of government agencies and community organizations of project beneficiaries to (1) prepare an investment program based on participatory approaches, (2) implement the Project, (3) update and maintain databases relevant to the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the Project, and (4) establish an M&E system. C. Evaluation of Design and Implementation (project completion report [PCR] assessment and validation) (i) Relevance of design and formulation. The Project’s design in terms of expected impact (or goal at the time of appraisal) and outcome (or purpose) was consistent with the 1995 operational strategy for Pakistan of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) (RRP, paras. 33–34) and the Government’s objectives on rural poverty reduction contained in its Eighth Five Year Plan (1993–1998). 2 The RRP comprehensively documented lessons from similar agricultural and rural development projects and incorporated them in the design of the Project—particularly on operation and maintenance, strengthening water users’ associations, nongovernment organization (NGO) involvement, for proper targeting and organization and strengthening of community-based organizations, and community participation during construction and maintenance. The location of the Project within the division was appropriate, as the poverty incidence for the Punjab cotton/wheat zone (within which the project area falls) was 56% (the second highest in the country). The RRP made the case for targeting newly settled areas (primarily in Bahawalpur and Rahim Yar Khan districts) between more settled area, adjacent to the Sutlej River to the north and the Cholistan Desert to the south. The Independent Evaluation Department (IED) agrees with the PCR assessment that the Project was relevant in design and implementation, and it continued to be relevant at the time of completion and validation. Given the nature of the Project (a large number of small subprojects for infrastructure), the project design necessitated a process approach. The PCR rightly considers that the large amount of grant financing with no subsequent cost recovery would likely need to be reconsidered if a new project was formulated. IED also supports the PCR observation that there was only limited analysis of the proposed investment mix and the extent to which investments would contribute to the expected poverty reduction impact, and that there appears to have been little discussion of the rationale or poverty reduction effect of specific subcomponents. This was discussed during the Management Review Meeting and the RRP 2 ADB. 1995. Country Operational Strategy Study for Pakistan. Manila; and Planning Commission, Government of Pakistan. 1994. The Eighth Five Year Plan (1993–1998). Islamabad. 3 was subsequently improved. However, IED considers that lack of details on the benefit monitoring and evaluation (BME) and participatory processes in the design and/or RRP should have been identified in the PCR. (ii) Project outputs. Project outputs achievement and related indicators are described well and discussed (including deviations and failures)