Completion Report

Project Number: 40046-013 Loan Number: 2356 April 2015

Tajikistan: Khatlon Province Flood Risk Management Project

This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB’s Public Communications Policy 2011.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit – somoni (TJS)

At Project Design At Project Completion (31 August 2007) (6 April 2015) TJS1.00 = $0.29 $0.17 $1.00 = TJS3.44 TJS5.80

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank CES – Committee for Emergency Situations CIS – Chubek irrigation system CPS – country partnership strategy DMF – design and monitoring framework EIRR – economic internal rate of return ha – hectare Hydromet – Agency for Hydrometeorology ICB – international competitive bidding JFPR – Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction km – kilometer MLRWR – Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources NCB – national competitive bidding NGO – nongovernment organization O&M – operation and maintenance PCR – project completion report PIO – project implementation office PMO – project management office PPTA – project preparatory technical assistance SDR – special drawing rights WRM – water resources management

GLOSSARY

jamoat – administrative unit below the district, comprising a group of villages; also the lowest level of local government administration

NOTES

(i) The fiscal year (FY) of the government and its agencies ends on 31 December. FY before a calendar year denotes the year in which the fiscal year ends, e.g., FY2009 ends on 31 December 2009.

(ii) In this report, "$" refers to US dollars.

Vice-President W. Zhang, Operations Group 1 Director General K. Gerhaeusser, Central and West Asia Department (CWRD) Director A. Siddiq, Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Division, CWRD

Team leader R. Takaku, Senior Water Resources Specialist, CWRD Team members G. Farosatshoeva, Senior Project Assistant, CWRD P. Barrameda, Associate Project Analyst, CWRD

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

CONTENTS

Page

BASIC DATA i

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 2 A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 2 B. Project Outputs 3 C. Project Costs 6 D. Disbursements 7 E. Project Schedule 7 F. Implementation Arrangements 7 G. Conditions and Covenants 8 H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 8 I. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 9 J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 9 K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 10 III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 10 A. Relevance 10 B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 10 C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 11 D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 12 E. Impact 12 IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 A. Overall Assessment 13 B. Lessons 13 C. Recommendations 14 APPENDIXES 1. Design and Monitoring Framework 16 2. Project Costs and Disbursements 18 3. Project Implementation Schedule 19 4. Status of Compliance to Loan Covenants 20 5. Consultant Inputs 27 6. Economic Reevaluation 29 7. Contribution to the ADB Results Framework 40

BASIC DATA

A. Loan Identification

1. Country Tajikistan 2. Loan Number 2356 3. Project Title Khatlon Province Flood Risk Management Project 4. Borrower Republic of Tajikistan 5. Executing Agency Ministry of Water Resources and Land Reclamation (replaced by Agency of Land Reclamation and Irrigation in November 2013) 6. Amount of Loan SDR14,403,000 7. Project Completion Report Number PCR: TAJ-1498

B. Loan Data

1. Project Design – Date Started Waived – Date Completed Waived

2. Loan Negotiations – Date Started 28 August 2007 – Date Completed 29 August 2007

3. Date of Board Approval 5 October 2007

4. Date of Loan Agreement 2 November 2007

5. Date of Loan Effectiveness – In Loan Agreement 2 December 2007 – Actual 4 December 2007 – Number of Extensions 1

6. Closing Date – In Loan Agreement 30 June 2014 – Actual 15 August 2014 – Number of Extensions 0

7. Terms of Loan – Interest Rate 1% per annum during the grace period and 1.5% per annum thereafter – Maturity (number of years) 32 – Grace Period (number of years) 8

8. Disbursements

a. Dates Initial Disbursement Final Disbursement Time Interval 27 February 2008 23 June 2014 77.9 months

Effective Date Original Closing Date Time Interval 4 December 2007 30 June 2014 78.9 months

ii

b. Amount (SDR ‘000) Last Original Revised Amount Amount Category or Subloan Revised Allocation Allocation Canceled Disbursed Allocation 01 Civil Works 7,247 8,906 8,914 (1) 8,915 02 Vehicles 85 84 84 0 84 03 Equipment 1,862 2,641 2,573 0 2,573 04 Surveys and Designs 246 0 0 0 0 05 Training and Workshops 77 55 50 0 50 06 Consulting Services 1,506 1,832 1,864 (3) 1,867 07 Project Management and O&M 530 352 330 (19) 349 08 Interest Charge 579 533 533 0 533 09 Unallocated 2,271 0 55 55 0 Total SDR 14,403 14,403 14,403 32 14,371 Total $ (‘000) 22,000 22,333 22,330 47 22,283 ( ) = negative, O&M = operation and maintenance, SDR = special drawing rights.

10. Local Costs (Financed) - Amount ($ million) 9.24 - Percent of Local Costs 64.50 - Percent of Total Cost 33.76

C. Project Data

1. Project Cost ($ million)

Costa Estimated Actual Foreign Exchange Cost 10.08 13.04 Local Currency Cost 18.42 14.33 Total 28.50 27.37 a includes government financing.

2. Financing Plan ($ million) Cost Estimated Actual Implementation Costs Borrower Financed 6.50 5.09 ADB Financed 21.11 21.46 Total 27.61 26.55 IDC Costs Borrower Financed 0.00 0.00 ADB Financed 0.89 0.82 Total 0.89 0.82 Total Project Costs 28.50 27.37 ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDC = interest during construction.

iii

3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ million) Component Estimated Actual A. Base Cost 1. Policy Reforms 0.30 0.27 2. Improved Physical Measures 18.21 23.02 3. Improved Non-physical Measures 1.54 1.12 4. Capacity Building for Efficient Project Management 2.65 2.13 Subtotal 22.70 26.55 B. Contingencies 1. Physical Contingencies 4.40 0.00 2. Price Contingencies 0.51 0.00 Subtotal 4.91 0.00 C. Interest Charges 0.89 0.82 Total 28.50 27.37

4. Project Schedule Item Estimated Actual Date of Contract with Consultants February 2008 July 2008 Completion of Engineering Designs October 2008 December 2009 Civil Works Contract Packages 1-5 Date of Award October 2008 April 2008 Completion of Work March 2009 July 2010 Package A Date of Award October 2009 January 2009 Completion of Work March 2010 July 2010 Package B Date of Award October 2009 September 2009 Completion of Work March 2010 September 2011 Additional Scopes Date of Award May 2008 Completion of Work December 2012 Equipment and Supplies Dates First Procurement April 2008 November 2008 Last Procurement August 2012 November 2012 Completion of Equipment Installation January 2009 December 2013 Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning December 2012 December 2013 Beginning of Start-Up January 2013 January 2014 Other Milestones Policy Reforms First Activity May 2008 August 2008 Last Activity June 2011 December 2012 Flood Risk Maps First Activity January 2009 January 2009 Last Activity December 2010 December 2010 Flood Preparedness First Activity January 2009 January 2009 Last Activity December 2010 December 2010 Flood Forecasting First Activity November 2008 November 2008 Last Activity January 2012 December 2013 Flood Warning First Activity December 2008 December 2008 Last Activity April 2013 April 2013

iv

5. Project Performance Report Ratings Ratings

Development Objectives Implementation Progress Implementation Period From November 2007 to December 2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory From January 2011 to June 2014a On Track a e-Ops became operational in 2011 and replaced the project performance rating. The indicators used in rating project performance are: (i) Technical; (ii) Contract Award; (iii) Disbursement; (iii) Financial Management; and (v) Safeguards.

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions No. of No. of Specialization of Name of Mission Date Persons Person-Days Membersa Loan Fact-Finding Mission 21 May–6 June 2007 5 51 b, i, j, k, f Appraisal Mission Waived Inception Mission 10–20 February 2008 2 22 a, b Review Mission 1 9–15 October 2008 1 7 b Midterm Review Mission 3–13 November 2009 2 22 b, c Review Mission 2 29 July–9 August 2010 2 24 b, d Review Mission 3 17–23 November 2011 2 14 b, e Review Mission 4 24 October 2012 1 1 b Review Mission 5 3–6 December 2013 2 5 b, f Project completion review 26 May–5 June 2014 4 44 b, f, g, h a a = project administration unit head; b = senior water resources specialist, c = project implementation officer, d = integrated water resources management specialist; e = associate project officer; f = associate project analyst; g = project economist (consultant); h = national monitoring and evaluation specialist (consultant); i = counsel; j = economist; k = rural development specialist.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Tajikistan is a mountainous and landlocked country with significant river systems. In 2010, only 3.8 million hectares (ha) of the county’s total area of 14.3 million ha was agricultural land.1 Agriculture is the major source of livelihood for the population, accounting for 45% of the country’s employment, and 57% of all rural employment; output from agriculture generates 24% of the gross domestic product. Tajikistan remains the poorest country in Central Asia.2

2. Khatlon Province occupies the southwest corner of Tajikistan, adjacent to the border with Uzbekistan to the west and Afghanistan to the south. It has the largest population (2.7 million), agriculture production (e.g., 774,000 tons of cereal production), and arable land (410,000 ha) in the country, and is Tajikistan’s poorest province (in 2009 the poverty rate was 54%, compared to a national average of 47%).3 The province’s share of agriculture sector employment (57.4%) is the highest among the regions. The population of the project area (Farkhor, Hamadoni, Kulyab, and Vose districts) was 653,000 in 2012 (compared to 583,700 in 2007, with growth averaging 2.2% per annum), and accounts for 24% of the provincial population.

3. Tajikistan’s terrain and climate result in frequent flood disasters. The combination of low gross domestic product and the risk of floods is a serious constraint on social development and economic growth. For poverty reduction to be effective, rural households must be able to protect their access to and the productivity of their land, and be able to mitigate the risk of the loss of livelihoods and assets.

4. The Pyanj River forms the international border with Afghanistan and is the main water resource for Khatlon Province. The volume of annual runoff depends chiefly on the quantity of snow accumulation in winter and air temperatures during the following summer. Since independence in 1991, the fertile plains adjacent to the Pyanj River and its tributaries (i.e., the Kizilsu and Yakhsu rivers) in Khatlon Province have become increasingly vulnerable to floods. A major flood in 2005 in Hamadoni district was caused by embankment failure along the Pyanj River, with damage estimated at over $18 million. In 2010, in the Vose and Kulyab districts, embankment failure along the Yakhsu and Surkhob rivers following heavy rains and mudflows resulted in damage estimated at over $250 million.4

5. A recent study on climate change trends in the Pyanj River basin found that: (i) in glacial sub-basins, mean annual river flows are likely to increase for the next 50–60 years because of increased melting of glaciers and snow; and (ii) non-glacial sub-basins will likely experience changes in the monthly flow rate profile as a result of increased rainfall and decreased snowfall, and an increase in the magnitude and frequency of extreme flood events.5

1 2010 data from the National Statistics Committee as time series of annual values from 1991; data verified through the Statistical Agency under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, and Statistical Agency under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2012. Tajikistan in Figures. Dushanbe. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates the “cultivated area” at 840,000 ha. (www.fao.org/nr/aquastat/). The land under perennial crops (115,700 ha in 2010) and fallow land was included by FAO. 2 World Bank. 2015. Poverty & Equity Data|Europe & Central Asia. Washington, DC. (http://povertydata.worldbank. org/poverty/region/ECA). 3 World Bank. 2013. Tajikistan–Reinvigorating Growth in the Khatlon Oblast. Washington, DC. 4 The Note Verbal to the United Nations Development Programme on 13 April 2010 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified that 600 ha of agricultural land had been flooded; 506 houses, 5 social infrastructure assets, 23 bridges, 11 kilometers (km) of roads, 6.7 km of river banks, and 3 km of electricity supply lines were destroyed. 5 ADB. 2010. Technical Assistance to Tajikistan for Climate Resiliency for Natural Resources Investments (Consultant Final Report). Manila. The main findings in were incorporated in the ADB Grant to Tajikistan for Building Climate Resilience in the Pyanj River Basin that included a flood risk management component.

2

6. The project impact was to reduce socioeconomic damage caused by floods in the project area covering Farkhor, Hamadoni, Kulyab, and Vose districts and the outcome was effective and sustainable flood management structural facilities, such as flood embankments; non-physical flood risk mitigation systems; and a strengthened institutional and legal framework concerning flood risk management.

7. There were four project outputs: (i) institutional and legal reforms to help the government improve laws and regulations to identify the appropriate authority responsible for flood management activities, and implement an integrated flood management system; (ii) physical measures, comprising (a) rehabilitation of damaged embankments to achieve protection in Hamadoni district against floods with a probability of occurrence of once in 100 years, and (b) the provision of heavy equipment for operation and maintenance (O&M) to reduce the initial burden of government expenditure for O&M; and (iii) non-physical measures, comprising: (a) preparation of flood-risk maps for community development, (b) design of flood preparedness programs and the provision of equipment for rapid response teams, (c) enhancement of flood forecasting capacity by rehabilitating and modernizing the network of climate stations and river gauges, and (d) improvement of flood warning systems to ensure accurate and timely flood warning triggers; and (iv) capacity building for efficient project management to support the project management office (PMO) and project implementation offices (PIOs).

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation

8. The project design was relevant to the government’s strategy—at the time of both project processing and completion6—of aiming to provide for an orderly long-term development process in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals. Inadequate flood management measures, in terms of both physical and non-physical facilities or aspects, must be addressed, as highlighted in one of the strategy’s three pillars. The project was designed in a holistic way to include complementary physical and non-physical improvements.

9. The project was consistent with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) country partnership strategy (CPS) at the time of project formulation. The CPS stated that agricultural productivity was low and could be raised by investment in rural infrastructure.7 Improved flood protection and management in Khatlon Province, that agriculture is highly dependent on, provides a more certain environment for investment in improved farming practices, thereby helping to raise agricultural productivity.

10. ADB’s CPS 2010–2014 sought to withdraw support from agriculture in favor of a more selective focus on a few areas.8 However, flood protection and management provides a positive environment for two of three priority sectors: (i) private sector development and public services, and (ii) transport. Protecting property and rural connectivity from flood disasters is integral to providing an environment in which private sector businesses can expand production and improve resource use efficiency.

11. The project was formulated based on project preparatory technical assistance (TA),9 which provided guidance regarding which components to include in the project. The TA was

6 Republic of Tajikistan. 2007. National Development Strategy of the Republic of Tajikistan (2007–2015). Dushanbe. 7 ADB. 2003. Country Strategy and Program (2004–2008): Tajikistan. Manila. 8 ADB. 2010. Country Partnership Strategy (2010–2014): Tajikistan. Manila. 9 ADB. 2006. Technical Assistance to Tajikistan for Khatlon Province Flood Risk Management Project. Manila.

3 appropriate in that it included a balance of physical and non-physical measures within the project to ensure a holistic approach to flood risk management.

B. Project Outputs

12. Project output achievements and indicators in relation to the original design and monitoring framework (DMF) are presented in Appendix 1.

1. Output 1: Institutional and Legal Reforms

13. Target 1: Amended Water Code by 2008. This target was achieved with a 1-year delay. The previous Water Code covered the legal and institutional arrangements for flood management, but was unclear regarding the roles and responsibility of the different government agencies. Greater clarity was needed, especially with regards to defining the roles of different agencies to enable an integrated approach to flood management. Amendments to the Water Code were drafted in November 2009 and Parliament approved the Law “On Changes and Additions to the Water Code of Republic of Tajikistan”. The law came into effect after being signed by the President in December 2009. In addition, the Commission for Flood Risk Management and Prevention was formed in April 2010, based on the amended Water Code.

14. Target 2: Capacity developed for flood embankment on Pyanj River, at required standards and within budget, by March 2008. This target was achieved with some delay. The state-owned enterprise Canal Chubek was established in May 2010 and was assigned the responsibility for O&M of embankments along the Pyanj River in the Hamadoni district, within the budget allocated by the Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources (MLRWR). Staff in the Canal Chubek entity were trained to conduct the required tasks. At the national level, staff capacity in relevant government agencies for integrated flood risk management was increased through six training programs (e.g., study tours and on the job training). The capacity of MLRWR was particularly increased through amendments to the water code.

2. Output 2: Improved Physical Infrastructure for Flood Management

15. Target 1: 8.3 kilometers of embankment rehabilitation on the Pyanj River, Hamadoni segment completed by March 2009. This target was achieved with an additional 1.7 kilometers (km) of embankment rehabilitation requested by the government. The total cost of meeting the target was $20.04 million, compared with $17.56 million initially estimated (including contingencies).

16. This output involved the rehabilitation of 10 km of flood embankment and 19 spurs out of a total embankment length of 25 km along the right bank of the Pyanj River. 10 The embankments protect residents, their properties and personal possessions, agricultural land, irrigation infrastructure, and other public infrastructure in the Hamadoni district. This output also benefitted residents in the Farkhor district by protecting irrigation water supplies from the Pyanj River. The rehabilitation works were completed by February 2012, in time to provide protection against potential flooding in July 2012 (the river flow is highest in July). The works were

10 The remaining 15 km of embankments were rehabilitated using different resources, including two following ADB loans and government funds: (i) ADB. 2004. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to Tajikistan for Irrigation Rehabilitation Project. Manila; and (ii) ADB. 2002. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to Tajikistan for Agriculture Rehabilitation Project. Manila.

4 designed to withstand floods with a 100-year return period. The target length of the embankments was extended to ensure complete flood protection is provided.

17. The construction of spurs at an angle to the embankments was proposed by the project preparatory TA consultant and proved quite effective in accumulating sediment and supporting natural vegetation behind the spurs inside the river channel. The areas with sedimentation and natural vegetation were extended to reach the next downstream spur, which will augment flood protection, decrease water velocity near the embankments, reduce embankment wear, and reduce required O&M over the long term.

18. Five changes in the project scope were requested by the government, resulting in additional civil works, including an access road and bridge, improvements to the Chubek irrigation system (CIS), and embankment rehabilitation in Kulyab and Vose districts. The changes in project scope involved: (i) in March 2008, inclusion of (a) rehabilitation of the CIS intake; (b) CIS intake and escape channel lining; and (c) rehabilitation and strengthening of existing Pyanj River embankments near the CIS intake channel (costing around $0.9 million); (ii) in September 2009, inclusion of emergency rehabilitation works for around 520 meters (m) and four embankment spurs on the Yakhsu and Kizilsu Rivers in Vose and Kulyab districts (costing around $0.4 million), in response to the flood damage to these embankments earlier in 2009; (iii) in December 2009, inclusion of (a) rehabilitation of 680 m of the existing CIS channel embankments and three spurs damaged as a result of July 2009 floods; and (b) extension of the CIS intake and escape channel lining by about 350 m (costing around $1.9 million); (iv) in May 2012, to include the construction of a 1.5 km road and a bridge providing improved O&M access to the Pyanj River embankments (costing around $0.8 million); and (v) the purchase of replacement piping for the Shurchasoy irrigation scheme in the Khuroson district in Khatlon Province, in response to the government’s request for assistance for emergency rehabilitation of the damaged pipeline. These changes were financed from unused budget allocations for project management, training and workshops, and surveys and designs. These additional works were completed in December 2012.

19. Target 2: Proper operation of maintenance equipment for embankments. This target was achieved to a greater extent than initially envisaged. Heavy equipment was purchased to assist with the effective O&M of flood protection works in all four districts, and all equipment was fielded by the end of April 2010. As intended, the equipment was also used for other activities such as O&M associated with irrigation and drainage channels, as well as the rehabilitation of existing and installation of new flood protection embankments. The equipment was generally appropriate for the required tasks, although a number of the excavators purchased are too small for flood protection O&M works and more suited to lesser tasks—e.g., irrigation and drainage canal clearance.

20. All rehabilitated and existing bank protection embankments and hydraulic structures on the Pyanj River in the Hamadoni district were transferred to the Canal Chubek entity, including responsibility for O&M of the seven heavy equipment purchased under the loan. The entity has performed its functions satisfactorily.

3. Output 3: Improved Non-physical Measures

21. Target 1: Flood-risk maps for Farkhor, Hamadoni, Kulyab, and Vose completed by December 2010. This target was achieved as scheduled. By the end of 2010, flood risk maps for two different flood return periods (i.e., 25 years and 5 years) covering the intended areas were developed using “MIKE-11 GIS” software, which combines river and floodplain modeling

5 technology with geographic information system spatial analysis to identify water depths and therefore vulnerable areas for different flood levels. To identify areas which may be susceptible to flooding, modeling was also undertaken for 10-, 20-, 50-, and 100-year return period floods. A total of 128 villages within the project area were identified as vulnerable villages. These maps formed the basis of flood preparedness and evacuation training and procedures.

22. Target 2: Flood preparedness plans based on risk maps and other information approved by December 2010. This target was achieved as scheduled. By the end of 2010, the program on flood preparedness was prepared, which included: (i) training courses on improving awareness about the floods, and (ii) conducting comprehensive studies on evacuation of the population in the event of flooding in priority jamoats of the pilot districts. The program was carried out based on the flood risk maps. The rapid response team equipment was also procured and handed over to the offices of the Committee for Emergency Situations (CES) in the targeted districts by December 2010.

23. Target 3: Functional hydrometeorology network of 10 climate stations and 10 river gauges by December 2012. This target was achieved, with the scope reduced to three climate stations and seven river gauges, and with some delay. In May 2012, ADB approved inclusion of rehabilitation of an interstate river gauge “Aivaj”, at the border of Tajikistan and Afghanistan, and at the confluence of Pyanj, Vakhsh, and Kafirnigan Rivers for accurate measurement of Pyanj river flows in exchange for dropping the planned rehabilitation of seven climate stations and four river gauges along tributaries of Pyanj River.11 Three climate stations (one each in Hamadoni, Khovaling, and Muminabad districts) and six river gauges (two along the Kizilsu River, three along the Yakhsu River, one along the Toirsu River) were rehabilitated or constructed by March 2012 as scheduled. However, the rehabilitation work of the Aivaj gauge was not completed until 2014, as it was physically extremely difficult compared to the other river gauges.

24. These stations provide data on: (i) temperature, rainfall, snowfall, wind speed, humidity, and sunshine exposure at each climate station 8 times per day; and (ii) the water level in each river gauge twice per day. Using this data, the Agency for Hydrometeorology (Hydromet) is able to more accurately calculate water discharge volumes at the cross section of the river near each river gauge. The river flow monitoring at Aivaj station will enable both the Tajikistan and Afghanistan governments to provide estimated water intake volumes upstream of the station, to compare with water withdrawal volumes agreed with downstream countries (footnote 13).

25. Target 4: Real-time flood forecasting models for Pyanj, Yakhsu, and Kizilsu rivers in operation by 2012. This target was achieved as scheduled. Together with new computer hardware and software (para. 21) procured under the project, the flood forecasting capability of Hydromet was enhanced and the flood forecasting models for the Kizilsu, Pyanj, Torsu, and Yakshu rivers developed. Training helped four Hydromet specialists obtain the skills needed to use MIKE 11 and update the flood forecasting model, while other training helped Hydromet staff use the new measuring equipment at each climate station and river gauge.

26. Target 5: Flood warning triggers with a lead time of at least 3 hours based on river levels for each flood risk zone introduced by the end of 2012. This target was achieved with a slight change. The flood warning system was developed with a lead time of 6 hours rather than 3 hours as envisaged. To implement the system, fixed communication stations at CES district offices and mobile stations were purchased and installed in 2010 under the project, in

11 The Tajikistan and Afghanistan governments reached agreement regarding the location and the construction of the Aivaj river gauge under a bilateral Minutes Agreement signed in October 2010.

6 order to warn people in jamoats.12 While flood warning capabilities of CES were improved, the CES district staff did not use the fixed communication stations, but used their own mobile phones instead for warning jamoat residents (mobile phones are commonly used in the project area at very little cost).

27. Target 6: Awareness of flood risk and basic response requirements with CES understood by 90% of village leaders from 2008. This target was achieved together with a project financed by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction (JFPR),13 albeit with some delay.14 During 2009–March 2010, 20 workshops on flood awareness were conducted in 20 jamoats of the four targeted districts with more than 1,200 people participating, including 483 women. Village-level flood evacuation drills were conducted in November 2010 and in September– October 2011, as a joint effort of the project and the JFPR project.

28. Target 7: Prioritized methods for cost-effective tributary flood prevention infrastructure repair in the project area of Vose and Kulyab provided by December 2008. This target was achieved with some delay. The implementation consultants undertook feasibility studies for the rehabilitation of embankments along the Kizilsu and Yakhsu Rivers to prevent flooding of target vulnerable areas. The initial study completed by March 2009 identified three stages for construction works, and although each had an estimated economic internal rate of return (EIRR) in excess of 13%, the total costs were estimated to be $310 million. A subsequent revised study completed in late 2009 prioritized the project scope, and resulted in a reduced estimated cost of $35 million, and a better estimate of the EIRR of 16.5%.

C. Project Costs

29. The project was implemented within the allocated budget. The actual project cost was $27.4 million compared with the $28.5 million initially estimated. Total ADB financing amounted to $22.3 million, which includes interest during construction of $0.8 million. Overall, ADB financed 81.4% of project costs, which is higher than the initial estimate of 77.2% because of changes in the dollar–special drawing rights (SDR) exchange rate.15

30. Five changes in scope resulted in the reallocation of unused budget allocations for project management expenses, training and workshops, and surveys and designs to civil works, equipment, and consulting services costs. Total project costs for civil works increased by 5%, for equipment by 13%, and for consulting services by 5%.

31. The project cost by category and output is in Appendix 2. The government contribution decreased from $5.4 million (excluding taxes and duties) at project design to $5.1 million (excluding taxes and duties) at completion as a result of lower actual expenses for project management.

12 Mobile stations for warning of people at village level were procured under the JFPR project. 13 ADB. 2008. Grant Assistance Report for Community Participatory Flood Management. Manila. 14 ADB. 2014. Implementation Completion Memorandum: Community Participatory Flood Management in Tajikistan. Manila indicated that 95% of villages were able to successfully describe their roles in flood disaster mitigation, risk monitoring, and actions in case of the flood or other disaster. 15 Although the SDR equivalent of SDR14.4 million has not changed, there was an increase in the dollar value of the ADB-financed portion.

7

D. Disbursements

32. Total loan disbursements were $22.28 million (including interest during construction of $0.8 million). This was 1.3% higher than the approved loan amount ($22.0 million). The foreign currency amount disbursed was $13.04 million, and the local currency amount disbursed was $9.24 million (Appendix 2). Initial disbursement took place in February 2008.

33. An imprest account was established at the Tajiksodirot Bank with an initial advance of $1.5 million. The imprest account ceiling was increased in December 2008 from $1.5 million to $2.15 million, mainly to pay for advances for the civil works contracts, which were signed in 2008. As the main civil works activities were winding down, the ceiling was reduced to $1.38 million in April 2011, and further reduced to around $175,000 in August 2013. The imprest account procedures were useful, especially at the beginning and middle stages of project implementation, when small expenditures were incurred.

34. There were four reallocations of the loan proceeds. The first was in April 2011 to increase the civil works, vehicles and equipment cost categories to cover the deficit from additional civil works for embankment rehabilitation after flood damage, as approved in March 2008 through a minor change in scope. The second was in May 2012 to increase the budget for civil works for construction of the road together with the bridge and the interstate hydrological monitoring station (item [iv] of para. 18 and para. 24). The third reallocation was in November 2013 to increase the budget provision for equipment. The fourth reallocation was in May 2014 to reflect final actual project cots and facilitate loan closing.

E. Project Schedule

35. The loan was approved on 5 October 2007. The loan agreement was signed on 2 November 2007 and became effective on 4 December 2007. The project was completed on 31 December 2013 and the loan was closed on 15 August 2014. The amendment of the Water Code, which was initially scheduled to be completed by 2008, was signed by the President of Tajikistan in December 2009, with authorities designated in May 2010. The civil works took longer to start and complete than envisaged at project design but this was partly due to overly optimistic planning targets, especially given the number of relatively small civil works contracts to be bid out and evaluated. It was also a consequence of additional works being undertaken. The project schedule was considered adequate and overall sufficient to complete all activities envisaged (Appendix 3).

F. Implementation Arrangements

36. The MLRWR, the executing agency and the PMO (established in September 2005 for the Irrigation Rehabilitation Project within MLRWR, and led by a full-time manager), began managing project activities upon loan effectiveness. The PIO under the PMO in Hamadoni district and the two implementing agencies (Hydromet within the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment Protection and the CES) began activities from July and May 2008, respectively. A project steering committee was established in September 2008 chaired by the First Deputy Prime Minister, with other relevant ministries and agencies.

37. The implementation arrangements are considered to have been adequate in terms of the delivery of project outputs and the achievement of outcome. Progress reports were prepared on a quarterly and annual basis, with timely submission to ADB. The PMO manager was replaced in February 2010, and the following government reorganization took place: (i) Hydromet was

8 transferred to the newly established Committee on Environment Protection (CEP), after separation of the environment protection function from the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment Protection; and (ii) the MLRWR was abolished in November 2013, one month before project completion, and its responsibilities reassigned to the newly formed (a) Ministry of Energy and Water Resources, responsible for the policy and regulations on water resources management; and (b) the Agency of Land Reclamation and Irrigation, responsible for development and management of water resources infrastructure. These changes did not affect the project implementation schedule, and intended outputs and outcome.

38. Upon the effectiveness of the JFPR project on 22 January 2008, the PMO director and, where needed, the minister of MLRWR, facilitated a good working relationship between the Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development Tajikistan office (a French-based international nongovernmental organization and executing agency of the JFPR project) and the relevant government agencies. They worked closely to ensure results at village level were achieved as anticipated at project design, and that the PMO provided the necessary support to JFPR project activities. Partnering with the JFPR project and provision of mechanisms for close coordination helped the JFPR project achieve its results successfully, and gave the MLRWR more leverage than nongovernment organizations (NGOs) in following up with government agencies’ project-related issues, which required approvals or clearances from the government agencies concerned (footnote 14).

G. Conditions and Covenants

39. The loan covenants were considered relevant and none of the covenants were modified. Compliance with covenants was satisfactory and timely (Appendix 4). There were no significant delays or problems encountered in relation to (i) the establishment of implementation arrangements; (ii) the resourcing of the PMO and PIOs; (iii) the adequacy of funding for the O&M of project facilities; (iv) land acquisition, and resettlement, environmental and gender safeguards; (v) project performance monitoring and evaluation; and (vi) the reporting to ADB.

40. The loan covenants required that the government budget at least $50,000 annually for the O&M of project facilities upon site turnover by the contractor, and increase this provision at the same rate as the annual increase in the national budget. Total allocation by the government for this activity was $625,000 throughout project implementation. As of 30 May 2014, total government expenses for O&M of project facilities amounted to $592,910 throughout the project implementation. This covenant was complied with and the allocated level of O&M fund during project implementation is considered adequate.

H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement

41. Consultants were recruited in accordance with ADB‘s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants (2007, as amended from time to time). A total of 486 person-months of inputs (72 for international and 414 for national consultants) were initially estimated. An international firm was recruited and the contract was signed on 30 July 2008 for $2.46 million for a period of 5 years, with office space provided at the PMO premises. Contract negotiations resulted in an increase to 590 person-months of inputs (80 for international and 510 for national consultants) to provide better technical support and build the capacity of the PMO and PIOs. During implementation, some inputs were reallocated to more technical positions to provide institutional strengthening to the PMO, and the contract amount was increased to $2.75 million through two amendments for subcontracting additional surveys and detailed designs for additional project scope. The final person-month inputs were consistent with the agreed inputs at contract signing.

9

The consultant terms of reference and inputs were considered adequate to accomplish intended activities. Four annual audits were also contracted (Appendix 4).

42. Civil works and goods were procured in accordance with ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (2007, as amended from time to time). A total of 57 contracts were signed during project implementation. These were: (i) 7 contracts through international competitive bidding (ICB) (one for vehicles for the PMO, one for embankment maintenance equipment, and 5 for civil works for embankment rehabilitation); (ii) 25 contracts through national competitive bidding (NCB); (iii) 22 through shopping; and (iv) 3 contracts through direct purchase.

43. For major civil works, the procurement plan provided the following civil works packages (i) 1–5, with an estimated cost of $5 million ($1 million each); (ii) A, for $5 million; and (iii) B, for $7 million.16 These were to be conducted through NCB for packages 1–5, and either NCB or ICB for packages A and B. The bidding procedure for packages A and B was finalized during project implementation.

44. Following consultation with the PMO, the following package arrangement was agreed in October 2008: (i) package A comprised 10 civil works contracts procured through NCB, as there was insufficient time for ICB preparation and completion of the works prior to the beginning of the next flood season (i.e., May 2009);17 and (ii) package B comprised five civil works contracts procured through ICB, because sufficient time could be ensured for bid preparation, enabling the contractors to start and complete the required works during the non-flood reason.

45. Although package B was procured using the ICB procedure, five national contractors were awarded the contracts because no foreign contractors responded. This indicated that: (i) civil works with a value of around $1.5 million near the Afghanistan border, with a limited rehabilitation schedule, did not attract foreign contractors; and (ii) the national contractors had capacity to conduct civil works of this contract value.

I. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers

46. The performance of the consultants and suppliers was generally satisfactory. The use of local contractors was seen to be beneficial in terms of providing local job opportunities and increasing the capability of local contractors. The location of the project site for most of the physical works (on the border with Afghanistan) meant that engaging local contractors was possibly the only option. While the performance of the contractors was satisfactory, the PMO, PIOs, and the consultants had to carefully supervise contractors’ works to ensure appropriate work methods and quality of works to meet internationally accepted standards and practices.

J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency

47. The performance of the borrower, the executing agency and the implementing agencies was satisfactory. There were no significant delays in payments to contractors or equipment suppliers. All works were largely completed on schedule and within budget, which was overall under the responsibility of the executing agency. The two implementing agencies performed their tasks satisfactorily, although in some instances training in the use of new climate station equipment lagged behind the provision of the equipment. The executing agency could also

16 The estimated cost for the package A was updated to $6.3 million during project implementation. 17 This was attributed to delayed detailed design and tender preparation, which resulted from limited PMO staff capacity, even though retroactive financing was applied to ensure rapid initial project implementation.

10 perform successfully to support the implementation of the JFPR project. The assessment of the executing agency’s capacity at project design was reasonably accurate.

48. The respective technical capacity of the executing agency and implementing agencies was further improved and the executing agency’s specific role for integrated flood risk management was clearer, together with other agency roles, as a result of successful implementation of the institutional and legal reforms as expected. While the PMO’s capacity was also improved in all aspects during implementation of the project, its improved capacity was not well transferred to the executing agency. This is attributed to the following factors: (i) PMO staff for procurement, economic and financial evaluations, social and environmental safeguards, and financial management were recruited from the market to engage only during the project implementation, and better paid than the executing agency staff; and (ii) while there were several permanent staff to manage such areas in the executing agency, their opportunities and motivation to participate were quite limited because of a lack of incentives.

K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank

49. ADB undertook one inception mission, five annual review missions, one midterm review mission, and one project completion review mission between 2008 and 2014. Two project officers were responsible for project implementation, the first for 8 months, and the second for 60 months. Three project analysts were assigned to the project. Overall, there was sufficient continuity in staffing and effectiveness in resolving issues and guiding the PMO on key matters. ADB was timely in assessing bidding documents and approving the large number of procurement and civil works contracts.

50. ADB responded appropriately to the government‘s requested five changes in scope, although it took more than 2 months to approve the last request. ADB also properly coordinated between the project and the JFPR project. However, an incomplete internal consultation took place, which led to post-facto approvals of proposed changes in the project scope and loan reallocation.18 The performance of ADB is rated satisfactory.

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE

A. Relevance

51. The project is rated relevant as it is consistent with the government’s development priorities and was consistent with ADB’s country strategy at project design. Despite a change in ADB’s priorities during the project, and a move away from investing in the agricultural sector, in Tajikistan and especially in the project area, flood risk management measures under the project contributed to transport, and private sector development and public services, which are two of the three ADB priority sectors. The minor changes in scope were generally emergency responses to additional flood damage that had occurred, and their inclusion in the scope of physical works better enabled the project to meet its objectives.

B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome

52. The project is rated effective. The project has reduced the negative socioeconomic impact of flooding in the project area through a combination of physical and non-physical measures. In the Hamadoni district, the project’s physical works provide protection against

18 The last proposed scope change, together with the loan reallocation, was not submitted to the Office of the General Counsel for review, as required by the Project Administration Instructions.

11 floods with a 100-year return period, and the provision of heavy equipment has improved the O&M capability of flood protection embankments in all four districts in the project area. Improvements have also been made to flood mapping and forecasting, flood preparedness and flood emergency responses. Policy reforms through the amended water code have been adopted that clarify flood management roles and responsibilities among the relevant government agencies, and assist in fully implementing the flood management concept, which is the performance target of the outcome. The annual budget allocated was considered adequate to operate O&M equipment.

C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs

53. The project’s use of resources is rated efficient based on a combination of the measured EIRR and the inclusion of non-quantified benefits.19

54. Not all project costs were included in the economic analysis to determine the project’s efficiency as measured by the EIRR, because no data were available on economic benefits corresponding to some project cost components. This was particularly the case where changes in project scope were agreed to during the course of the project implementation.20 Most of the project’s funding was directed at the rehabilitation of embankments within the Hamadoni district. The costs for these civil works—together with the heavy equipment for flood embankment O&M procured under the project for the Hamadoni district, and the Hamadoni district’s share of the costs of the non-physical measures relating to flood mapping, flood forecasting, flood preparedness and flood responsiveness—were included in project costs in the economic analysis.

55. Project benefits in the economic analysis were based on estimated saved flood damage costs with and without the project for floods of various return periods.21 At project design stage, it was assessed that the existing embankments protected against floods with a return period of up to 10 years, although it was acknowledged that continued deterioration of the flood embankments would soon reduce this to protection against floods of only a 5-year return period. Conservatively, assuming continued without-project protection against a 10-year return period, floods yields an EIRR of 14.3%. This compares with an EIRR at project design of 16%. The main reasons the EIRR was lower are (i) the inclusion of the Hamadoni district’s share of non- physical output costs in the economic analysis;22 and (ii) the economic life of the protection works was conservatively assumed to be 30 years, instead of the 40 years assumed at project design.

19 ADB. 2006. Guidelines for Preparing Performance Evaluation Reports for Public Sector Operations. Manila. 20 The changes in scope relating to rehabilitation and improvements to Chubek Canal head works and the bridge and road to improve O&M access have been included in project costs. This is conservative to the extent the Chubek Canal serves a command area beyond just the Hamadoni and Farkhor districts and no economic benefits beyond these districts are included in the economic analysis. The changes in scope relating to the emergency rehabilitation works for embankments on the Yakhsu and Kizilsu rivers in Vose and Kulyab districts, the Aivaj interstate hydrological monitoring station and the replacement pipeline for the Shurchasoy irrigation scheme in the Khuroson District have been excluded from the project costs in the economic analysis because there are no available data to quantify the benefits of these items. 21 The project improvements were designed to protect against floods having a return period of 100 years. However, the project will also provide protection against lesser floods having a more frequent return period, which is why flood damage cost savings were estimated for a variety of flood return periods. To determine project benefits, it is also necessary to consider the levels of protection afforded without the project improvement embankments, because project economic benefits are the difference between saved damage costs with and without the project. 22 At project design, these were excluded from the economic analysis.

12

56. The analysis assumes annual O&M provision of 2% of capital costs. If inadequate O&M provision is made (say 1% of capital expenditure per annum) and the project only provides protection against 50-year return period floods, the EIRR is reduced to 12.8%. In the absence of the project, embankments would deteriorate, providing protection only against floods having a return period of up to 5 years, while the estimated EIRR for the project would increase to 25.6%. Allowing for a 2% average annual increase in the estimated flood damage cost savings to account for increases in property values within the flood plain increases the EIRR from 14.6% to 17%. The economic analysis undertaken for the project is also conservative to the extent that no account is taken of the additional benefits from the use of the vehicles and equipment for uses other than embankment O&M works in the Hamadoni district—e.g., rehabilitation and construction of other embankments, irrigation canal clearing, and drainage canal clearing.

57. There are economic and social benefits associated with the sub-output costs excluded from the economic analysis. These are discussed in Appendix 6 and are assessed as being sufficient to justify the costs of these sub-outputs.

D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability

58. The sustainability of the project is assessed less than likely sustainable. The key factor in sustaining the flood protection physical works completed under the project is ensuring an adequate annual O&M fund. While annual O&M budgets during the project were maintained at adequate levels to cover actual expenses required for O&M of embankment protection, the executing agency is likely to require a greater O&M fund allocation from the government, which should cover regular replacement of damaged heavy equipment. In the future, an ongoing budget for embankment O&M of around 2% of capital expenditure—approximately TJS2 million ($410,000 equivalent) per year—will be required to maintain the works and ensure sufficient funding for replacement of equipment, subject to further extension of sedimentation areas with natural vegetation inside the river channel. Lower O&M funding will require that periodic replacement investment funding be allocated for equipment, most of which is expected to have an economic life of 8–12 years. However, now that the project is completed, it is not clear that adequate funding for the required O&M and periodic replacement investment will be made available by government considering current weak economic performance in the country.

59. Another risk to the project’s sustainability is the departure of five of the eight Hydromet technicians who received training under the project, because of their low staff salaries. As a result, Hydromet currently has insufficient capacity to adequately update flood risk models and process the data it receives from the field.

60. Nevertheless, the project has a number of attributes that will contribute to sustained flood risk management in the project area: (i) construction of the O&M road will reduce travel time and transportation cost (item [iv] of para. 18); (ii) accumulated sedimentation and natural vegetation inside the river channel will reduce the damage to rehabilitated embankments, lessening the O&M requirement; and (iii) procured equipment was used for other purposes, such as cleaning drainage channels, and in some cases revenue may be earned to recover costs.

E. Impact

61. Poverty and social impacts. The project had a significant positive impact on poverty and social levels in the Hamadoni district by safeguarding houses, crops, and other assets of residents and businesses. Around 65% of the district’s population was identified as being at

13 direct and indirect risks of flooding, and the project has thus improved the living standard of a large proportion of the population of Hamadoni district. Investments in housing (more houses, higher-value new houses, and housing improvements) and in higher-value crops (fruit trees, vineyards, and vegetables in place of traditional crops such as cotton and wheat) have been observed, in part in line with increases in wealth from economic growth generally throughout the country (e.g., from increased remittances from employment abroad and in urban areas within Tajikistan). However, by providing protection against floods with a return period of up to 100 years, the project has created incentives for investment within the flood plain, which would not have occurred if the area was still exposed to frequent major flood events. While the resettlement framework was developed, no land acquisition or resettlement was required for embankment rehabilitation works, as all required works were carried out within the border control area, which people cannot access. No indigenous people were identified in project areas and project activities.

62. Environmental impact. The project was implemented in compliance with the environmental management plan. The project was classified as category B for the environment, because both negative and positive environmental impacts were anticipated as indicated in the summary initial environment examination. While the negative environmental impacts were mitigated through implementation of the environmental management plan, and environmental monitoring reports were prepared on an annual basis, the associated JFPR project had a significant positive impact on the environment (it established a tugai reforestation area of over 2,600 ha to contribute to ecosystem recovery along rehabilitated embankments under the JFPR project) as a result of good coordination between the two executing agencies.

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Overall Assessment

63. Overall, the project was implemented as designed, within budget, and largely on time. The requirements of the DMF were mostly met, with achievements toward all output targets, with delays in some areas. In accordance with the project performance rating criteria of relevant, effective, efficient, and less than likely sustainable, the project’s overall rating is successful.

B. Lessons

64. Implementation arrangements. While foreign contractors were not attracted to the ICB packages because of the location and limited time available to complete the rehabilitation works, national contractors were able to undertake civil work with a contract value of $1.5 million. Second, there was a high project administration burden associated with the large number of civil works contracts (there were 28 civil works contracts awarded through either NCB or ICB, with an average contract amount of $0.7 million). If the civil works had been repackaged, with a value of $1.5 million per contract, the number of civil work contracts could have been reduced to 13. Third, involvement of PMO staff—in the absence of the involvement of permanent executing agency and implementing agency staff with attractive salaries in the fields of procurement, economic and financial evaluations, social and environment safeguards, and financial management—will not improve institutional capacity of the executing agency and implementing agencies in these fields, and will perpetuate the need to establish a PMO for future projects. Fourth, although the project was the first ADB-financed flood-related project in Tajikistan implemented through three government agencies with an integrated approach and in partnership with the NGO that implemented the JFPR project, the integrated approach and good collaboration resulted in successful non-physical project outputs, for the project and successful

14 community-level outputs for the JFPR project (para. 38). In particular, it proved that community- level interventions can be carried out by NGO(s) if firm partnership mechanisms are developed during project preparation.23

65. Project design. The holistic flood risk management approach that combines physical, non-physical, and legal measures (as distinct from previous reactive infrastructure-oriented flood control measures) was quite effective in helping people address flood risks. Second, the specially designed spurs have been effective in stimulating sedimentation, with natural vegetation, inside the river channel, which could augment rehabilitated embankments for effective flood protection, and would reduce O&M requirement. Third, the specified heavy equipment for the O&M activity was, in some cases, too small for flood protection works and not efficient. Fourth, while flood warning systems using radio communication were proposed and were procured under the project, these were largely obsolete because of the prevalent and more efficient use of mobile telephones in the project area.

C. Recommendations

1. Project Related

66. Future monitoring. Continued monitoring is needed for Hydromet’s development and updating of water-depth and water discharge volume curves at the relevant river cross sections near rehabilitated river gauges for accurate flood forecasting. Hydromet staff members responsible for this work also need to be appropriately trained, especially when staff turnover occurs. It is also desirable to monitor the effect of the constructed spurs and associated natural vegetation and quantify the resulting economic benefit associated with reduced O&M requirements.

67. Emergency response to disasters. The high project administration burden associated with the changes in project scope could have been mitigated if a specific provision had been included in the project covenants requesting the government to establish a fund exclusively for emergency operations, in addition to the existing provision for regular allocation of O&M costs.

68. Further action or follow-up. Aside from the government reorganization that took place (para. 37, item [ii]), the government is further reforming the water resources management (WRM) system. Further reforms include: (i) the change in WRM areas from territorial administrative to hydrological areas; and (ii) the establishment of water governance institutes, such as river basin organizations, to develop river basin management plans to clarify and monitor water allocations and water-related issues, in line with principles of integrated WRM. It is recommended that ADB, through missions, follow up on these reforms to clarify how the holistic flood risk management approach established by the project is incorporated in the improved WRM system, to ensure its sustainability.

69. Additional assistance. It is recommended that ADB support the establishment and implementation of joint Pyanj River monitoring by Tajikistan and Afghanistan. The support could have been included in the original project design if the bilateral agreement between the two countries for joint monitoring of Pyanj River flow had been signed at project design.24 Such joint monitoring will further strengthen the monitoring and forecasting capacity of Pyanj River flow, which benefits both countries.

23 The government and NGO communities reportedly failed to establish good working relationships. 24 The bilateral agreement was signed in 2010, which led the government to request that ADB include the interstate Aivaj river gauge.

15

70. Timing of the project performance evaluation report. It is recommended that a performance evaluation review be conducted during flood season (May–October) to evaluate if the physical and non-physical measures undertaken under the project are performing well to address Pyanj River flood risks.

2. General

71. When designing projects (i) given the rapid changes in and adoption of new information and communication technologies, project documents should be flexible in specifying which technologies to employ during implementation (para. 65), including for specific purpose, such as issuing flood warnings; and (iii) a mechanism for active participation of the executing agency’s permanent staff with PMO staff in specific fields in project management could improve institutional capacity, and enable the executing agency to manage similar projects with fewer consultants and PMO inputs.

72. Project sustainability is enhanced by reducing investment cost and O&M requirements as a result of the development of land zoning to restrict the area where people can reside could have clarified the extent of the government’s responsibility to ensure public safety from possible flooding, and the extent to which residents assume personal risks. This could have resulted in more cost-efficient flood protection embankments that focus on priority areas and assets to be protected; such an approach could require greater project preparatory TA to support a more detailed project design.

73. In implementing projects, the project implementation consultant, executing agency, and implementing agencies should: (i) explore and propose the use of prevalent, advanced technologies for more efficient and effective project outputs; and (ii) minimize the number of segmented contracts and increase the average contract amount to reduce the project administration burden.

1

6

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Design Summary Performance Targets/Indicators Achievements at Project Completion Appendix Impact Reduced flood risks in Flood frequency reduced from 1 in 10 in 2007 to 1 in 100 in Likely to be achieved. No floods from Pyanj river recorded in Khatlon province Hamadoni district by 2013 Hamadoni district from 2008 to 2013. Flood embankments designed and the rehabilitation completed accordingly. 1

Outcome Effective and sustainable Full implementation of flood management concept through Achieved. Flood management concept developed and fully flood management amended Water Code by 2013 implemented by December 2013. systems are operational and well maintained Annual budget allocated enough to operate equipment for O&M Achieved. Allocated O&M budget ($625,000) was higher than the actual expenses ($592,910). Outputs 1. Institutional and Legal Amended Water Code by 2008 Achieved. Amended Water Code in December 2009. Reforms Developed capacity at required standards, within budget for Achieved. A state entity established in May 2010 in Hamadoni flood embankment on Pyanj established by March 2008 district started O&M activities for flood embankment after the improvement of its staff capacity. Training programs to meet required standards completed in February 2013 for national-level holistic flood risk management.

2. Improved Physical 8.3 km of embankment rehabilitation on the Pyanj river, Achieved. 10 km of embankment rehabilitation on the Pyanj river, Infrastructure for Flood Hamadoni segment completed by March 2009 Hamadoni segment completed in February 2012. Management Additional flood embankment rehabilitations with 1.6 km of O&M road completed in December 2012.

Proper operation of maintenance equipment for embankment Achieved. Heavy equipment for embankment maintenance fielded in April 2010. The state entity started O&M activity for flood embankments in Hamadoni district in May 2010 while other equipment was used for O&M of flood embankment in other districts in the project area.

3. Improved Non-physical Flood risk maps for Kulyab, Vose, Farkhor and Hamadoni Achieved. Flood risk maps for two different flood-return periods for Measures completed by December 2010 Kulyab, Vose, Farkhor, and Hamadoni, available in December 2012.

Flood preparedness plans based on risk maps and other Achieved. Flood preparedness plans developed in December 2012 information approved by December 2010 and implemented based on the flood-risk maps. The rapid response team equipment was handed over to the field office by December 2010.

Functional hydrometeorology network of 10 climate stations and Achieved with reduced scope. Hydrometeorology network of three 10 river gauges for the country by December 2012 climate stations and six river gauges was functional in March 2012. The interstate Aivaj river gauge was functional in December 2013.

Design Summary Performance Targets/Indicators Achievements at Project Completion Real-time flood forecasting models for Pyanj, Yakhsu and Achieved. Real-time flood forecasting models for Pyanj, Yakhsu and Kizilsu rivers in operation by 2012 Kizilsu rivers in operation in December 2012.

Flood warning triggers with a lead time of at least 3 hours Achieved. Flood warning triggers with a lead time of 6 hours based on river levels for each flood risk zone introduced by the operational in December 2012. end of 2012

Awareness of flood risk and basic response requirements with Achieved. Completed together with the JFPR project.a In October CES understood by 90% of village leaders from 2008 2011, 95% of villages successfully described their roles in flood disaster mitigation, risk monitoring, and required actions for flood disasters.

Prioritized methods for cost-effective tributary flood prevention Achieved. Feasibility study on flood management for Vose and infrastructure repair in project area of Vose and Kulyab Kulyab rivers available in October 2009. provided by December 2008 CES = Committee for Emergency Situation, km = kilometer, O&M = operation and maintenance. a ADB. 2008. Grant Assistance Report for Community Participatory Flood Management. Manila.

Source: Asian Development Bank.

Appendix Appendix

1 1

17

18 Appendix 2

PROJECT COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

Table A2.1: Project Costs by Category ($’000)

Estimated Actual Category Title ADB Government Total ADB Government Total 01 Civil Works 13,145.20 4,190.50 17,335.70 13,802.57 4,260.97 18,063.54 02 Vehicles 152.90 37.70 190.60 135.92 33.98 169.90 03 Equipment 3,580.40 1,009.90 4,590.30 4,045.61 0.00 4,045.61 04 Surveys and Designs 428.80 85.80 514.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 05 Training and Workshops 136.10 27.20 163.30 77.53 16.71 94.24 06 Consulting Services 2,709.70 0.00 2,709.70 2,851.67 0.00 2,851.67 07 Project Management and O&M 961.80 1,148.60 2,110.40 548.01 776.64 1,324.65 08 Interest Charge 885.10 0.00 885.10 821.98 0.00 821.98 Total 22,000.00 6,499.70 28,499.70 22,283.29 5,088.30 27,371.59 Source: Asian Development Bank.

Table A2.2: Project Costs by Output ($’000)

Estimated Actual Output Title ADB Government Total ADB Government Total I. Policy Reforms 289.80 6.70 296.50 271.46 5.57 277.03 II. Improved Physical Measures 14,482.40 3,726.60 18,209.00 17,989.30 5,036.44 23,025.74 III. Improved Non-Physical 1,427.16 113.74 1,540.90 1,112.06 5.74 1,117.80 Measures IV. Capacity Building for Improved 2,401.17 253.43 2,654.60 2,088.48 40.54 2,129.02 Management Subtotal 18,600.53 4,100.47 22,701.00 21,461.30 5,088.30 26,549.60 Contingencies Physical Contingencies 2,317.18 2,082.82 4,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Price Contingencies 197.19 316.41 513.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 2,514.37 2,399.23 4,913.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Charge 885.10 0.00 885.10 821.98 0.00 821.98 Total 22,000.00 6,499.70 28,499.70 22,283.28 5,088.30 27,371.58 Source: Asian Development Bank.

Table A2.3: Project Disbursements by Category – Foreign and Local ($’000)

Foreign Local Category Title Currency Currency Total 01 Civil Works 4,951.40 8,851.17 13,802.57 02 Vehicles 135.92 0.00 135.92 03 Equipment 3,806.06 239.55 4,045.61 04 Surveys and Designs 0.00 0.00 0.00 05 Training and Workshops 58.42 19.11 77.53 06 Consulting Services 2,851.67 0.00 2,851.67 07 Project Management and O&M 415.31 132.69 548.00 08 Interest Charge 821.98 0.00 821.98 Total 13,040.76 9,242.52 22,283.28 Source: Asian Development Bank.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Components/ Activity I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV А. Political reforms 1. Review and introduction of changes in Water Code 2. Training employees on flood control B. Improved physical measures in Hamadoni district 1. Construct flood embankment in Hamadoni district а. Study and detailed design b. Construction 2. Strengthen capacity for embankments maintenance а. Procurement of equipment b. Training Maintenance Staff c. Improved maintenance C. Improved non-physical measures а. Prepare flood risk maps b. Prepare emergency plans for each flood risk zone c. Strengthening hydrometeorological netw ork: Rehabilitate and update hydrometeorological database Rehabilitate and update flood monitoring netw ork Prepare real time flood forecasting models d. Floods w arning Develop and implement floods w arning triggers Upgrade flood w arning dissemination system Updating village level flood w arning e. Strengthen village level flood aw areness campaigns f. Flood management training and drills D. Capacity building for improved project management 1. Expansion, staffing, and equipping PMO/PIOs

2. PMO/PIOs Operation

3. Consulting Services Appendix Appendix 4. Trainings & Workshops = at project design, = actual. PIO = project implementation office, PMO = project management office Note: Some schedules at project design in the schedule are not consistent with corresponding target dates in the Design and Monitoring Framework. 3

Source: Asian Development Bank. 19

20 Appendix 4

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE TO LOAN COVENANTS

Covenant Reference in Loan Status Agreement Implementation arrangements Borrower shall establish the Project Steering Schedule 5, para. 1 (a) Complied with. Committee (PSC) to: (i) provide strategic management Within three (3) months The PSC was officially of the project implementation activities and activities on after the Loan Effective established on 23 February flood management while financing by other donors; (ii) Date 2008. conduct the project impacts monitoring; (iii) investigate and evaluate the project implementation quality; (iv) The PSC members were conduct audits in the project; and (v) provide close approved by Prime Minister corporation with agencies involved to the projects on of the Republic of Tajikistan. flood management.

PSC shall by chaired by the First Deputy Prime Schedule 5, para. 1(a) Complied with. Minister and comprising senior staff of the Ministry of The PSC comprised: Land Reclamation and Water Resources (MLRWR), (i) First Deputy Prime the Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Minister; (ii) minister of Protection (MAEP), Committee of Emergency MLRWR; (iii) deputy minister Situations (CES) and other relevant ministries and of Finance; (iv) head of agencies. PSC shall be located at the President’s Hydromet; (v) head of the Office and shall meet twice a year. The PSC CES; and (vi) head of the Secretariat shall be located in the PMO. CEP.

The MLRWR as an Executive Agency shall be Schedule 5, para. 1 (b) Complied with. responsible for the overall execution and coordination of the project, and timely submission to ADB of: (i) withdrawal applications; (ii) the consolidated project progress and other reports; (iii) consolidated audited accounts of the project. MLRWR shall also implement Component А and Component В of the project.

MAEP shall be the Implementing Agency (IA) for Schedule 5, para. 1 (c) Complied with. Component В (iii) of the project, and CES shall be the CEP is an IA for Component IA for Components В (i), В (ii), and В (iv) of the project. B (iii) of the project, and CES is an IA for Components B (i), B (ii) and B (iv) of the project

Borrower shall ensure that project management office Schedule 5, para. 2 Complied with. set up under the ongoing ADB-financed Irrigation The PMO set up under Loan Rehabilitation Project (Loan 2124-TAJ) shall serve as 2124-TAJ is already the PMO for this project. functioning as the PMO for the project.

Borrower shall ensure that at all times throughout Schedule 5, para. 3 Compiled with. project implementation PMO remains adequately Qualified and skilled PMO staffed with professional and clerical personnel with the specialists were engaged. necessary experience and expertise in finance, accounting, procurement and contract administration.

Borrower shall ensure that PMO, MAEP and CES Within three (3) months of Complied with. establish an adequately staffed PIO. Loan Effective Date PIO staff selected and fully equipped in each IA.

Appendix 4 21

Covenant Reference in Loan Status Agreement Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Borrower shall ensure that: А) Annual allocations at an amount of no less than Schedule 5, para. 5 (a) Complied with. $ 50,000 equivalent (plus inflation since 2007) are The government allocated made and timely released for the maintenance of the $625,000 from the end of project facilities upon their handover by a contractor to 2007 to the end of 2013 for MLRWR; and the cost of O&M of the existing flood embankments B) Actual total annual expenditures for maintenance Schedule 5, para.1 (b) and the embankments under (including emergency maintenance, but excluding the rehabilitation along the rehabilitation and construction) of the flood protection Panj River. facilities in the project area are increased at least at 2009: $ 86,300 the same rate as annual increases in the overall 2010: $135,000 national budget during 2008-2013. 2011: $51,000 2012: $180,000 2013: $172,700

Total government expenses for O&M of project facilities amounted to $592,910 up to May 2014. Water Code and Regulations Borrower shall ensure that the Borrower’s Water Code Schedule 5, para. 6 Complied with. of November 29, 2000 and other relevant law and By 31 December 2008 On 3 December 2009, the regulations are amended to include the concept of President signed the Decree flood management and more integrated approach on amendments to the Water against flood damages. Code. On 29 May 2010 Decree of the Government of Tajikistan “About Republican Committee on Floods Prevention” under which the committee, regulation and committee members were specified was approved. The Decree determined MLRWR as authorized state agency to coordinate all state organizations, legal and individuals on supervision and flood management.

Land acquisition and resettlement Borrower shall ensure that no land acquisition or Schedule 5, para. 7 Complied with. resettlement is required under the project, and that all No land acquisition or project facilities remain, and the project activities are resettlement was required for conducted within the existing right-of-way. In the event the civil and rehabilitation of any unforeseen land acquisition or resettlement works. needs for Package А or Package В for Works, as specified in the Procurement Plan, the MLRWR shall inform ADB and shall prepare a Resettlement Plan in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations of the Borrower, ADB’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (1995) and Resettlement Framework prepared by the Borrower for the project and agreed by ADB.

Environment Borrower shall cause MLRWR, MAEP and CES to Schedule 5, para. 8 Complied with. ensure that project contractors implement social and Regular monitoring of the civil environmental laws and regulations of the Borrower, works progress was carried ADB’s Environmental Policy (2002), and the initial out by the representatives of

22 Appendix 4

Covenant Reference in Loan Status Agreement environmental examination (the IEE) prepared by the MLRWR, CEP, and CES. All Borrower for the project and agreed by ADB. contractors complied with the The Borrower shall transform the environmental requirements on social and management plan (EMP) of the IEE into the contract- environmental mitigation specific environmental management plan, which will measures in accordance with be incorporated in the bidding documents and the applicable laws and contracts for Works MLRWR shall submit an annual regulations of the Republic of report on environmental performance during project Tajikistan, and ADB’s implementation Environmental Policy. Annual environmental monitoring reports were prepared and submitted to ADB, although not all of them were disclosed on the ADB website.

Gender and Development Borrower shall through MLRWR monitor the project Schedule 5, para. 9 Complied with. impacts on women in consultation with local Monitoring of the project governments, women’s associations, and impact on women was nongovernment organizations throughout project conducted together with the implementation. lower organization of MLRWR, jamoats (local governments), women’s associations, and nongovernment organizations.

Borrower shall ensure that PMO develops the Gender Schedule 5, para. 10 Complied with. Action Plan (GAP). The PMO shall implement the GAP Within six (6) months of PMO submitted the GAP to in a timely manner and shall ensure that adequate Loan Effective Date ADB in January 2010. resources are allocated for this purpose. The Borrower shall ensure, among other things, that (a) specific All GAP requirements and efforts are made to include women professional from terms were followed and government offices in project meetings and decision complied with during project making process; (b) contractors are encourage to implementation. employ women, including disadvantaged women; (c) (i) In total 23 women were up to 40% of the trainees at CES flood awareness and engaged as PMO and PIO preparedness training programs are women; and (d) staff throughout the project up to 50% of trainees in flood management issues at implementation, which the grassroots level are women. corresponded to 40% of the total PMO and PIOs staff. (ii) Due to the nature and location of works done, the PMO did not encourage the contractors for civil works to employ women. The Tajikistan Labor Code prohibits the use of women’s labor in heavy physical works. (iii) 20 workshops on flood awareness were held in 20 jamoats in target four districts during March 2009– March 2010, and 1,228 people including 483 women (39% of total participants) attended the workshops with the following details: 8

Appendix 4 23

Covenant Reference in Loan Status Agreement jamoats in Hamadoni district (511 people including 204 women); four jamoats in Kulyab district (242 people including 91 women); four jamoats in Vose (187 people including 76 women.); four jamoats in Farkhor (288 people including 112 women). (iv) Three flood evacuation drills were conducted in three jamoats in three districts during September–October 2011, and 900 people including 295 women (33% of total participants) attended the drills with the following details: Mehnatobod jamoat in Hamadoni district (300 people including 151 women) on 30 September 2011; Michurins jamoat in Vose district (300 people including 55 women) on 3 October 2011; Dahan jamoat in Kulyab district (300 people including 89 women) on 5 October 2011.

Employment Borrower shall: (i) encourage the use of local labor Schedule 5, para. 11 Complied with. and procurement of local materials; and (ii) ensure that Since November 2009, the the contractors under the project: (a) comply with the PMO advised that through applicable labor laws of the Borrower, including the civil works contracted so requirements providing for equal payment to men and far, 675 local citizens were women for work of equal type in accordance with employed by the contractors. national laws and international treaty obligations, and (b) abstain from using child labor Health and social risks Borrower shall ensure that contractors engaged under Schedule 5, para. 12 Complied with. the project disseminate information (in local language) on the risks of sexually transmitted infection, including HIV/AIDS, in health and safety programs at campsites. Specific provisions to this effect shall be included in bidding documents and contracts for Works, and compliance will be strictly monitored by MLRWR. The Borrower shall ensure strict border control to detect trafficking in humans, wildlife, endangered species, and illegal substances in the project area. Construction quality Borrower shall ensure that the project facilities comply Schedule 5, para. 13 Complied with. with technical specifications of the design, and that construction supervision, quality control and project management are performed according to internationally accepted standards and practices.

24 Appendix 4

Covenant Reference in Loan Status Agreement Accounts and Audit

Without limiting the generality of Section 6.04 of the Schedule 5, para. 14 Complied with. Loan Regulations, the Borrower shall cause MLRWR, MAEP, CES, the PMO and PIOs to maintain separate Within six months after the In May–June 2009 financial accounts for the project and the records adequate to end of each fiscal year activity audit (the first since identify the Works, Goods and consulting services during the implementation the project implementation financed from the Loan proceeds, financing resources of the project. started) was done. The received, expenditures incurred for the project, and project financial activity for use of the counterpart funds. year 2008 was audited and its financial activities were The project accounts and related financial statements acceptable. shall be audited annually in accordance with sound auditing standards by an independent auditor Project financial activities for acceptable to ADB. The Borrower shall cause MLRWR fiscal year 2009–2012 were to submit annual audited reports and related financial audited annually. statements ADB. The audit of the imprest account and statement of expenditure shall be carried out as part of Combined audit to cover the regular annual audit. The auditor’s opinion of the project financial activities for examination of the imprest account and statement of fiscal year 2013 and 2014 expenditures shall be separately set out in the was conducted. auditor’s report. The audited project financial statement (APFS) for the fiscal year 2013 was received on 29 August 2014. The APFS for fiscal year 2014 (the final audit report) was received on 22 January 2015.

The auditor emphasized that EA only maintains disbursement and expense records, but does not prepare a full set of project financial statements. While the EA’s earlier APFS accepted by ADB serves as a good template, the EA still failed to prepare the simple APFS for fiscal year 2013. There were no other major findings during the final audit report.

Project review ADB and Borrower shall meet regularly as required to Schedule 5, para. 15 Complied with. discuss the progress of the project and any changes to ADB undertook one inception the implementation arrangements or remedial mission (February 2008), five measures required to be undertaken towards annual review missions achieving the outcome of the project. (annually), one midterm A midterm review of the project shall be undertaken by review mission (October ADB and the Borrower in 2008. The midterm review 2009), and one PCR mission shall include review of issues concerning project (May–June 2014) between implementation arrangements, institutional, 2008 and 2014. administrative, organizational, technical, environmental and social, economic, financial, and other aspects that may have an impact on the performance of the project and its sustainability. The review shall assess the compliance with Loan covenants and agree on any changes required.

Appendix 4 25

Covenant Reference in Loan Status Agreement Policy Dialogue Borrower shall ensure that ADB is kept informed about Schedule 5, para. 16 Complied with. the Borrower’s policies, strategies and programs Information on any taken related to flood risk management that may materially measures, documents and affect the project. laws regarding flood management in Tajikistan was regularly submitted to ADB.

Governance and Anticorruption The Borrower shall: (i) undertake necessary measures Schedule 5, para 17 Complied with. to create and sustain a corruption-free environment; All bids were held and all (ii) ensure that its anticorruption laws and regulations contracts were awarded in and ADB’s Anticorruption Policy (1998, as amended to accordance with the ADB's date) are strictly forced and are being complied with procurement procedures and during project implementation, and relevant provisions approved by ADB. of ADB’s Anticorruption Policy are included in all bidding documents for the project; (iii) facilitate ADB in exercising its right to investigate, directly or through its agents, any alleged corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practices relating to the project; (iv) ensure that MLRWR, MAEP and CES conduct periodic inspections on the contractors’ activities related to fund withdrawals and settlements; and (v) ensure that all contract financed by ADB in connection with the project include provisions specifying the right of ADB to audit and examine the records and accounts of MLRWR, MAEP and CES and all contractors, suppliers, consultants and other service providers related to the project.

In relation to the project, the Borrower shall ensure the Schedule 5, para. 18 Complied with. disclosure of project related procurement actions in Prior to bids detailed local newspapers and on Internet. Such disclosed information on the conducted information shall include, among other matters, the list tender was published in local of participating bidders, the winning bidder, reference newspapers. Opened bids to the tender procedures adopted, amount of the were held by disclosing contract awarded and general terms and specifications information about bids to of Goods, Works and consulting services procured. public. Also, information on bids was put in the website of the State Committee on Investments and State Property Management of the Republic of Tajikistan.

Project Performance Monitoring and Evaluation The Borrower shall ensure that a monitoring and Schedule 5, para. 19 Complied with. evaluation (M&U) unit is established in the PMO to Within three (3) months of Existing M&E unit under monitor project performance including, among other the Loan Effective Date Loan-2124 performed as things, environmental, poverty, gender and social M&E for the project. In impacts and progress of various reform measures. January 2010, an additional Information on monitoring progress shall be included specialist was hired. in the quarterly progress reports. Information on the progress achieved during the project implementation was included in quarterly reports and submitted to ADB. The project monitoring was also carried out by the implementation consultant.

26 Appendix 4

Covenant Reference in Loan Status Agreement The Borrower shall ensure that PMO establishes a Schedule 5, para. 20 Complied with. Project Performance Management System (PPMS) in Within three (3) months of Existing PPMS under Loan accordance with the project performance indicators the Loan Effective Date 2124-TAJ was used as agreed with ADB. The Borrower shall ensure that PPMS under the project. MLRWR, MAEP and CES undertake periodic project performance review to evaluate the scope, implementation arrangements, and progress towards achievement of the project objectives.

Reports The Borrower shall ensure that PMO prepares and Schedule 5, para. 21 Complied with. submits to ADB quarterly progress reports in a form PMO submitted to ADB the and in such details as shall be agreed between ADB project progress reports in and MLRWR during the project inception mission of the format agreed between ADB. ADB and MLRWR.

The Borrower shall (i) maintain, or cause to be Article IV, Section 4.02 (a) Complied with. maintained, separate accounts for the Project; (ii) have In May–June 2009, financial such accounts and related financial statements activity audit (the first since audited annually, in accordance with appropriate the project Implementation auditing standards consistently applied, by starts) was done. The project independent auditors whose qualifications, experience financial activity for year 2008 and terms of reference are acceptable to ADB; (iii) was audited and its financial furnish to ADB, as soon as available but in any event activities were acceptable. not later than six (6) months after the end of each related fiscal year, certified copies of such audited Project financial activities for accounts and financial statements and the report of fiscal years 2009–2012 were the auditors relating thereto (including the auditors’ audited annually. opinion on the use of the Loan proceeds and compliance with the financial covenants of this Loan Combined audit to cover Agreement as well as on the use of the procedures for project financial activities for imprest accounts/statement of expenditures), all in fiscal year 2013 and 2014 English language, and (iv) furnish to ADB such other was conducted. information concerning such accounts and financial statements and the audit thereof as ADB shall from The audited project financial time to time reasonably request. statement (APFS) for the fiscal year 2013 was received on 29 August 2014. The APFS for fiscal year 2014 (the final audit report) was received on 22 January 2015.

Appendix 5 27

CONSULTANT INPUTS

Position Allocation Actual use (person-months) (person-months) International Consultants: Project Management & Monitoring TL and Project Implementation Specialist 30.0 30.0 Environmental Specialist 6.0 5.0 Social Analyst and Resettlement Specialist 2.0 1.2 Procurement Specialist 5.0 5.0 Physical Measures Design and Construction Engineer 3.0 3.0 Non-Physical Measures Hydraulic Modeler 6.0 7.0 Flood Risk Specialist 1.0 1.0 Emergency Planner 2.0 2.0 Database Expert 3.0 1.6 Flood Telemetry Expert 3.0 3.0 Flood Modeling Experts 3.0 3.0 Flood Warning Experts 2.0 2.0 Flood Emergency Specialist 2.0 2.0 Hydrological Basin Modeler 0.0 2.0 O&M Specialist 0.0 1.3 Feasibility Study Hydraulic Modeler 3.0 3.0 Design Engineer 1.5 3.2 Environmental Specialist 1.0 1.0 Morphologist 2.0 2.0 Socio-Economist 1.5 1.8 O&M Specialist 1.0 1.0 Subtotal 80.0 80.0 National Consultants: Project Management & Monitoring Deputy TL and Flood Management Specialist 51.0 51.0 Deputy TL and Flood Emergency Situations Specialist 27.0 18.0 Deputy Team Leader, Flood Management Engineer 27.0 33.8 Construction Supervision Engineers 96.0 160.5 Social Analyst/Resettlement Specialist 8.0 9.5 M&E Specialist 20.0 32.3 Environmental Monitoring Specialist 15.0 7.0 O&M Specialist 16.0 11.6 Legal and Institutional Reform Senior National Legal Specialist 22.0 26.0 National Legal Expert 19.0 14.0 National Institutional Expert 19.0 18.5 Physical Measures Design and Construction Engineer 10.0 10.0 Non-Physical Measures Flood Telemetry Specialist 3.0 3.8 Flood Modeling Specialist 3.0 9.0 Flood Warning Specialist 42.0 5.0 Emergency Planner 16.0 9.2 Flood Coordination Expert 17.0 17.4 Senior Flood Management Engineer 22.0 3.0 GIS Specialist (Processing Survey Data) 6.0 2.7

28 Appendix 5

Position Allocation Actual use (person-months) (person-months) GIS Specialist (Update of Flood Risk Maps) 1.0 1.0 Database Specialist 4.0 8.5 Training Specialist 17.0 24.0 Plant Specialist 19.0 0.0 Feasibility Study Hydrology Design Specialist 6.0 6.0 Design Engineer and Estimator 4.0 3.0 Hydrologist 4.0 4.0 Morphologist 5.0 5.0 Environmental Specialist 3.0 2.5 O&M Specialist 2.0 2.7 Socio-Economist 3.0 5.5 Survey Specialist 3.0 5.5 Subtotal 510.0 510.0 Total 590.0 590.0 GIS = geographic information system, M&E = monitoring and evaluation, O&M = operation and maintenance, TL = team leader. Source: Asian Development Bank.

Appendix 6 29

ECONOMIC REEVALUATION

A. Introduction

1. The project was composed of structural and non-structural components, including (i) rehabilitation and new construction of flood embankment works in the Hamadoni district along the right bank of the Pyanj River; (ii) improvement of operation and maintenance (O&M) capacity through the provision of heavy equipment and vehicles for all four districts in the project area (i.e., Farkhor, Hamadoni, Kulyab, and Vose districts); and (iii) improvements to a number of non-structural flood management measures at the national, provincial and district levels. While each of these has provided (and will continue to provide) economic benefits, most of the project’s funding supported physical improvement works in the Hamadoni district. Therefore, the quantitative economic analysis for the project completion report focused on these physical improvement works, the Hamadoni district’s share of the costs of the non-physical improvements, and the associated benefits from the reductions in flood damage costs for the Hamadoni district. At project design, the Hamadoni district’s share of the costs of the non- physical improvements was excluded from the quantitative economic analysis.

2. The assumptions underlying the economic re-evaluation included the following: (i) all costs and prices are expressed in constant mid-2014 values. The Tajikistan and world inflation rates and the TJS–$ exchange rate series used to convert historic price data to 2014 values are shown in Table A6.1; (ii) economic values are estimated based on the domestic price numeraire; (iii) a shadow exchange rate factor of 1.11 was applied to the foreign exchange content of costs and benefits, and an opportunity cost of surplus labor factor of 0.85 was applied to unskilled labor;1 (iv) the economic cost of capital was assumed to be 12% (footnote 1); (v) the project’s economic life is assumed to be 30 years after completion of most of the physical works (June 2010). At project design the economic life was assumed to be 40 years. However, the government’s project completion report (PCR),2 and discussions with the project consultants during the PCR mission, suggested an economic life of 30 years as more appropriate. To the extent that the rehabilitated and newly constructed embankments last longer than 30 years (i.e., have a residual value at the end of that time) the analysis is conservative; and (vi) full economic benefits are assumed to be achieved from the completion of most of the infrastructure—i.e., prior to the 2010 flood season (July–August).

B. Project Costs

3. Most of the project’s funding was directed at the rehabilitation of embankments along the Pyanj River providing protection to vulnerable areas within the Hamadoni district. The costs for these civil works were included in the project costs in the economic analysis, along with (i) the costs of vehicles and equipment for flood embankment O&M procured under the project for the Hamadoni district; and (ii) the district’s share of the costs of the non-physical measures relating to flood mapping, flood forecasting, flood preparedness and flood responsiveness (based on

1 ADB. 2012. Project Completion Report on Irrigation Rehabilitation Project. Manila. 2 Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources. 2013. Khatlon Province Flood Risk Management Project Draft Project Completion Report. Dushanbe (ADB Loan No. 2356-TAJ[SF]).

30 Appendix 6

Hamadoni district’s share of the population at risk as identified by the flood risk maps).3 In addition, 77% of consultants’ costs and project management office costs were included, based on civil works costs as a percentage of total project costs. These various cost items amounted to 82% of total project financial costs (excluding interest costs during construction).

4. The changes in scope relating to rehabilitation and improvements to Chubek Canal head works, and the bridge and road to improve O&M access have been included in the project costs. This is conservative to the extent that the Chubek Canal serves a command area beyond just the Hamadoni and Farkhor districts, and no economic benefits beyond these districts are included in the economic analysis. The changes in scope relating to the emergency rehabilitation works for embankments on the Yakhsu and Kizilsu rivers in Vose and Kulyab districts, the Aivaj interstate hydrological monitoring station, and the replacement pipeline for the Shurchasai irrigation scheme in the Khuroson district have been excluded from the project costs in the economic analysis because there is no data available to quantify the benefits of these items. However, the cost of these items is relatively small in the context of total civil works costs (4.6% of financial costs for civil works); the benefits of these changes in project scope are discussed below in qualitative terms.

5. The annual financial costs (both Asian Development Bank (ADB) and government- financed) for the project were converted to economic values using (i) a shadow exchange rate factor applied to the tradable content of costs, and (ii) the opportunity cost of surplus labor factor applied to the unskilled labor content of civil works.4 Annual costs were also converted to 2014 constant price terms.

6. O&M costs have been estimated at 2% of capital costs. In financial terms this amounts to around TJS2.1 million ($434,000) per year, and is based on analysis by the consultants during project implementation.5 It was estimated that the O&M cost would be about 4% of capital costs per year where large embankment sections had not been rehabilitated and would need ongoing periodic renewal. However, the project (together with earlier embankment rehabilitation) would reduce required O&M costs for Hamadoni district embankments by 50%.

7. At project design, two O&M scenarios were considered. The first assumed that a medium level of O&M expenditure would eventuate, and required O&M expenditure of 1% of capital costs per year, with replacement investment costs equal to 5% of capital costs every 10 years. This was assumed to provide ongoing protection by the project against floods with a return period of up to 100 years. The second assumed a low level of O&M expenditure and required O&M expenditure of 0.25% of capital costs per year, with replacement investment costs equal to 15% of capital costs every 10 years. This was assumed to provide ongoing protection by the project against floods with a return period of up to 50 years.

8. The re-evaluation analysis assumes O&M costs are 2% of capital costs per year, which represents a slightly higher level of O&M (and replacement investment) expenditure than the medium project design scenario, and should provide sufficient funding for required replacement investment. Sensitivity testing examines the implications of a lower level of O&M funding and associated lower level of flood protection.

3 84,784 persons were at risk in Hamadoni district, accounting for 31% of the total of 270,723 persons at risk in the four districts of the project area (data from district statistical offices collected during project completion review mission). 4 Taxes and duties did not need to be deducted, because ADB disbursements excluded taxes and duties and the government received exemptions from taxes and duties on its share of the costs. 5 Section 6.9.4 of the final report of the implementation consultant on the project.

Appendix 6 31

C. Project Benefits

9. During project design, the project economic benefits have been based on an analysis of the damage caused by the July 2005 flood, which was assessed to be a flood with 15-year return period,6 extrapolated to expected impacts for floods having return periods of 5, 10, 20, 30, 50 and 100 years. The implementation consultants’ economic analysis (and government PCR) does not extrapolate impacts for different flood return periods, so the quantities for different types of assets have been taken from the project preparation technical assistance (TA) consultants’ economic analysis. However, the unit values for the cost of flood damage have been taken from the more recent implementation consultants’ analysis (also used in the government’s draft PCR), updated from 2012 to 2014 prices.

10. For residential damage, 100% of replacement costs are used for destroyed houses, 50% for partially damaged houses, and 20% for inundated houses. For damage to cotton crops, Table A6.2 provides an updated export parity price for seed cotton based upon past and forecast World Bank international prices for cotton fiber. The average value over 2008–2025 is used together with assumed losses of 1.75 tons per hectare (ha) for washed out and inundated areas of cotton, 0.4 tons per ha for areas of cotton affected by reduced irrigation in the Hamadoni district, and 0.27 tons per ha for areas of cotton affected by reduced irrigation in the Farkhor district.7 For social infrastructure damage costs, the estimates of damage costs for each of the return period floods is based on the data from the TA consultants’ economic analysis, updated to 2014 prices. The implementation consultants re-estimated the costs (in 2012) from a 15-year return period flood (the magnitude of the 2005 flood), considering public facilities, trunk roads, bridges, river embankments, canals and drop structures, pump stations for wells and irrigation, electrical transformers, water supply facilities, medical supply centers, livestock, additional fuel to cover lost electricity, and goods and services provided to evacuated persons. These costs have been converted to 2014 prices, and then divided by the social infrastructure damage costs estimated by the TA consultants for the same 2005 flood in 2007 prices to give a factor of 2.593. This factor is then used to convert the 2007 TA consultant’s estimates for saved social infrastructure damage costs for each of the different return period floods to 2014 values.

11. Table A6.3 shows the estimates for flood damage quantities and unit values for the 5-, 10-, 30-, 50- and 100-year return period floods for housing and personal effects, crops and social infrastructure. Table A6.4 shows the total values for saved flood damage costs for each of the flood return periods. The total estimated flood damage costs for each return period flood can be converted to an annualized flood damage cost using the mid-point probability method. The difference in probability of floods for each interval is multiplied by the average (mid-point) of the flood damage cost estimates. The calculations are shown in Table A6.5.

12. Assuming that without the project there would be full protection against up to 10-year return period floods, the annualized project benefits are TJS19.484 million. If the without-project

6 The government’s draft PCR suggests that the 2005 flood was a 10-year return period flood, relying on the implementation consultant’s final report. However, the TA consultants’ report prior to project design assesses the 2005 flood as a 15-year return period flood; this is a more conservative assumption, and was used in the analysis for this report. 7 These are the quantities assumed in the TA consultants’ and project design report economic analyses. The implementation consultants suggested during the project completion review mission that average yields for cotton in the project area are currently 2.1 tons per ha, suggesting the figures used in this re-evaluation are conservative. Also it appears less cotton is grown in the project area than was the case in 2007 as farmers switch to more profitable crops. To the extent that this continues to be the case in future years, the analysis in this report is again conservative.

32 Appendix 6

level of protection is only against floods with up to a 5-year return period, the annualized benefits are TJS31.132 million.

D. Economic Analysis Results

13. Table A6.6 combines the project capital and O&M costs and project benefits to calculate the estimated economic internal rate of return (EIRR) for the project as 14.3%. This compares with an EIRR estimated at project design of 16%, assuming a medium level of maintenance— 1% of capital costs per annum, replacement investment of 5% of capital costs every 10 years and protection against 100-year return period floods. The main reasons for the lower EIRR than at project design are: (i) the inclusion of the Hamadoni district’s share of non-physical component costs in the economic analysis (at project design these were excluded from the economic analysis); and (ii) a shortened assumed economic life for the protection works, to 30 years from the 40 years assumed at project design.8

14. If the level of O&M is reduced to 1% of capital costs and the level of protection reduced (to 50-year return period floods), the project’s EIRR is estimated to be 12.8%. This compares with a project design estimate of 13.7%, assuming a low level of maintenance—0.25% of capital costs per annum, replacement investment of 15% of capital costs every 10 years, and protection against 50-year return period floods.

E. Sensitivity Testing

15. The base case analysis assumed that without the project, the previous embankments would have continued to provide protection against floods with a return period of up to 10 years. However, if without the project, the embankments would have deteriorated and the level of protection would be only against floods with a return period of up to 5 years, the estimated EIRR for the project increases to 25.6%.

16. Decreasing project benefits by 10% reduces the base case EIRR from 14.3% to 12.3%. A decrease in benefits (or “switching value”) of 11.5% would be required to reduce the EIRR to 12%.

17. From information gathered during the PCR mission, it is clear that property values within the Hamadoni district flood plain have increased since 2007. This resulted from (i) combined increases in population, per capita incomes and wealth, and investment in housing and other assets; and (ii) the planting of more profitable crops (e.g., fruit trees, vineyards, and vegetables) in place of traditional crops such as cotton and wheat. As a sensitivity test, the EIRR was recalculated assuming an annual 2% average increase in the estimated flood damage cost savings, starting from 2010 and continuing to the end of the analysis period, to reflect the increasing value of property and other assets within the flood plain. The annual 2% figure is considered a conservative estimate, based on National Statistics Office recorded annual population growth for the Hamadoni district over the inter-census period 2007–2012 of 2.3%. Under this scenario the EIRR increases from 14.6% to 17.0%.

8 Increasing the project life from 30 to 40 years increases the EIRR from 14.3% to 14.5%—the change in the EIRR is small because of the effect of discounting.

Appendix 6 33

F. Non-quantified Economic Benefits

18. The estimated EIRR for the project has not taken account of the following economic benefits that will result from the project: (i) additional tasks that the O&M heavy vehicles and equipment are able to perform in the Hamadoni district—e.g., the construction of additional river embankments and drainage and irrigation canal clearance, rehabilitation and repair; and (ii) more efficient delivery of water as a result of improvements to the head works of the Chubek irrigation system that were undertaken as part of the project. To this extent the results of the economic analysis are conservative. As shown in sensitivity testing, the EIRR for the project would increase significantly if (i) it is assumed that without the project, the level of protection of the existing embankments would have continued to deteriorate; and/or (ii) an allowance is made for the increase in property and other asset values, which has and is expected to continue to occur within the flood plain.

19. The following factors were excluded from project benefits and costs in estimating the project’s EIRR: (i) the O&M heavy vehicles and equipment provided to the other districts in the project area (i.e., Farkhor, Kulyab, and Vose); (ii) the non-physical project components relating to flood risk mapping, flood preparedness, flood warning and flood evacuation for the other districts in the project area; and (iii) three changes in project scope—rehabilitation of embankments on the Yakhsu River and on the Kizilu River in Vose and Kulyab districts, the Aivaj hydropost, and the purchase of a 200 meter replacement pipeline for the Shurchasoy irrigation scheme in the Khuroson district of Khatlon Province.

20. The O&M heavy vehicles and equipment provided to the other districts will provide a range of benefits. In addition to increasing the government’s capacity and capability to maintain river embankments, they will enable the rehabilitation and new construction of embankments and the clearing and rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage canals. Non-infrastructure project outputs include improving Hydromet’s flood forecasting and flood-risk mapping capability, and improving district and village level flood preparedness, flood warning, and flood evacuation procedures, which will contribute to reductions in loss of life, injury, and property damage from flooding.

21. The change in project scope involving the rehabilitation of embankments on the Yakhsu and Kizilu rivers was in response to emergency repairs required following flood damage to the existing embankment. This expenditure has and will continue to contribute to the protection of residents and property in the Kulyab and Vose districts. The river flow monitoring equipment at Aivaj will enable more accurate measurement of Pyanj River flows, enabling Hydromet to produce more accurate water depth and water discharge volume curves for the cross section of the river at Aivaj. It will also enable the Tajikistan and Afghanistan governments to prove actual water intake upstream of the station, in accordance with water withdrawal volumes agreed with downstream countries. Finally, the replacement pipeline for the Shurchasoy irrigation scheme financed under the project will contribute to the maintenance of the irrigation water supply to a command area of some 10,000 ha, and drinking water to a population of at least 10,000 people.

22. The costs of each of these items are relatively small as a proportion of total project costs, but their overall benefits are likely to be significant.

3

Table A6.1: Exchange Rates, Inflation Rates, and International Cotton Prices 4

Appendix Appendix Item 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015–2020 2021–2025

Exchange Rate (TJS/$) 3.44 3.43 4.14 4.38 4.61 4.76 4.80 4.80 6

Tajikistan Inflation 100.0 111.8 117.4 128.9 140.9 149.9 157.5 167.0

International Inflation 100.0 107.8 101.1 104.9 114.2 112.8 111.3 111.7

Cotton Prices ($/kg) 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.4 3.3 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 kg = kilogram. Sources: Exchange rate: ADB. 2013. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2013. Manila (2006-12); ADB. 2014. Asian Development Bank Outlook. Manila (2013-14). Tajikistan inflation: ADB. 2013. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2013. Manila (2006-12); ADB. 2014. Asian Development Bank Outlook. Manila (2013- 14). International inflation: Manufacturers' Unit Value index. http://go.worldbank.org/SZXEODLF60; for 2006–2013, World Bank. 2014. World Bank Commodities Price Data (The Pink Sheet), 6 January 2014. Washington, D.C.; for 2014: World Bank. 2014. Global Economic Prospects: Commodity Markets Outlook, April 2014. Washington, D.C. Cotton prices: Cotton Outlook "Cotlook A index" middling 1-3/32 inch, traded in Far East. http://www.cotlook.com/information/the-cotlook-indices-an- explanation/; World Bank. 2014. World Bank Prospects for the Global Economy (constant 2014 prices). http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?source=global-economic-prospects (accessed 22 May 2014).

Table A6.2: Financial and Economic Farmgate Prices for Seed Cotton (2014 Prices)

Financial Prices Economic Prices Item 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 World price $/mt 2,000 2,400 3,300 1,900 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,900 Quality adjustment factor (92%) 1,840 2,208 3,036 1,748 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,748 Less international shipping freight and insurance 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 At port price 1,489 1,857 2,685 1,397 1,489 1,489 1,489 1,489 1,397 Exchange rate: TJS/$ 4.80 4.38 4.61 4.76 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80

At port price TJS/mt 7,147 8,134 12,378 6,650 7,147 7,147 7,147 7,147 6,706 Adjustment for shadow exchange rate (x1.11) 9,028 13,739 7,381 7,933 7,933 7,933 7,933 7,443 Less transport and handling gin to port (2.5%) 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Less ginning costs (per mt of fiber) 1,192 1,192 1,192 1,192 1,192 1,192 1,192 1,192 1,192 Ex-ginnery price of cotton fiber 5,776 7,657 12,368 6,010 6,562 6,562 6,562 6,562 6,072 Processing ratio (30%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cotton fiber value per metric ton of seed cotton 1,733 2,297 3,711 1,803 1,969 1,969 1,969 1,969 1,822 Value of linters per ton of seed cotton (1.4%) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Value of cotton seeds per ton of seed cotton 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 Ginnery door value of seed cotton 1,875 2,440 3,853 1,945 2,111 2,111 2,111 2,111 1,964 Average ginnery door value of seed cotton (2010-2025)=2,184TJS/mt mt = metric ton, TJS = Tajikistan somoni. Source: ADB. 2012. Completion Report. Tajikistan Irrigation Rehabilitation Project. Manila. (30% yield, not 33% assumed based on the government project completion report).

Appendix

6 6

35

36

Table A6.3: Economic Benefits – Quantities and Unit Values of Saved Flood Damage Costs

Appendix Total Value 5-year Unit Value 10-year Unit Value 20-year Unit Value 30-year Unit Value 50-year Unit Value 100-year Unit Value TJS Item Unit Quantity (TJS) Quantity (TJS) Quantity (TJS) Quantity (TJS) Quantity (TJS) Quantity (TJS) (‘000)

6

Houses Totally destroyed no 80 112,187 83 112,187 180 112,187 183 112,187 185 112,187 187 112,187 20,979

Partially destroyed no 76 56,094 79 56,094 172 56,094 175 56,094 177 56,094 179 56,094 10,041 Inundated no 177 22,437 183 22,437 396 22,437 403 22,437 408 22,437 412 22,437 9,244

Personal effects no 333 2,863 345 2,863 748 2,863 761 2,863 770 2,863 778 2,863 2,228 Agricultural tools and equipment no 333 891 345 891 748 891 761 891 770 891 778 891 693

Cotton Washed out Hamadoni ha 159 3,822 172 3,822 247 3,822 249 3,822 253 3,822 256 3,822 977 Inundated Hamadoni ha 1,430 3,822 1,531 3,822 4,348 3,822 4,386 3,822 4,484 3,822 4,618 3,822 17,652 Lack of irrigation Hamadoni ha 1,458 874 1,465 874 1,480 874 1,665 874 2,060 874 1,974 874 1,725 Lack of irrigation Farkhor ha 12,937 590 12,937 590 12,937 590 12,937 590 12,937 590 12,937 590 7,629

Crops in household plots ha 50 3,960 52 3,960 111 3,960 113 3,960 115 3,960 116 3,960 459

Vineyards ha 48 4,730 50 4,730 136 4,730 136 4,730 138 4,730 149 4,730 704

Other crops ha 922 2,310 980 2,310 2,908 2,310 2,931 2,310 2,990 2,310 3,071 2,310 7,093

Damage to social infrastructure 1 78,494,444 1 80,330,692 1 172,290,095 1 176,671,816 1 184,687,348 1 186,887,235 186,887 ha = hectare, no = number. Source: The final report of the implementation consultant on the project updated with data gathered during project completion review mission.

Table A6.4: Economic Benefits — Total Values of Saved Damage Costs

5-year 10-year 20-year 30-year 50-year 100-year Total Value Total Value Total Value Total Value Total Value Total Value Flood Return Period (TJS ‘000) (TJS ‘000) (TJS ‘000) (TJS ‘000) (TJS ‘000) (TJS ‘000) Houses Totally destroyed 8,975 9,312 20,194 20,530 20,755 20,979 Partially destroyed 4,263 4,431 9,648 9,816 9,929 10,041 Inundated 3,971 4,106 8,885 9,042 9,154 9,244

Personal effects 953 988 2,142 2,179 2,205 2,228 Agricultural tools and equipment 297 307 667 678 686 693

Cotton Washed out Hamadoni 607 657 944 952 966 977 Inundated Hamadoni 5,467 5,853 16,620 16,764 17,138 17,652 Lack of irrigation Hamadoni 1,274 1,280 1,293 1,455 1,800 1,725 Lack of irrigation Farkhor 7,629 7,629 7,629 7,629 7,629 7,629

Crops in household plots 196 204 441 449 454 459

Vineyards 229 238 643 645 650 704

Other crops 2,129 2,263 6,717 6,771 6,907 7,093

Damage to social infrastructure 78,921 80,767 173,225 177,631 185,690 187,902

Total 114,912 118,035 249,048 254,542 263,963 267,326 Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

A

pp

endix endix

6

37

Table A6.5: Annualized Economic Benefits Calculation 38 (TJS ‘000)

A

ppendix Return Period 5-year 10-year 20-year 30-year 50-year 100-year Probability 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.033 0.02 0.01

6 Probability difference 0.1 0.05 0.017 0.013 0.01 0.005

Mid-point damage 116,474 183,542 251,795 259,252 265,644 267326

Annual benefits 11,647 9,177 4,281 3,370 2,656 1337

Total with project benefits (100-year protection) 31,132

Total without project benefits (100-year protection) 11,647 Net benefits 19,484 Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

Appendix 6 39

Table A6.6: Economic Analysis of Project

TJS (‘000) Net Economic Year Capex Costs O&M Costs Benefits Benefits 2008 15,492 (15,492) 2009 55,575 (55,575) 2010 20,695 1,278 19,484 (2,488) 2011 26,094 2,556 19,484 (9,165) 2012 6,440 2,556 19,484 10,489 2013 3,122 2,556 19,484 13,806 2014 380 2,556 19,484 16,549 2015 2,556 19,484 16,928 2016 2,556 19,484 16,928 2017 2,556 19,484 16,928 2018 2,556 19,484 16,928 2019 2,556 19,484 16,928 2020 2,556 19,484 16,928 2021 2,556 19,484 16,928 2022 2,556 19,484 16,928 2023 2,556 19,484 16,928 2024 2,556 19,484 16,928 2025 2,556 19,484 16,928 2026 2,556 19,484 16,928 2027 2,556 19,484 16,928 2028 2,556 19,484 16,928 2029 2,556 19,484 16,928 2030 2,556 19,484 16,928 2031 2,556 19,484 16,928 2032 2,398 19,484 16,928 2033 2,398 19,484 16,928 2034 2,398 19,484 16,928 2035 2,398 19,484 16,928 2036 2,398 19,484 16,928 2037 2,398 19,484 16,928 2038 2,398 19,484 16,928 2039 2,398 19,484 16,928 Total 127,797 EIRR = 14.3% ( ) = negative, EIRR = economic internal rate of return , O&M = operation and maintenance. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

40 Appendix 7

CONTRIBUTION TO THE ADB RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Level 2 Results Framework Indicators Estimated No. (Outputs) Achievements Methods / Comments 1 Land improved through irrigation, drainage, 23,121 hectares The benefit was achieved and/or flood management (hectares) through effective and sustainable flood management structural facilities, such as flood embankments, and non-physical flood risk mitigation systems, and also a strengthened institutional and legal framework concerning flood risk management. Source: ADB. 2006. Technical Assistance to Tajikistan for Khatlon Province Flood Risk Management Project (Consultant Final Report in May 2007). Manila. Number of households in the consultant final report updated with data gathered during project completion review mission.