The World Bank
Document of The World Bank
Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: ICR2535
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-76710 IDA-39380)
ON A
Public Disclosure Authorized CREDIT
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 13.8 MILLION (US$ 20 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
AND AN
ADDITIONAL FINANCING LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF US$70 MILLION
TO
GEORGIA Public Disclosure Authorized FOR A
SECONDARY AND LOCAL ROADS PROJECT
March 26, 2013
Public Disclosure Authorized Sustainable Development Department South Caucasus Unit Europe and Central Asia Region
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective 18th February 2013) Currency Unit = Georgian Lari (GEL) US$ 1.00 = 1.65 GEL 1.00 GEL = US$ 0.60
FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AF Additional Financing EA Environmental Assessment EMF Environmental Management Framework EMP Environmental Management Plan ERR Economic Rate of Return FSU Former Soviet Union GDP Gross Domestic Product HDM Highway Development and Management IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IDA International Development Association ISR Implementation Status Report LIC Learning and Innovation Credit MoE Ministry of Environment MTR Mid-Term Review NPV Net Present Value PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective PIU Project Implementation Unit RD Roads Department RDMID Roads Department of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure RMC Road Management Committee SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SLRP Secondary and Local Roads Project TA Technical Assistance TRRC Transport Reform and Rehabilitation Center
Vice President: Philippe LeHouérou Country Director: Henry Kerali Sector Manager: Juan Gaviria Project Team Leader: Joseph Melitauri ICR Team Leader: George Banjo
GEORGIA SECONDARY AND LOCAL ROADS PROJECT
CONTENTS
Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph
1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ...... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ...... 7 3. Assessment of Outcomes ...... 16 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ...... 23 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ...... 23 6. Lessons Learned...... 25 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners...... 25 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing ...... 27 Annex 2. Outputs by Component...... 28 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ...... 30 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/ Supervision Processes ...... 35 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ...... 37 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ...... 39 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ...... 40 Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/ Stakeholders ...... 57 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...... 58 MAP ...... 59
A. Basic Information
Secondary & Local Country: Georgia Project Name: Roads Project IBRD-76710,IDA- Project ID: P086277 L/C/TF Number(s): 39380 ICR Date: 03/26/2013 ICR Type: Core ICR Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: GEORGIA Original Total USD 20.00M Disbursed Amount: USD 90.69M Commitment: Revised Amount: USD 89.69M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Roads Department of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure (RDMRDI) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:
B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 12/22/2003 Effectiveness: 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 12/27/2006 03/19/2009 Appraisal: 04/30/2004 Restructuring(s): 02/25/2010 10/28/2011 Approval: 06/24/2004 Mid-term Review: 07/31/2007 11/03/2006 Closing: 10/31/2009 06/30/2012
C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Low or Negligible Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory
C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Satisfactory Overall Borrower Satisfactory
Performance: Performance:
C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No Satisfactory at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of No None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): DO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status:
D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 4 4 Roads and highways 96 96
Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Decentralization 17 17 Infrastructure services for private sector development 33 33 Participation and civic engagement 17 17 Rural services and infrastructure 33 33
E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Philippe H. Le Houerou Shigeo Katsu Country Director: Henry G. R. Kerali D-M Dowsett-Coirolo Sector Manager: Juan Gaviria Motoo Konishi Project Team Leader: Joseph Melitauri Olivier P. Le Ber ICR Team Leader: George A. Banjo ICR Primary Author: George A. Banjo
F. Results Framework Analysis
Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) (1) Improve the Economic and Social Well-Being of the Rural Population in Selected Areas Through Upgrading of their Secondary and Local Road Networks; (2) Improve the Effectiveness of RDMED in Respect to its Maintenance of a Cost Effective and Sustainable Secondary and Local Road Network; and
(3) Improve the Effectiveness of RDMED in Respect to its Interaction with Local Communities and its Responsiveness to Local Needs.
Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) (1) Upgrade and rehabilitate the secondary and local roads network; and (2) Improve RDMRDI's and local governments' capacity to manage the road network in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.
(a) PDO Indicator(s)
Original Target Formally Actual Value Values (from Revised Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years Indicator 1 : Road maintenance and rehabilitation expenditures (GEL million) Value quantitative or 20 150.3 155 184 Qualitative) Date achieved 08/31/2004 03/31/2011 03/31/2012 06/30/2012 Comments (incl. % Target exceeded. achievement) Indicator 2 : Number of person-month of jobs created (Bank estimates) Value quantitative or 0 10122 24,000 13,431 Qualitative) Date achieved 03/19/2009 03/31/2011 03/31/2012 06/30/2012 Comments Target not met. Based on assumption of use of labor intensive work methods. In (incl. % reality, modern methodologies and technologies were applied during construction achievement) which led to the need for less labor. Indicator 3 : Annual Report published Value quantitative or 0 Yes - Yes. Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 03/19/2009 06/30/2012 Comments (incl. % Target met – total of 6 reports published between 2006 and 2011. achievement) Indicator 4 : Size of the total classified network (km) Value quantitative or 3392.00 3392.00 - 3392.00 Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 03/19/2009 06/30/2012 Comments (incl. % The target met. achievement) Travel time improvement (percent) over current situation on targeted road Indicator 5 : sections.
Value quantitative or 0 16.8 % 20 % 19.9 % Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 03/19/2009 06/30/2012 Comments (incl. % The target met - 20% reduction in 2010 and 2011. achievement) Indicator 6 : Road management committees (dropped) Informal road committees exist within local Value governments – quantitative or 0 8 dropped exact figure to be Qualitative) assessed , but likely above target number Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 04/14/2008 06/30/2012 Comments Unclear if target achieved as of time PDO revision but would have been by (incl. % original closing date achievement) Indicator 7 : Unit cost of secondary roads rehabilitated (GEL000/km) (dropped) Value quantitative or 170 186 80 droppped Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 11/27/2007 06/30/2008 06/30/2012 Comments Target not met as unit cost increased as of time of PDO revision but was likely to (incl. % be achieved by original closing date (see economic analysis) achievement) Indicator 8 : Unit cost of local roads rehabilitated (GEL000/km) (dropped) Value quantitative or 90 132 40 dropped Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 11/27/2007 06/30/2012 Comments (incl. % Target met. achievement)
(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)
Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Indicator 1 : Rehabilitation of approximately 690-710 km of secondary roads. Value 690-710 (quantitative 0 300 (Third 693 or Qualitative) Restructuring) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 02/25/2010 06/30/2012
Comments Target met. However, 62 km of these roads were reclassified as local roads. (incl. % (Target value after 1st Restructuring 175, 565 after Additional Financing) achievement) Indicator 2 : Rehabilitation of approximately 150-170 km of local roads (km). Value 150-170 (quantitative 0 200 (Third 211 or Qualitative) restructuring) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 02/25/2010 06/30/2012 Comments Targets met. 75 km of local roads rehabilitated under the SLRP, 136 km roads (incl. % rehabilitated under SLRP AF. Some of the local roads were reclassified as achievement) secondary roads in the first restructuring of the project. Indicator 3 : Regional offices operational (number) Value (quantitative 0 6 - 6 or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 02/25/2010 06/30/2012 Comments (incl. % Target met. Regional offices continue to be operational, as planned. achievement) Indicator 4 : Traffic police trained/ year (NBF) Value (quantitative 0 100 - 148 or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 02/25/2010 06/30/2012 Comments (incl. % Target met. achievement) Indicator 5 : 5-Year Rolling Maintenance Plans Prepared Value (quantitative no yes yes yes or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 02/25/2010 06/30/2012 Comments Target met. The RD has developed 5 year rolling plan and is using it as tool for (incl. % planning of investments. achievement) Indicator 6 : Geometric Design Standard Adopted Value (quantitative no yes - yes or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 02/25/2010 06/30/2012 Comments (incl. % Target met. Standards were adopted in February 2009 and being used. achievement) Indicator 7 : Design and Maintenance standards adopted Value (quantitative no yes - partially or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 02/25/2010 06/30/2012
Comments The design and maintenance standards were only partially adopted by the RD as (incl. % a result of agreement not being able to be reached on the appropriateness of some achievement) of the recommendations. Indicator 8 : Guidebook produced and provided to local governments Value yes (after 3rd (quantitative no - yes restructuring) or Qualitative) Date achieved 03/19/2009 03/19/2009 03/31/2011 06/30/2012 Comments Target met. The guidebook has been produced and provided to local (incl. % governments during workshop achievement) Indicator 9 : Workshops for local governments conducted Value (quantitative no - - yes or Qualitative) Date achieved 03/19/2009 03/19/2009 02/25/2010 06/30/2012 Comments Target met: two-day workshop led by MRDI and RD organized and guide books (incl. % and manuals were distributed to 140 representatives from LSGs and 20 from achievement) respective central government agencies. Indicator 10 : 850 km of roads designed. Value 850 (3rd (quantitative 0 600 990 restructuring) or Qualitative) Date achieved 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 02/25/2010 06/30/2012 Comments Target met. SLRP financed designs for 260 km roads, SLRP AF financed (incl. % additional 730 km road sections; exceeding target by an additional 140km. achievement)
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
Actual Date ISR No. DO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 10/08/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 11/17/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 3 02/27/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 4 08/02/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.30 5 06/16/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.20 6 09/26/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.67 7 12/20/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 7.33 8 09/05/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 13.43 9 05/28/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 19.43 10 09/29/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 20.03 11 04/16/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 21.00 12 10/20/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 50.62 13 04/01/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 55.83 14 12/18/2010 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 71.34
15 08/07/2011 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 79.21 16 06/26/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 90.83
H. Restructuring (if any)
ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Disbursed at Restructuring Reason for Restructuring & Approved Restructuring Date(s) Key Changes Made PDO Change DO IP in USD millions The first restructuring led to a change in the scope of component 1 to ‘rehabilitation of about 250 km of secondar and local roads, including about 75 km of local roads, carrying 12/27/2006 N S S 7.33 out drainage improvements and providing signage and access to adjacent properties.’ The 250 km of roads to be rehabilitated would however be to standards higher than agreed at appraisal. The restructuring for the Additional Financing provided for the rehabilitation of an additional 450 km of roads; targets for secondary and local roads were increased respectively. New activities 03/19/2009 N S S 21.00 such as guidebooks and workshops for local government were added. Design of additional roads was increased to 730 km. Closing date of project was extended to October 31, 2011. This was a level 2 restructuring to increase the lengths of roads to be rehabilitated to between 02/25/2010 N S S 55.83 590 to 630 km instead of 450 km, plus an increase in the number of roads to be designed. This was a Level 2 restructuring 10/28/2011 S MS 90.83 to extend the closing date of the project to July 31, 2012.
I. Disbursement Profile
1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design
1.1 Context at Appraisal
At the time of appraisal for the Secondary and Local Road Project (SLRP), in early 2004, Georgia was still recovering from the economic shocks caused by disintegration of the Former Soviet Union and the subsequent civil war. The country also suffered the effects of two years of sustained drought and an earthquake. Despite these shocks, there were periods of strong economic performance, primarily reflecting the initiative of the private sector in taking advantage of emerging opportunities. However, the country still showed its heavy reliance on agriculture, which provided 56% of employment and accounted for 18% of GDP in 2002. An important feature of Georgia’s economy was trading with its neighbors (both transit and bilateral), totaling $2 billion in 2002, which was high in relation to its GDP of $3.3 billion in the same year. The population at this time was around 5 million with 40 percent living in the rural areas. The incidence of extreme poverty in Georgia was around 11 percent, but exceeded 30 percent in many rural areas. Official per capita GDP in was $660 at the time of appraisal.
In 2002, the road network in Georgia consisted of 1,474 kilometers of main roads with about 70 per cent in good to fair condition; 3,392 kilometers of secondary roads of which over 60 percent were in poor condition and needed rehabilitation; and 15,429 kilometers of local roads which were, on average, in very poor condition. The condition of the secondary and local road network reflected the severe reduction in resources allocated to road maintenance. Despite the existence of a Road Fund, revenues were estimated to be about a third of what was needed for maintenance; only a fraction of this was allocated to the rural road network. The poor road quality was estimated to raise transport costs by 28-56%, deterring transport operators from using rural road due to excessive damage to their vehicles.
Prior to SLRP, Bank operations in the Transport sector had focused primarily on the main highway networks because of their importance for trade and transit, and on institutional strengthening of the Roads Department (RD). However, the SLRP focused on rehabilitating important sections of the rural network, while improving its sustainability and road safety in tandem. This was important both to spur agricultural output, and to make various social services more accessible to the rural poor.
Although rehabilitation of the extensive rural network was a major challenge, a bigger challenge was the transformation of a centralized, institutional structure in the road sector to one more responsive to local needs and to the demands of a market economy. There had been previous attempts by the Government to modernize the Ministry of Transport and Communications using a Bank Learning and Innovation Credit (LIC). While some progress on institutional issues had been achieved, many issues remained unresolved. The then reliance on inefficient and costly Soviet era design and construction standards was not economically viable, exacerbating the maintenance problem. Furthermore, the lack of a framework for the involvement of local communities in the planning and development
1
of roads meant that the needs of road users were not aligned with the road planning decision-making process.
The original Project supported the priorities of the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Program (EDPRP) of Georgia, June 2003 and the Bank’s assistance strategy for Georgia through: support for sustainable growth of the rural economy; improving expenditure management through reducing costs and better programming of available resources in the roads sector; and strengthening institutional capacity and governance through introduction of modem road management systems and participatory mechanisms for road sector programs at the local level. More specifically, the project supported broad-based growth through a pilot program for rural roads, which prepared the ground for a more extensive, and more cost effective, program to improve rural access. The resulting improvements in access were expected to benefit producers through reductions in the cost of inputs and increases in farm gate prices for outputs. Expenditure management was expected to improve as a result of multi-year plans and cost-effective designs. Road management systems for engineering-economic prioritization of projects combined with community participation in the planning of local road expenditures was expected to improve road programming and budgeting and also serve monitoring to ensure that monies are well spent. The Project was designed to institute these arrangements as a permanent feature of the annual planning cycle in the road sector.
The rationale for the World Bank’s involvement in the SLRP were the following: (i) the Bank was uniquely placed to help the Government and RDMID gain from experience in other countries experiencing similar challenges (in Europe and the FSU, and also in Latin America and Asia) in terms of community participation, innovative technologies, and appropriate design standards for the secondary and local road network, which contributed to the advancement of the Government’s objectives for the sector; (ii) improvements in access for rural areas, where many of Georgia’s poor resided, was particularly suited to the Bank’s involvement in view of its special commitment to, and extensive experience in addressing poverty issues; and (iii) the Bank had broad experience in Georgia’s transport sector. The trust that had resulted from this long involvement meant that the Bank was in a good position to provide substantive assistance to the Government and RDMID for the needed institutional reforms in the sector.
The rational for agreeing to the Government’s request for additional financing to rehabilitate an additional 450 km of secondary and local roads were stated as (i) the original project was well performing with technical documents for about 65% of the roads proposed for rehabilitation under the additional financing already prepared under the original SLRP or state budget thus ensuring fast commencement of implementation; (ii) increasing employment opportunities and laying the ground work for improved economic productivity in the future.
2
1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved)
The main objective of the proposed Project were to: (a) improve the economic and social well-being of the rural population in selected areas through upgrading of their secondary and local road networks; (b) improve the effectiveness of Road Department of the Ministry of Infrastructure to maintain a cost effective and sustainable secondary and local road network; and (c) improve the effectiveness of Road Department of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development in its interaction with local communities and its responsiveness to local needs. Assessment of the Project was designed to be undertaken using the following set of quantitative and qualitative indicators:
a. Linked to the first PDO: (i) reduction in transport cost and (ii) increases in off- farm employment income.1 b. Linked to the second PDO: (i) reductions in the unit cost of road works; and (ii) annual expenditures on secondary and local road maintenance. c. Linked to the third PDO: Annual publication of road condition, expenditure and future program information; and (ii) preparation of a proposal for annual local road improvements by each Road Management Committee2
Not explicitly linked to a PDO but related to the third PDO was statements that the Project would assist the RDMID establish regional offices to allow closer linkages with communities, and better monitoring of implementation.
It is noted that the results framework in the PAD did not include the indicators linked to the first PDO. This was corrected in the course of the restructuring related to the Additional Financing.
1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification
The revised PDO at the time of the Additional Financing which involved a Level 1 restructuring of the Project were to: (i) upgrade and rehabilitate the secondary and local roads networks; and (ii) improve 3 Roads Department of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructures’ and local governments’ capacity to manage the road network in a cost effective and sustainable manner. To better measure the revised PDO and fully capture the impact of the rehabilitated roads and their contribution to poverty alleviation within the Project, two new outcome indicators and three new intermediate indicators were added to the results framework. The additional outcome indicators were (i) travel time improvement over current situation on targeted road sections; and (ii)
1 The off-farm employment to be measured was those created from the execution of civil works under the project. 2 The composition of the RMC provided opportunity for representatives of the RDMID to interact with the local governments and communities. 3 This is as per the supplemental paper no 2 for the AF. 3
number of person-months of jobs created (Bank estimates). The three new intermediate indicators were: (i) guidebook produced and provided to Local governments; and (iii) workshop for local governments conducted; and (iii) 730 km of roads designed. The latter indicator was a useful addition as it provided a more measurable indicator for component 3 compared with that stated in the appraisal results framework. Increases in the scope of planned road rehabilitation with the additional financing were reflected by adjustments to relevant targets for the Project.
1.4 Main Beneficiaries
There was no specific mention of the ‘primary target groups’ or ‘beneficiaries’ in the PAD. However, the Project objectives and key indicators suggests that the primary beneficiaries of the SLRP would be the rural communities living in the vicinity of the road improvements. Socio-economic surveys4 carried out during Project preparation had suggested that road improvements would have a positive impact on the economic and social well-being of rural Georgia. The reduction in transport costs were expected to increase the competitiveness of local produce, improve access to social services, i.e. schools and medical facilities, and to off-farm employment opportunities. The safety of road users and pedestrians were also expected to improve as a result of the road improvements. In addition, tourism was expected to improve in rural areas, which has historically been an important sector of the Georgian economy.
From the PAD, the secondary beneficiaries of the Project were expected to be the Road Department of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (RDMID). The institutional component of the Project was expected to improve RDMID’s management capacity of the secondary and local road network; through better funding and organization of road maintenance and rehabilitation, and by introducing more cost- effective contracting mechanisms. In addition, the Project was expected to improve RDMID’s interaction with communities and its responsiveness to local needs, through well-functioning participatory mechanisms.
Activities included under the additional financing made more direct the benefits of the local governments from the Project in the form of the production of guidebooks for the maintenance of local roads and conduct of a workshop to explain their use to the local governments. These were intended to improve the local governments’ knowledge of good practice in the preparation and delivery of road maintenance works.
1.5 Original Components (as approved)
Component 1: Rehabilitation of approximately 500 to 750 kilometers of paved secondary and local roads, including between 150 to 250 kilometers of local roads (US$ 22.54 million).
4 Secondary and Local Roads Economic Evaluation and Poverty Impact Study, INOCSA, Madrid, 2004 4
Component 2: Strengthening the capacity of road sector institutions by improving engineering standards and data collection capabilities, establishing between four and six regional offices for network and works monitoring, development and implementation of regional road maintenance plans, improved interactions with local communities, and traffic safety enhancements (US$2.40 million); and
Component 3: Design and supervision of the road works and to produce reports for the Mid-Term Review to evaluate the first year program (US$2.50 million).
It was also envisaged to provide trust fund support for the training of traffic police, through a twinning arrangement in traffic safety enforcement, crash data recording and analysis, and traffic police work in general. Required equipment was to be acquired under component (2) above.
With the initial Project nearing completion, a decision was taken to expand its scope through an Additional Financing operation. The Additional Financing involved a Level 1 restructuring of the Project. While the Project components remained unchanged, additional civil works and technical assistance (TA) activities were added.
1.6 Revised Components
The Additional Financing and restructuring resulted in the following revised components for the Project:
Component 1: Rehabilitating about 700 kilometers of secondary and local roads, include some 565 km of secondary and 135 km of local roads in six regions throughout Georgia.
Component 2: Strengthening the Capacity of Road Sector Institutions: (a) strengthening the capacity of RDMRDI and its six regional offices in management and maintenance of the secondary road network through the provision of: (i) consultants’ services for data collection; (ii) computer equipment, laboratory, equipment, vehicles and office furniture; and (iii) training (b) Strengthening the capacity of local government units in management and maintenance of local road network through: (i) the provision of consultants’ services for assessing needs and resources of the local governments for roads maintenance and for designing a local road management and maintenance resource manual; and (ii) conducting workshops for local governments on local road management and maintenance; and (c) Provision of consultants’ services for preparing project audits.
Component 3: Designing and Supervising Road Rehabilitation: Designing about 150 kilometers of road rehabilitation and supervising approximately 450 kilometers of road rehabilitation works, through the provision of consultants’ services.
1.7 Other significant changes
The design of the Project did not change during implementation but the scope did with opportunities taken to increase the responsiveness of the Project to changing policy and
5
institutional environments by making more explicit the assistance under the Project to the RDMID and the local governments to increase their capacity to manage and maintain their road network. The change in design and scope were reflected through four restructurings of the Project as outlined in the table below.
No. Type of Date Approving Major changes restructuring approved authority 1 Level Two 12/27/2006 CD To increase scope of component 1 to ‘rehabilitation of about 250 km of secondary and local roads, including about 75 km of local roads, carrying out drainage improvements and providing sinage and access to adjacent properties’. The 250 km of roads were to be constructed to design standards higher than at appraisal. 2 Level One 03/19/2009 Board The restructuring for the Additional Financing revised the PDO and provided for the rehabilitation of an additional 450 km of roads and increase in the targets for secondary and local roads. New activities such as preparation of guidebooks and conduct of workshops for local government were added. Design of additional roads was increased to 730 km. Closing date of the Project was extended to October 31, 2011. 3 Level Two 02/25/2010 CD To increase the lengths of roads to be rehabilitated to between 590 to 630 km instead of 450 km, plus an increase in the number of roads to be designed. 4 Level Two 10/28/2011 CD Extension of the closing date of the Project to July 31, 2012.
The first restructuring5 led to a change in the scope of component 1 to ‘rehabilitation of about 250 km of secondary and local roads, including about 75 km of local roads, carrying out drainage improvements and providing signage and access to adjacent properties.’ The reduction in the original length of roads to be rehabilitated was a result of agreement to increase the standard of rehabilitation to be carried out relative to those agreed at appraisal.
The second restructuring was linked to an additional financing of US$70 million to allow for the rehabilitation of an additional 450 km of roads comprising about 390 km of
5 Approved by the Regional Vice-President on December 27, 2006. 6
secondary roads and 60 km of local roads.6 This increased the target length of roads to be rehabilitated under component 1 of the Project to approximately 565km and 135 km for secondary and local roads respectively7. Regarding component 2, two new activities were added (i) guidebook produced and provided to local governments and (ii) workshop for local government conducted under component 2 while component 3 saw an increase in the consulting services due to an increase in the length of roads to be designed as 730 km and supervised. The PDO for the Project was revised as part of the restructuring (see 1.3). To allow the additional civil works and TA activities to be undertaken, the original closing date of the Project was extended by 24 months from October 31, 2009 to October 31, 2011. The additional financing was approved by the Board of Directors on March 19, 2009.8
The third restructuring was a level 2 restructuring to increase the lengths of roads to be rehabilitated under component 1 from 450 km to between 590 to 630 km, increase the length of roads being designed and supervised under component 3 from 150 km to 250 km and from 450 km to 590 to 630 km respectively. This restructuring was approved on February 25, 2010.
The fourth and final restructuring was also a level 2 and was approved on October 28, 2011. Its purpose was to extend the closing date of the project from October 31, 2011 to June 30, 2012 to allow completion of two civil works contracts which had experienced some delay.
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry
Background analysis. Project preparation included a comprehensive analysis of the challenges facing the road sector at the time of appraisal and extensive dialogues with the Government to assist it define a responsive strategy9. These analyses led Government to two important conclusions: (i) the transit movement east to west through Georgia is important to Georgia’s economy and its better integration to the world economy; and (ii) the condition of the road network beyond the national highway was poor reflecting historically inadequate maintenance expenditures 10 and was a major impediment to development, particularly for the rural economy. Most critical was funding of the maintenance of secondary and local roads, essential for access to both to the primary
6 In the signed Loan Agreement (LN 7671-GE) dated February 25, 2010 the target length was stated as between 590 to 630 km. These figures are the total length of roads to be rehabilitated while the figures stated in the PAD are the additional length to be rehabilitated under the additional financing. 7 Supplemental letter No. 2 of March 25, 2009. 8 Georgia: The Secondary and Local Roads Project - Additional Financing (P114365) 9 The studies included ‘Transport Sector Review of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia’, ECSIE, World Bank, 2002 and ‘Trade and Transport Facilitation in the South Caucasus – A Georgia Policy Note- ECSIE, World Bank, 2003.’ 10 In 2002, the sector review had revealed maintenance expenditure to be about US$600 per kilometer against a need of between US$4,000 to US$6,000. 7
network and to markets and social services for communities in the more remote areas. The poor condition of the secondary and local roads was adjudged to be contributing to increased incidence of both relative and extreme poverty. A third strand of findings from the background analysis related to the challenge to transform the centralized institutional and administrative structures of Government to make them more responsive to the demands of a market economy and to local needs. Quite importantly, it indicated a need for continued efforts to move road design and construction practices away from the old Soviet era methods and to establish a framework for involving local communities in the development and upkeep of their roads.
The scale of the problem suggested by the background analysis led the Project to be seen as a pilot (p18 of PAD). It was to be the first of a potential series of interventions directed at: (i) improving the condition of the extensive secondary and local roads network of Georgia; (ii) introducing methods and practices that would strengthen the institutional framework for managing the secondary and local roads of Georgia; and (iii) technical assistance to improve practices relating to the design and supervision of works. Allied to these elements was a need to increase the expenditure on maintenance while at the same time reducing the unit cost of road maintenance. Road safety was also planned to be improved through trust fund resources. Given the extent of the deterioration of the secondary and local roads, and the scale of institutional transformation needed at the level of the RDMID and Government to improve efficiency of road sector management and financing, it was appropriate for the Project to be positioned as the first phase of a series of interventions needed to address the problem. The view of the Bank team was that a low cost rehabilitation approach was best as this would allow coverage of more kilometers of roads within available funding envelope. While not fully convinced on the correctness of this approach due to the more frequent maintenance interventions that would be required, the RDMID nevertheless accepted the Bank position. Selection of roads included in the Project involved the selection first of the secondary roads followed by selection of the local roads for repair based on the zone of influence of the secondary roads. This approach optimized connectivity of the local communities to markets. Project preparation included three workshops for local firms doing the engineering design works on environmental issues.
Assessment of Project design. The Project design was satisfactory from many standpoints. It was clearly focused on the priority need of the Government to improve the secondary and local roads network and its transformational agenda of improving efficiency of service delivery and responsiveness to the needs of the rural poor. It was satisfactory also because it recognized the likely need for change to the design perhaps in scope by building into the mid-term review an explicit review of the Project scope and design. Preparation for the mid-term review benefited from there being a budget in the Project for the preparation of a mid-term review report which provided a good diagnostic of implementation progress and lessons learned. Two factors influenced the approach to capacity building activities.
The first, aimed at improving methods and practices by including development of new design and maintenance standards and activities to improve design capacity of the
8
emerging private sector design firms. A second aimed at improving the basis for and nature of decision-making on planned maintenance investments through preparation of 5- year rolling plans and participatory approaches involving local governments and communities. Improving monitoring and evaluation was facilitated by the establishment of an inventory of local roads. Linking outputs to specific policy objective was a good feature of the design as it allowed the Government to better assess the direct impact of the Project on its key policy objective, reducing poverty. While the design was inherently simple, it did require the procurement of many civil and consulting services which was quite a burden on RDMID during implementation. In hindsight, the technical assistance could have included a specialist to help with the design and implementation of the participatory processes with the local governments and communities. This said, the design of the required participatory approach was very well detailed in the PAD.
Three key lessons from previous projects were reflected in the design of the Project. The first was that while there was a viable civil works industry in Georgia, for both design and construction, the absence of competition and published, predictable work programming had limited its potential. This was responded to in the Project design by introducing competition among local firms in the design of works under the Project with tenders for multiyear road programs prepared and published to make future levels of construction activity more predictable. The second lesson was RDMID’s lack of a regional organization which limited its ability to supervise and monitor works closely. The Project therefore provided for the re-establishment of a regional structure and decentralized arrangement for managing maintenance works. This was expected to not only permit better local knowledge by RDMID but also voice by local governments and communities in the programming of road improvements. Third, technical assistance in the ongoing project had introduced new road structural standards and material specifications which should lead to increased road durability and service life. Resistance had however been experienced to the introduction of new geometric standards (e.g. road width). To address this issue, the Project included development of more appropriate geometric standards through a design competition. This approach was a useful innovation as it allowed areas for possible cost savings to emerge from the peer review process and thus confirm the need for revision of the existing standards and practices.
The Project was designed to avoid the triggering of any land acquisition. Consultation meetings with community members and with Raion government and village council officials" were conducted to explore their interest in participating in the proposed Road Management Committees (RMCs), and to understand the social impacts of road programs.11 Some of the issues raised at the meetings included (i) poor condition of the roads which made difficult access to schools, markets, etc; (ii) while some equipment and skilled labor to fix roads at the local level were available, funding was not available to pay for labor, fuel, repairs, and unemployed was available; (iii) skilled technicians were available and ready to work for 10 Lari a day with helpers costing less; (iv) villagers could contribute very little financially to meeting the cost of road maintenance; and (v) Raion Government could contribute funds from annual budget allocation. The result of
11 The outcome of these consultations and resultant recommendations were documented in Annex 10 of the PAD. 9
these meetings demonstrated the importance of understanding community interests and mobilizing communities along shared interests. The Project design therefore provided for Regional Coordinators to organize similar meetings annually, and help communities’ articulate priorities for road improvements. The result of such meetings were then to be communicated to the RMCs, with the final program agreed between the RMC and RDMlD presented for adoption at a Raion Transport meeting organized each year by the RMCs. The Project design also included how the RMCs would monitor Project impacts. The design could have been improved by the inclusion of a TA to help with implementation of this sub-component.
Government commitment. Perhaps the most important evidence of the Government’s commitment was its recognition of the need for change in the approach to the planning and executions of maintenance activities to not only make them more cost effective but within a more participatory framework which reinforced collaboration between central and local governments and communities. This position of Government encouraged the RDMID to accept responsibility to assist under the Project the addressing of the problems of local roads for which it did not have direct responsibility. This approach and other key elements were contained in a Letter of Road Sector Policy provided by the Government as one of the conditions of project effectiveness. Additional evidence was the Government’s readiness to commit to increase expenditure on maintenance of secondary and local roads on an annual basis during the Project period from 20 million GEL in 2005 to 60 million GEL by 2008. This helped to significantly increase the length of roads eventually rehabilitated under the Project. The government also displayed a willingness to increase its financial contribution to the Project as the economy improved and the Lari appreciated.
Risks and mitigation. The Project design risks were described under the context of ‘sustainability’ of the Project and assessment of ‘critical risks and possible controversial aspects. In relation to sustainability, the principal risk identified related to inadequacies or uncertainties regarding availability of funds for continued maintenance as this would affect the condition of the network as it becomes difficult to plan and commit maintenance programs in a timely manner. It was also considered as likely to affect the construction industry’s viability, ability to acquire equipment and maintain financial capacity to undertake contracts. This risk was said to be mitigated by covenants requiring agreed level of annual increases in the funding of maintenance. However, no such covenants were among the covenants included in the Project design. There was however an outcome indicator which specified a level of increase in the annual expenditure on road maintenance over the Project implementation period. A second risk associated with the sustainability of the Project related to institutional development with possible resistance foreseen to the restructuring of the RDMID from mid to lower level management staff. While mitigation was expected to come from the Government’s strong commitment to restructuring the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (MID), the need was foreseen for strong supervision by TRRC and close monitoring of implementation to overcome obstacles that could arise from such resistance. During implementation, the little resistance experienced was well dealt with by the incorporated mitigation action. This was in part because the reforms became more driven by the needs
10
for implementation of projects relating to the upgrading of the East-West highway between Tbilisi and the Rikoti Tunnel for which the MID had a strong commitment to expedite.
The most critical risk identified by the team was the inadequacy of the road budget for project counterpart financing and for maintenance of the network. This was designed to be mitigated through adoption of increased road user charges or increased road budget allocation. In the event, the Government well exceeded the budget it was to allocate for maintenance secondary and local roads. The participatory arrangements embodied in the design was also seen as entailing some risks as they could raise expectations among local communities’ which may not be able to be met with the available financial resources. To mitigate, it was recognized that care would be needed to ensure that communities were made aware of the financial constraints. A factor not specifically identified as a risk was the possible negative impact on project implementation of lack of investment by private firms in road works technology and the absence of a competitive road works industry but contributed to by the lack of a predictable roads program. During implementation, the designs submitted and approved were of higher standard than assumed at appraisal leading to higher bid prices. This had the impact of reducing the length of roads that could be rehabilitated under the Project and led to the first restructuring of the Project to reduce the target length of roads to be rehabilitated from ‘approximately 500 to 700 km’ to ‘about 250 km’.
Environmental Safeguards. Environmental Assessments (EAs) were prepared for the work included in the first year of the Project. EAs were then to be prepared for all subsequent works under the Project in line with the provisions of the Environmental Management Framework (EMF)12. The EAs also included Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) that detailed mitigation and monitoring activities. An EMF was also prepared for the Project which provided policy frameworks for chance finds and specifications of mitigation issues to be included in construction contracts. The monitoring responsibilities of the project manager serving as supervising engineers were also included. Such social issues as access to farmland and private residences or access to utilities were to be addressed and their cost included in the cost of rehabilitation. Necessary clearances and agreements on these environment documents were obtained from the Georgian Ministry of the Environment (MoE).
Social safeguards. The Project was designed to avoid the triggering of any land acquisition. It therefore did not provide for the preparation of Resettlement Management Frameworks (RMF) or Resettlement Action Plans (RAP). During implementation, one of the contractors however saw the need to acquire a small amount of land. Upon assessment by the Bank Social Safeguards specialist, the amount of land involved was adjudged not significant enough to have triggered land acquisition. It is noted that the second SLRP project triggered the preparation of RMF and RAPs to provide flexibility in dealing with unexpected need for land acquisition during implementation.
12 These site-specific EAs were carried out as required. 11
Consultation meetings with community members and with Raion government and village council officials" were conducted to explore their interest in participating in the proposed Road Management Committees (RMCs), and to understand the social impacts of road programs.13 Some of the issues raised at the meetings included (i) poor condition of the roads is a major problem - difficult to access schools, markets, etc; (ii) while some equipment and skilled labor to fix roads at the local level were available, funding was not available to pay for labor, fuel, repairs, and unemployed was available; (iii) skilled technicians were available are ready to work for 10 Lari a day with helpers costing less; (iv) villagers could contribute very little financially to meeting the cost of road maintenance; and (v) Raion Government14 could contribute funds from annual budget allocation. The result of these meetings demonstrated the importance of understanding community interests and mobilizing communities along shared interests. The Project design therefore provided for Regional Coordinators to organize similar meetings annually, and help communities’ articulate priorities for road improvements. The result of such meetings were then to be communicated to the RMCs, with the final program agreed between the RMC and RDMlD presented for adoption at a Raion Transport meeting organized each year by the RMCs. The Project design also included how the RMCs would monitor Project impacts.
Fiduciary. Compliance with fiduciary requirements was satisfactory. A procurement assessment of RDMID and TRRC (acting as the PIU) was conducted and both entities were found qualified for the activity. The procurement risk was however rated as High in view of the conclusions of the June 2002 Country Procurement Assessment Review (CPAR) and the country environment. This rating impacted the thresholds for prior and post review as well as the periodicity of the procurement supervision missions established for the Project. A plan to address perceived procurement risks was agreed with RDMID and TRRC. The financial management assessment found TRRC as having in place acceptable financial management arrangements sufficient to meet Bank requirements in respect of the quality of accounting, reporting and internal controls system and also in respect of the audit arrangements. During implementation, the system in place worked quite smoothly to the extent that the RDMID decided that even activities financed from the national budget would be procured using the Bank procurement system.
2.2 Implementation
Implementation efficiency. Implementation arrangements remained the same throughout Project implementation except for a change in the role of TRRC upon creation of the Foreign Projects Unit (FPU). The FPU was created to undertake all procurement activities and provide technical support to RDMID units responsible for implementing all externally financed activities of the RDMID. In this arrangement, the role of TRRC was reduced to financial management and monitoring and evaluation. A commendable
13 The outcome of these consultations and resultant recommendations were documented in Annex 10 of the PAD. 14 Decentralization carried out in 2006 led to the abolition of Raion level of government. Therefore, the project requirement for this institution to coordinate local transport issues was excluded from the project. 12
feature of implementation was the degree of proactivity and between the Bank team and RDMID which led to timely addressing of issues as they emerged. The Project was restructured four times. The first restructuring involved increasing of the standards to which project roads would be rehabilitated. During appraisal, the Bank team had argued for relatively low standard of rehabilitation with the RDMID arguing for a higher standard. During implementation, it was found that roads rehabilitated to the Bank suggested standards soon deteriorated after rehabilitation thus requiring maintenance interventions. This experience led the Bank team to agree that the roads be rehabilitated to higher standard. Though this would increase the cost of rehabilitation of each road section, government was willing to increase its contribution to the Project as the economy improved and the Lari appreciated and the government budget could accommodate a greater level of public expenditure. The mid-term review was used to correctly assess progress with implementation and the need for revisions to the Project. 15 The main findings of the review were that (i) capacity building and technical assistance activities were on track and already producing substantive results with the Government deciding that road network financed under the Budget would adopt the same modern principles being applied under the Project including use of Bank procurement methods and bidding documents; (ii) budget earmarked for road maintenance was by then three times what was expected at appraisal. This should facilitate planned capacity building of the construction and contribute to overall project sustainability; and (iii) need seen to change the original low cost interventions which were agreed to have being set too low. This implied that lower kilometers of roads would be completed under the Project.
Restructuring of the Project was carried out four times to principally to change the length of roads to be rehabilitated under the Project, adjust the results frameworks to revise targets and add new ones to better capture the poverty impact of the project. A last restructuring led to extension of the closing date to allow two road sections tendered late to be completed.
Quality of works. This was variable especially for road sections passing through urban centers with signing, access connections to abutting properties, lack of attention to sidewalks and drainage areas of particular concern. This was attributed to inadequate provision for these items in the designs: it was later agreed that they could be financed from contingencies under the contracts. There were also instances of loss of seal on some paved sections. These shortfalls in quality were also in part due to inadequate supervision of the works by the supervision consultants and infrequent monitoring by the RDMID of the performance of the consultants and contractors. Significant cost savings arose from the appreciation of GEL, the 2008 economic crisis which led to aggressive bidding by contractors. Units costs of roads rehabilitated varied from GEL 81,000 to 308,000 for local roads and from GEL 111, 000 to 467,000 for secondary. This led the Bank team to recommend that the RDMID set up a cost monitoring system and also to establish an inventory of local roads.
15 Annex 2 to the aide memoire of the July 2006 mission is a good practice on planning of mid-term reviews which is worthy of being widely shared. 13
Implementation delays. The Project did not experience any significant delays. Most activities of the original Project were completed by July 2008 with disbursement at 95% and closing foreseen by end of year. In general, implementation progress was good. By the mid-term review, the early closing of the Project was foreseen by April 2008 and discussions on a possible new project were initiated. While there was a closing date extension for the Additional Financing, this was to allow completion of two on-going contracts the signing of which had been delayed and thus having difficulties being completed within the Project closing date: without extension of the closing date the burden for payments not made under the Project would have fallen on the government.
In parallel with the Project, the RDMID also had to implement three other Bank operations related to the upgrading of the E60 road corridor. This additional responsibility at times stretched the capacity of the RDMID which adversely impacted its ability to effectively supervise the Project.
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization
Design. The indicators and targets for results monitoring were in general well linked with Project design and allowed good monitoring of the outputs of the components. The output indicators captured the key activities under the Project while the outcome indicators reflected the outcomes carrying out of the activities would have. An exception was the definition of the indicator for capturing the outputs from component 3. At appraisal, the indicator was defined as ‘same as components 1 and 2’ which was not the case. This was corrected with the second restructuring when specific measurable targets were set for the two activities under this component. The Project ‘outcome’ indicators were essentially ‘output’ indicators. During the restructuring for the AF, this was corrected by defining two indicators which allowed the capture of the outcome of the road rehabilitation activities. The targets were realistic and were well linked to specific activities under the Project. By the MTR, the Project was well on its way to meeting its targets despite delays experienced early in implementation. There were no specific indicators relating to implementation of the Letter of Sector Policy. This said, one of the main issues of course was adequate funding of maintenance for which there was an indicator to capture increases over the Project period.
Implementation. Project monitoring and evaluation including preparation of progress reports were carried out regularly, although the latter at times experienced delays. The targets were timely adjusted during implementation to reflect progress being made, changes in approach to the road rehabilitation and increase in the contribution of the Government to the Project which allowed an increase in the scope of planned road rehabilitation.
Utilization. Monitoring reports were used to measure Project progress as evidenced in comments by the Bank team in the Aide memoires and ISRs e.g. the early signaling of the need to adjust the target for roads rehabilitated as a result of slow implementation progress. It is noticed in the ISR that the indicator ‘annual reports published’ stated at
14
appraisal as an outcome indicator were sometimes recorded in the ISR as an intermediate outcome indicator thus creating confusion: the final ISR correctly reflected it as an outcome indicator. It is noted however that the indicators of the original project were not well documented in the ISR and this adversely affected their utilization. This lapse was corrected when the PDO was revised during the second restructuring.
2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance
Environmental safeguards. The Project triggered Bank safeguards policies Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01). An EMF was prepared during appraisal was later used to prepare full environmental assessment with specific EMP completed for each road design package. Throughout implementation, the Project was in compliance with the World Bank’s environmental policy. Insufficiency of signing of work sites and disposal of waste from road sides were shortfalls noted during safeguard supervision missions. The environmental reports to be submitted by the works supervision consultants were not always well prepared or timely submitted. Proactive interventions by the Bank team finally led to a correction of the situation.
Social safeguards. The participatory approach to the selection of local roads to be rehabilitated was implemented with relative success. This is particularly so after the opening of the Regional Offices which facilitated regular contacts between the RDMID and the local government. These offices however had differing capacity with some well- staffed as (e.g. the ones in Batumi and Katausi) while others were not so capacitated (e.g. Sagarejo) and this affected the relative impact of the offices in facilitating the work of the RMCs. While the road rehabilitation was not expected to trigger any land acquisition, a minor land take did take place caused by the necessity to realign a road section lost due to the erosion of the river bank. From review of the report prepared by the client and site visit, the Bank’s social scientist however determined that the Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy was not triggered due to the small and singular nature of the occurrence.
Fiduciary compliance
Procurement. Procurement under the Project was relatively well handled with the implementing agency gaining in confidence during implementation. Comfort with and acceptance of the merit of the Bank procurement process was the decision by the Government to use Bank procurement methods for procurement of activities funded from government budget. This is a commendable achievement by the Bank’s Project team as it reflected not only the extent of the capacity built in the RDMID but also the good relationship they had developed such that the merit of the process was clear to the government and RDMID. During implementation, it is to be noted that the procurement function under the Project was taken away from the TRRC into the newly created Foreign Projects Unit (FPU) within the RDMID. The overall procurement management rating is Satisfactory.
15
Financial Management and Disbursement. Apart from a few instances of late submission of monitoring reports and late payments, this function was discharged credibly by the TRRC throughout implementation. The only issue was that of adoption of eDisbursement by the TRRC which it could not do without being approved by the government. Overall, financial management and disbursement is rated as Satisfactory.
2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase
The level of deterioration of the secondary and local road network was correctly seen as requiring several operations to be fully addressed. Thus, the Project was seen as a pilot. The AF financing of US$70 million provided and the additional investment by the government since appraisal have led to significant improvements in the condition of the secondary and local roads network. The percentage of secondary roads in poor condition is now 40 instead of the appraisal figure of 61. This is a significant achievement which however also clearly indicates the need for more interventions to improve the condition of this section of the road network. The follow on SLRP 2 which became effective on May 24, 2012, will rehabilitate and or improve an additional 425 kilometers of roads and this should contribute to increasing the percentage of the secondary and local network in good condition. Planned assistance to the RDMID under other project supported by the Bank includes improvements to the institutional capacity of the RDMID. This should help secure gains under the SLRP.
3. Assessment of Outcomes
3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation
Relevance of the PDO. The PDO as originally defined and revised remain relevant as secondary and local roads of Georgia still require rehabilitation and improvement to improve connectivity, economic and social wellbeing of the rural population thereby contributing to reducing rural poverty. The institutional capacity of the RDMID still needs strengthening given the scale of the challenges in the road sector. Quite importantly, participatory road planning is closely linked to administrative arrangements at the at the local government level. New arrangements were established early in project implementation. These are still evolving and may require the RDMID to adapt its approaches to engaging with the local governments and communities.
Relevance of design. The secondary and local roads are the backbone of efforts to decrease rural poverty, promote regional development and better integrate the economy at the national level. The manuals for the design of rehabilitation and maintenance produced under the Project have helped to institutionalize good and cost effective road designs and maintenance approaches: the unit cost of works carried out in the latter stages of the Project based on the newly adopted design standards were lower than those for the initial works under the Project. The benefits of these manuals are expected to be increasingly felt as more people gain familiarity with their use. The participatory approaches provide a framework that the Government can use to deepen the involvement of the population in decision making in the road sector. The potential to use road rehabilitation to create
16
temporary job creation has been well demonstrated under the Project. The design approach to these works is one that the Government can use in response to an economic crisis such as that faced in 2008.
Relevance of implementation. Rehabilitation of roads under component 1 constituted 92 per cent of the overall Project cost. It was clearly the main focus during implementation due to its high priority to the government. Attention given by the RDMID to the technical assistance and design and supervision services activities could have been improved. Capacity building activities in the form of specific training to the traffic police, workshops for local design engineers and contractors as well as the mixing of international and local consultants in some of the consulting services have significantly contributed to institutional strengthening within the RDMID and its service providers (consultants and civil works contractors) who have become more receptive to adopting new standards and practices. The workshops to disseminate the manuals produced to help local governments in carrying out maintenance works could have been conducted more frequently than done given that staff changes take place within these institutions. During implementation, some bids were found not to have been competitive with only one or two bidders. This in part reflected the decreased competition within the domestic construction industry as the level of activities under the Project increased. This is a situation that has been experienced on other projects including the follow-on SLRP 2 and needs to be addressed by both the Bank and the government.16
3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives
The achievement of the PDO is rated as overall satisfactory.
The PDO was formally revised during the Level 1 restructuring for the Additional Financing by Board approval as was the original Project. The project outcome has therefore been assessed against both the original and revised PDOs with separate outcome ratings (for original and revised PDOs) derived by weighing them in proportion of actual disbursements at the time of and before the approval of the revised PDO in order to arrive at the overall outcome rating. The result of this calculation is shown in the table below.
Against Against Overall Comments original revised PDOs PDOs 1. Rating Moderately Satisfactory - Improvement satisfactory 2. Rating value 4 5 - - 3. Weighted 23% 73% -100% disbursement
16 The Fourth East West Highway project under preparation includes a diagnostic of the domestic construction industry with a view to identifying actions to improve competition within the industry. 17
(%) before/after PDO change 4. Weighted 0.92 3.85 4.77 value (2x3) 5. Final rating Satisfactory Early revision (combined) results is ‘above the line’
Achievement of the original PDO is rated as moderately satisfactory based on achievement of the project just prior to its restructuring with all its planned civil works representing about 70 percent of project cost almost completed and a key indicator associated with the sustenance of this investment, increase in maintenance funding exceeded by more than four fold. However, other indicators stated at appraisal to monitor achievement such as reduction in travel time and jobs created were not monitored in the results framework before the restructuring of the Project involving the AF.
At the time of the revision of the PDO, progress towards achievements of the original PDO was as follows:
(i) Regarding the first PDO, improve the economic and social well-being of the rural population in selected areas through upgrading of their secondary and local road networks, impact was to be measured through the indicators ‘reduction in transport cost/time for rural communities to access markets and social services’ and increased access to off-farm employment for the rural poor’, these two indicators were not included in the results framework in the ISR until after the PDO was revised. Thus no baseline or target figures are available to assess achievement. (ii) Regarding the second PDO ‘improve effectiveness of RDMID maintain a cost effective and sustainable secondary and local roads network’ achievement was to be measured by two indicators ‘ increases in road maintenance expenditures’ and reduction in RDMID’s maintenance and unit costs’. The target for the first indicator was GEL 60 million and achievement was GEL 280 million representing about fourfold over achievement. 17 For the second indicator, achievement for secondary and local roads respectively were GEL186,000/km and GEL132,000/km against targets of GEL80,000/km and GEL60,000/km. These achievements compare with baseline figures of GEL170,000/km and GEL90,000/km respectively. Thus for secondary roads, there was a regression between the baseline and what was achieved while there was an improvement for local roads.
17 See ISR 10 of 09/28/2008. 18
(iii) For the third PDO, improve the effectiveness of RDMID in its interactions with local communities and its responsiveness to local needs, these were to be measured by ‘Raion level RMDs and public meetings’, ‘Raion Councils annual proposals for road improvements’ and ‘RDMID annual reports on road network condition.’ The results framework did not reflect these as PDO indicators but had them as intermediate outcome indicators. Taking RMCs established as a measure of of the first indicator, the number of RMCs was said to be still assessed but likely more than the target. Two annual reports had been published and a 5-year rolloing maintenance plan was said to be ‘underway’. (iv) Regarding intermediate outcome indicators, achievement was good with the target 175 km of secondary roads for rehabilitation said to be almost completed and works contracted on 85 km of local roads, above the 75 km targeted for rehabilitation. Four of the planned ‘four to six’ regional offices were operational hence the target could be said to have been achieved.
The achievement of the revised PDO is rated as satisfactory. This reflects the achievement of the target for the PDO indicators ‘reduction in travel time improvements over current situation on targeted road sections’, and ‘the achievement of the target for the third PDO indicator relating to road maintenance expenditures and achievement of eight out of the ten output indicators. At close of the Project, its achievements in relation to the outcome indicators were as follows:
(i) The target for the indicator ‘reduction in travel time improvements over current situation on targeted road sections’ was 20 percent. Achievement at closing was measured as 19.9 percent. (ii) The second outcome indicator was ‘number of person months of jobs created (Bank estimates)’ and had the target of 24,000 jobs being created. By project- end, 13,431 jobs were created. In setting the target, the assumption at appraisal was that labor intensive road works methods would be used to a significant extent. In reality: • Application of new, less labor intensive technology for road base (cold recycling using milled material). Stating from 2009, the SLRP AF rehabilitated 4 more time roads (per km basis) by cold recycling technology, as compared to the SLRP (jobs created was estimated for SLRP). The cold recycling methodology required much fewer workers than the traditional method. The SLRP rehabilitated a total 250km of roads about 40% by cold recycling. The SLRP AF rehabilitated total 593.4km of roads 60% by cold recycling. • Application of less labor intensive methods for piling and concrete works. RD made example of past best practice for manual excavation of piles for bridges. Manual excavation is replaced by drilling machines. Also contractors used more precast structures (culverts and drains) as opposed to the cast on site process. • Application of a more skilled work force with higher salaries.
19
• Indirect job creation through subcontracting was not reported. About 28% of total values works was subcontracted. The jobs created by subcontractor was not accounted and reported. (iii) The third outcome indicator ‘road maintenance and rehabilitation expenditures (GEL) million’ had the target of increasing from GEL 20 million at the start of the Project to GEL 155 million at its closing. The achievement was GEL 184 million, thus exceeding the target by about 20 percent and reflecting the strong commitment of the government to the Project. The fourth and final outcome indicator was ‘annual report published’. This report was published annually from 2006 to 2011 and the target can therefore be taken as achieved. It should however be said that the content of the reports was more a publicity brochure than a technical report on the performance of the government and its road agency. It would have been expected that over the six years of its publication the Bank and government team would have improved the quality of the initial report as it is only in it informing in an evidence based way on the performance of the government and its road agency in management the road sector could the indicator be justified as an outcome indicator. .
Nine of the ten output indicators were achieved. The indicator not achieved was that relating to the production of design and maintenance manuals which is regarded as partially achieved as not all of them were brought to use by the RDMID. . Regarding local roads rehabilitated, the target (150-170 km) was exceeded with 211 km achieved. Regarding secondary roads rehabilitated, with about 693 km rehabilitated of which about 62 km were later reclassified as local roads. Regarding the target of opening six regional offices, while achieved, in reality, only the two at Batumi and Kutaisi are fully functional. While guidebooks and workshops were held for local government officials as planned, it would have been good to see these as continuous activities under the Project rather than a one off activity given staff changes that would occur overtime. The same observation could be made regarding the training of traffic police.
3.3 Efficiency
Efficiency is rated as satisfactory.
After project completion, the Borrower carried out an ex-post economic evaluation of the 49 project roads, totaling 844 km - 11 project roads were financed under the original project and 38 project roads under the additional financing. The ex-post economic evaluation was done using the HDM-4 model adopting an evaluation period of 20 years and a discount rate of 12 percent. Vehicle operating costs were derived for the four vehicle types which predominate in the traffic mix based on current vehicle fleet characteristics. The new economic evaluation would supersede the economic analysis done at project appraisal for respective project roads financed under the original SLRP and SLRP Additional Financing.
The Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) was recalculated for the 49 project roads (Annex 3) by updating the baseline economic data with actual construction costs
20
(GEL/km) and latest traffic growth rates (vehicles/day). The new traffic growth rates are based on median growth rates during the last 4 years of SLRP implementation.
The ex-post ERRs show a significant variance, ranging from -0.7 to 99 percent. The ERR was lower than 12 percent for 8 of the 49 roads. The overall ERR of the program is 24.7 percent, which represents a decrease of 20 percent over the overall ERR estimated during the preparation of the additional financing (30.7 percent), and an increase of 4 percent over the overall ERR estimated by the Roads Department during the project implementation period (23.7 percent). Thus, an ex-post ERR of 24.7 percent indicates that the rehabilitation program has a robust economic justification.
Other indicators of efficiency. The Project experienced delays early in its implementation arising from more than expected time to arrive at cost effective designs for some of the Project roads. Some of the initial tenders also experienced delays. The Bank and Borrowers team recovered well from these delays and by mid-term review progress was such that discussions could be initiated on a possible follow up project. A comparison of estimated and actual costs of road works shows an increase of about 20 percent (see Annex 3). This is not unusual and, indeed, a good outcome given the high inflation experienced during part of the implementation period. While the civil works were well implemented, the technical assistance elements and studies suffered significant delays which diluted their impact on the Project’s outcome. Notable in this regard were those relating to the preparation of the maintenance manuals and the geometric design standards. The participatory approach built into the Project design proved to be a challenge to the RDMID. To its credit, the RDMID over the project period came to accept the merit of the approach and is now applying them in other ongoing projects.
A beneficiary survey was carried out (see Annex 5). From this, the following observations and key impacts were identified: • Improved access to healthcare and the facilitation of qualified medical services in hospitals. • Additional routes for minibuses have been added on rehabilitated roads due to an increase in public passenger demand in rural areas. • Timely supply of commodities and other products to the village. • Improved access to products & services in the district center, other district, regional center and Tbilisi. • Improvement of the social services in the district centers, regional centers and Tbilisi. • Advantageous road conditions for importing raw materials and exporting the products. • Better participation of the local population in economic, social, cultural and political aspects of life in the country.
21
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating
Rating: Satisfactory
This rating reflects: (i) the relevance of the PDO to the priority needs of the sector; (iii) and the satisfactory achievement with regard to efficiency in relation to the EIRR and other indicators of efficiency. Overall, activities under the Project have resulted in improved condition of the secondary and local roads network. The percentage of secondary roads in good condition increased from 40 percent to 61 percent as a result of the length of such roads rehabilitated under the Project. The increased allocation for maintenance expenditure and preparation and utilization of the 5-year rolling maintenance plan prepared under the Project coupled with the adoption of Bank procurement methods for the procurement of nationally funded works evidence increase in RDMID institutional capacity to manage the secondary and local roads network.
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development
The Project had a focus on poverty reduction through its Additional Financing with achievement in this regard designed to be measured by the number of jobs created. While the target was not achieved, what was would indeed have impacted positively on the poverty situation in the Project areas by increasing available income for the purchase of goods and services. The rehabilitation of the roads also had a more direct and general positive impact on the livelihoods of those within the Project areas as evidenced by the results of the beneficiary survey which clearly demonstrate that road users see the roads rehabilitated as improving their access to economic and social services (see Annex 5) carried out for the Project. Gender aspects of the Project were not specifically measured or explored in the beneficiary survey and this is unfortunate.
(b) Institutional Change/ Strengthening
The Project improved the institutional capacity of the RDMID through the new methodologies and practices that were introduced in the course of Project implementation particularly in relation to efforts to induce a change in practice amongst project consultants and contractors and RDMID staff, the implementation of the participatory approaches to the selection of roads to be rehabilitated under the project, the preparation of the manuals and design standards. The increased funding of maintenance by the government has allowed the RDMID to see preparation of the 5-year maintenance plan not as a theoretical effort but an important tool for improving the planning and implementation of maintenance works in an effective manner.
(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative)
Establishment of a monitoring system on the cost of road works was not part of the project design but its addition has provided RDMID with a useful tool for monitoring the cost of its road works and establishing bench mark unit costs. Similarly, establishment of an inventory of the secondary and local road network was an additional activity which
22
now helps the RDMID to make more rational decisions on needed interventions on this network.
3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops
See Annex 5.
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome
Rating: This risk is rated as low to negligible.
The government continues to see improving the secondary and local roads network as a priority evidenced by the ongoing SLRP2 and its indicated interest in receiving additional assistance from the Bank to improve the network. The inventory of secondary and local roads established under the Project is being maintained and used to assist decision making on prioritizing interventions on the network. This and the 5-year maintenance plan should help ensure a rational approach to the determination of future planned interventions.
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
5.1 Bank Performance
(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry
Rating: Satisfactory
The Project was well prepared, focused on priority needs of the sector and was based on good background analysis. The design of the participatory approach for the selection of local road to be improved was good. A technical assistance to help in its implementation could have been a useful addition. A more realistic expectation regarding the number of jobs to be created under the Project should have been adopted or the target revised once more equipment based methods were being applied in executing the road work. An analysis of the local domestic industry could have been usefully included in the Project design to provide a more strategic basis for efforts to increase the capacity of the industry.
(b) Quality of Supervision
Rating: Satisfactory
The Bank supported the RDMID during implementation and provided timely guidance. The mid-term review was well executed and crucial to redirecting the Project. The number of restructuring that the project went through reflects the good project management and the Bank team’s proactivity in supporting the government and the RDMID. The first TTL during implementation was from Washington but was supported by a team member based in the country office who later became the TTL: this helped to
23
ensure continuity. The last TTL of the Project was also based in the country office. It would have been good for the Bank team to include from the start of implementation a road engineer specialized in rural roads. This could have helped to more timely resolve issues relating to the quality of works. In 2009, such a person became a member of the Bank project team.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory
The satisfactory rating reflects the satisfactory rating for quality at entry and the satisfactory rating for Project supervision.
5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
The Borrower demonstrated great commitment to achieving the objectives of the Project evidenced by its compliance with the agreement to increase substantially funding of maintenance and its willingness to provide additional financing from its own resources to ensure achievement of the target number of roads to be facilitated.
(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
The performance is rated as satisfactory evidenced by its willingness to effect changes to its practices and adopt new methods and standards for carrying out the works under the project. This assessment is not to disregard some of elements of resistance displayed at times during project preparation and implementation. This is only to be expected given the long tradition of applying Soviet era practices.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory
This rating is due to the government’s commitment to the Project, demonstrated by its willingness to increase its financial contribution to the Project as the economy improved which led to the length of roads rehabilitated being far greater than envisaged in the original project. Allowing the RDMID to use Bank procurement methods for road rehabilitated from the national budget was a sign of confidence in the Project.
24
6. Lessons Learned
(i) Supervision of works is a joint responsibility of the supervision consultant and the Employer. This requires that both have adequate staffing in terms of numbers, qualification and experience. This was not always the case during implementation resulting in poor workmanship by the contractor which were not corrected and inability of the RDMID to ensure compliance with provisions of the contract.
(ii) During implementation, it is important for the Bank team to include required skills blend. For several years during implementation, the Bank team did not include a road engineer and this limited the outputs from site visits and thus the team’s ability to carry out its due diligence responsibility.
(iii)For projects involving the rehabilitation of roads scattered over several locations, it is prudent to trigger OP/BP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and prepare an RMF. This would then allow the project team deal with any unexpected need to acquire land for project purposes.
(iv) An assessment of the local construction industry should be carried out during preparation of a project with significant civil works activities particularly if several operations are needed. Findings and recommendations of such analysis should then be used to determine actions under the project to ensure adequate participation of the local construction industry in project implementation. Such a study should have been part of project preparation or included in the AF given the difficulties being experienced in adequately involving the local construction industry in the civil works.
(v) During preparation of new projects with the same implementing agency, the Bank should be aware of the impact on the ability of the agency to effectively implement all of the projects with Bank involvement. This would allow it to better monitor the impact of its operations on the client as a whole, particularly in assessing the agency’s implementation capacity and determining what needs to be done to improve them. Over the period of implementation of the SLRP, the Bank approved three new operations for implementation by RDMID. These greatly stretched the capacity of the RDMID. Given the high profile of these new operations to the government, and their greater technical complexity, the needs of the SLRP were often secondary.
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners
(a) Borrower/implementing agencies
The Borrower was sent the draft ICR for comment. In their comment, they indicated that they found the draft acceptable.
25
(b) Co-financiers
N/A
(c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society)
N/A
26
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing
(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) Actual/Latest Appraisal Estimate Percentage of Components Estimate (USD (USD millions) Appraisal millions)
Total Baseline Cost 125.265 129.939 104% Physical Contingencies 0.500 0.500 100% Price Contingencies 1.500 1.500 100% Total Project Costs 127.265 131.939 104% Front-end fee PPF 0.00 0.00 100% Front-end fee IBRD 0.175 0.175 100% Total Financing Required 127.44 132.114 104%
(b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Co- Estimate Estimate Percentage of Source of Funds financing (USD (USD Appraisal millions) millions) Borrower 37.14 41.419 112% International Bank for Reconstruction 70.00 69.690 99% and Development International Development 20.00 21.005 105% Association (IDA) Bilateral Agencies (unidentified) 0.30 0.00 0% Total Funding 127.44 132.114 104%
27
Annex 2. Outputs by Component
Indicators Status Origina First RS AF Third RS Fourth at Output l 12/27/ 03/19/ 02/25/ RS Remarks Baseline Closing Target 2006 2009 2010 10/25/ 18
2011 Component One Rehabilitation of The targets for the Secondary Roads: rehabilitation of local 690-710 paved roads with 0 km 300 km 175 km 565 km - 631 km and secondary roads km average speeds of have both been achieved, 50 kph exceeding expectations. Rehabilitation of Revised target for local Local Roads: all- roads was reduced due to weather mostly 150-170 reclassification of some 0 km 200 km 75 km 135 km - 211 km gravel roads with km local roads to secondary average speeds of roads. 30kph
842 km Total Component 2 Number of regional offices for Target achieved: Six data collection, Regional Offices 0 6 - 6 maintenance established – offices are planning and operational as planned. public participation Number of Traffic Target has been achieved police trained/ year 0 100 - - - - 148 (NBF) Development of 5- Target achieved: the RD Year Rolling no yes - - - - yes is using as a tool for Maintenance Plans planning of investments. Adoption of Target achieved: Geometric Design no yes - - - - yes standards were adopted Standard in February 2009. The design and maintenance standards Adoption of were only partially Design and adopted by the Employer Maintenance no yes - - - - partially as a result of agreement standards being able to be reached (quantitative on the appropriateness of or Qualitative) some of the recommendations. Guidebook Target achieved: the produced and no - - yes - - yes guidebook has been provided to local finalized.
18 Values are obtained from Borrower’s Report 28 governments Target achieved: two-day workshop led by MRDI and RD - Workshop for local guidebooks/manuals governments no - - yes - - yes were distributed to 140 conducted representatives from LSGs and 20 from respective central government agencies. Component Three Target met. SLRP financed designs for 260 km roads, SLRP AF Design of Project 0 600 km - 730 km 850 km - 990 km financed additional 730 Roads km road sections; exceeding target by an additional 140km.
29
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis
The appraisal economic evaluation assessed the economic returns from rehabilitating some 22 roads identified by RDMID as the most important secondary roads in the network. These roads comprised 1,529 km out of a secondary network totaling 3,336 km. The evaluation was done using the Highway Development and Management Model (HDM-4) that perform a traditional cost benefit analysis of road investments, measuring as benefits the reduction of road user costs (vehicle operating costs and travel time costs) and maintenance costs with the project over the evaluation period. The evaluation compared four different maintenance strategies ranging from patching and simple surface treatment to full reconstruction. Based on that evaluation, the Project appraisal document presented the economic evaluation results of three roads selected for the first year program, totaling 58 km, only in terms of Net Present Value (NPV), without presenting the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) of the first year program roads nor an estimated ERR for the overall program, which is not good practice because it does not allow an affective assessment of the robustness of the economic impact of the project.
The additional financing economic evaluation was carried out by RDMRDI using HDM- 4 and is based on the analysis of 377 km of the total 450 km of secondary and local roads for which data was available, using 2008 traffic counts and cost estimates. The additional financing economic evaluation confirmed the economic merits of the project, with the ERR for the different road section ranging from about 10 to 92 percent, above the adopted 10 percent discount rate, which is generally accepted for secondary and local roads. Overall, the proposed additional financing was expected to generate an ERR of 30.7 percent. During the project implementation, when road sections were selected to be part of the project, the Roads Department performed an economic evaluation of the rehabilitation works of most sections taking into account the contract costs and using the HDM-4 model. The overall ERR of the project roads estimated by the Roads Department during the project implementation is 23.7 percent.
The ex-post economic evaluation evaluated the total 49 Project roads, totaling 844 km, taking into account actual road work costs and current traffic information. Eleven Project roads were financed under the original project and 38 project roads under the additional financing. The ex-post economic evaluation was done using the HDM-4 model adopting an evaluation period of 20 years and a discount rate of 10 percent. Vehicle operating costs were derived for the four vehicle types which predominate in the traffic mix based on current vehicle fleet characteristics. The table below presents the project roads length (km), roughness (IRI, m/km) and 2008 daily traffic (vehicles per day). The project roads were in very poor condition with roughness varying from 7 to 16 IRI, m/km, estimated by subjective evaluation. The carriage width varies from 6 to 8 meters with most roads having an 8 meter carriageway width.
30
Table 3.1: Project Roads Average Characteristics
Contract Length Roughness Traffic (IRI, No Project No Road Section Name (km) m/km) (vpd) 1 Original SLRP 01 Tbilisi-Kojori-Tsalka-Ninotsminda, 18.0 10 1,705 2 Original SLRP 02 Tbilisi-Tianeti, 22.0 12 363 3 Original SLRP 03-01 Sajavakho-Chokhatauri-Ozurgeti-Kobuleti, 18.0 8 1,112 4 Original SLRP 09 Zugdidi-Anaklia 33.4 8 3,376 5 Original SLRP 10 Cholabauri-Terjola-Tkibuli 29.0 9 1,422 6 Original SLRP 03-01 Sajavakho-Chokhatauri-Ozurgeti-Kobuleti 54.2 10 1,368 7 Original SLRP AF80 Matkhoji-khidi-Gordi-Kinchkha 10.0 16 156 8 Original SLRP 22 Rufoti-Alisubani-Sazano-Tuzi 19.0 16 169 9 Original SLRP 24 Orbeti-Abrameti 9.5 16 238 10 Original SLRP 05 Khevsurtsopeli – Sioni, 15.0 12 192 11 Original SLRP 03-02 Ozurgeti- Tsvermagala 22.0 12 335 12 AF SLRP AF26b Kaspi-Metekhi-Akhalkalaki 0.5-12.1 km 11.6 16 364 13 AF SLRP AF22a Kutaisi-Khoni 7.0 8 1,832 14 AF SLRP AF50 Igoeti-Kaspi-Akhalkalaki 2.0 10 2,384 15 AF SLRP AF18 Ingiri-Oktomberi-Kakhati 10.3 16 167 SLRP 16 AF AF19/32 Kakhati-Kokhi-Orsantia 6.0 16 302 17 AF SLRP AF21 Berdznistskaro-Kokhnari-Seri-Zemokheti 5.7 16 397 18 AF SLRP AF70 Kutaisi-Tskaltubo-Tsageri-Lentekhi 10-29 km 10.0 16 406 19 AF SLRP AF55 Gori-Skra 8.3 16 351 20 AF SLRP AF26a Kavtiskhevi-Kaspi 10.0 16 500 21 AF SLRP AF38 Zugdidi-Jvari 28.5 13 2,128 22 AF SLRP AF32a Tsalendjikha-Nakipu-Letsurtsume 9.4 16 287 23 AF SLRP AF51 Chokhatauri-Surebi-Tobakhcho 5.8 16 308 24 AF SLRP AF29a Akhmeta-Telavi 22.0 7 4,393 25 AF SLRP AF7 Abasha-Martvili 32.0 11 776 26 AF SLRP AF52 Access road to Kareli 4.3 16 1,000 Zahesi-Mtskheta-Kavtiskhevi-Gori 41.7-56.0 27 AF SLRP AF26d km 14.3 16 630 28 AF SLRP AF25 Doreulebi-Kvemo nakalakari-Gorana 17.5 16 189 29 AF SLRP AF12 Akhmeta-Pshaveli-Ninigori 99.0 16 1,238 30 AF SLRP AF37 Kutaisi-Geguti-Sakulie-Bashi 16.0 16 700 31 AF SLRP AF15 Akhmeta-Batsara 19.0 11 400 32 AF SLRP AF57 Ska-Kareli 14.2 16 202 33 AF SLRP AF54 Ozurgeti-Shemokmedi-Bzhuzhhesi 17.0 16 351 34 AF SLRP AF65 Batumi-Akhaltsikhe 15.0 10 479 Rufoti-Alisubani-Sazano-Tuzi-Kitskhi- 35 AF SLRP AF66 Kvatsikhe 9.5 16 300 36 AF SLRP AF64 Kutaisi-Tskaltubo-Tsageri-Lentekhi 68-87 km 19.1 16 406 37 AF SLRP AF39 Kutaisi-Tskaltubo-Tsageri-Lentekhi 29-39 km 10.0 16 366 Kutaisi-Tskaltubo-Tsageri-Lentekhi-Lasdili 39- 38 AF SLRP AF73 49km 10.0 16 400 39 AF SLRP AF69 Didi Dmanisi-Dmanisi-Bediana 12.7 11 889 40 AF SLRP AF68 Tbilisi-TianeTi 8.3 13 478 41 AF SLRP AF74 Tsaishi-Ergeta-Darcheli 15.2 16 600 42 AF SLRP AF56 Gurjaani-Chabukiani-Afeni-Kabali 29.6 16 800
31
Zahesi-Mtskheta-Kavtiskhevi-Gori 24.3-41.700 43 AF SLRP AF53 km 17.0 16 630 44 AF SLRP AF59 Kareli-Samtsverisi-Osiauri 22.9 16 400 45 AF SLRP AF61 Zestafoni-kitskhi-Kharagauli 20.0 16 500 46 AF SLRP AF60 Kutaisi-Tkibuli-Ambrolauri road 42-56 km 15.0 16 533 47 AF SLRP AF67 Surami-Itria 3.7 8 1,890 48 AF SLRP AF71 Kutaisi-Tkibuli-Ambrolauri road 60-72 km 12.2 16 656 49 AF SLRP AF72 Kutaisi-Baghdati-Sairme-Benara 3.3 16 1,194 Total 843.5 14 822
The daily traffic of the project roads in 2008, year in which traffic is available for all roads, varies from 156 to 4,393 vehicles per day with an average of 822 vehicles per day. The current average traffic mix is composed of 74, 21, 4 and 1 percent cars, small buses and pickups, medium buses and 2 axle trucks, and 3 axle trucks and trailers respectively. At appraisal, the estimated traffic mix was 72, 18, 7, and 2 percent respectively, which shows an increase in the percentage of cars, small buses and pickups over time due in part to the better road condition. The current traffic is available only for 17 project roads. The observed annual traffic growth rate from 2008 to 2011 on the 17 project roads show a significant variance, ranging from -10 percent to +25 percent per year, with a median of 2.8 percent per year for all vehicles. The project appraisal document traffic growth estimated 5 percent per year for cars and 2 percent per year for the other vehicle types, representing a 4.3 percent annual growth for all vehicles. Thus, the observed traffic growth rates are lower than the appraisal traffic growth rate estimates.
The average contract cost of the rehabilitation works on the total 49 roads is Lari 318,264 per km, in 2011 Lari prices, while the average actual cost is Lari 324,852 per km, in 2011 Lari prices, representing a 2 percent average cost overrun on the contracts costs during project implementation in constant terms. The average contract cost of the rehabilitation works on the 11 roads financed under the original project is Lari 258,951 per km, in 2011 Lari prices, while the average actual cost is Lari 255,377 km, in 2011 Lari prices, representing a 2 percent average decrease on the contracts costs during project implementation in constant terms. The average contract cost of the rehabilitation works on the 38 roads financed under the additional financing is Lari 335,434 per km, in 2011 Lari prices, while the average actual cost is Lari 344,964per km, in 2011 Lari prices, representing a 3 percent average cost overrun on the contracts costs during project implementation in constant terms.
The road works were executed in different years from 2005 to 2011 and the Georgia consumer price index increased by 55 percent during this period. The chart below shows the contract and actual costs per km, in 2011 Lari per km, of the 49 contracts indicating that the rehabilitation cost per km increased over time in constant terms. During the implementation of SLRP Additional Financing the geometrical design standards have been improved, this being one of the reasons for the increase in costs and the need for the additional financing. The average rehabilitation cost of the 2005 road works is Lari 255,377 per km (US$ 151,425 per km), of the 2009-2010 road works is Lari 299,167 per km (US$ 177,390 per km), while of the 2011 road works is Lari 415,184 per km (US$ 246,182 per km).
32
Figure 3.1: Contract and Actual Costs 800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000 Cost (2011 Lari per km) Lari Cost (2011
200,000
100,000
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Contract Contract Cost Actual Cost
The ex-post economic evaluations of the 49 project roads was done adopting the actual rehabilitation costs for each road, current traffic data, and an annual traffic growth rate of 2.8 percent per year. The ex-post ERRs show a significant variance, ranging from 2 to 99 percent. The ERR was lower than 10 percent for 8 of the 49 roads. The overall ERR of the program is 24.7 percent, which represents a decrease of 20 percent over the overall ERR estimated during the preparation of the additional financing (30.7 percent), and an increase of 4 percent over the overall ERR estimated by the Roads Department during the project implementation period (23.7 percent). An ex-post ERR of 24.7 percent indicates that the rehabilitation program has a robust economic justification. The chart below shows the histogram distribution of the ex-post ERRs.
Figure 3.2: Ex-post ERR Histogram Distribution
18
16
14
12
10
8
6 Number of Observations (number) Observations of Number 4
2
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Economic Rate of Return (%)
In addition, the program of rehabilitating secondary and local roads created about 14,560 person-months of short-term employment in rural areas. This was lower than what was
33 estimated during the preparation of the additional financing (24,000 person-months) due to the optimistic planning of the indicator. In reality, modern methodologies and technologies were applied in the construction process, which lead to the reduction of the labor force. The methods were the following: (i) cold recycling method applied using modern equipment and (ii) installation of concrete drainage canals carried out using the special equipment.
34
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/ Supervision Processes
(a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Christopher R. Bennett Sr Transport. Spec. EASNS Transport Jacques Bure Sr Highway Engineer ECSS5 Road Engineer Junior Professional Gibet Camos-Daurella Junior Professional Associate ECSS5 Associate Gregoire Carrier Consultant ECSSD Consultant Remi Cousin Temporary ECSSD Temporary Arnaud Delarue Temporary ECSSD Temporary Jane Olga Ebinger Program Manager ENV Program Manager Gurandukht Elashvili Buyer GSDPR Procurement Asif Faiz Consultant SACPA Consultant Social Satoshi Ishihara Senior Social Development Spec EASTS Development Environmental Darejan Kapanadze Senior Environmental Specialist ECSS3 Management Olivier P. Le Ber Lead Transport Specialist MNSTR Transport Junior Professional Alejandro Lopez Martinez Junior Professional Associate ECSS5 Associate Sevara Melibaeva Young Professional YPP Young Professional Jiangbo Ning E T Consultant ECSS5 Consultant Mirtha Susan S. De Pokorny Consultant LCSTR Consultant Jesus Renzoli Consultant ECSO2 Procurement Social Helen Z. Shahriari Sr Social Scientist AFTCS Development Karl Skansing Consultant AFTSE Procurement Tamar Sulukhia Sector Leader ECSSD Transport Antti P. Talvitie Consultant ECSS5 Consultant Financial Arman Vatyan Sr Financial Management Specialist ECSO3 Management Financial Elizabeth C. Wang Senior Financial Officer ECSS5 Management
Supervision/ICR Senior Social Development Social I.U.B. Reddy SASDS Specialist Development Deepal Fernando Senior Procurement Specialist ECSO2 Procurement Environmental Darejan Kapanadze Senior Environmental Specialist ECSEN Management Jean Francois Marteau Senior Transport Specialist ECSTR Transport Joseph Melitauri Senior Operations Officer ECCGE Task Team Leader
35
Petrus Benjamin Gericke Lead Transport Specialist AFTTR Transport Senior Financial Management Financial Arman Vatyan ECSO3 Specialist Management Militsa Khoshtaria Program Assistant ECCGE Program Assistant Senior Social Development Social Joanna Peace De Berry ECSSO Specialist Development Marinos Skempas ET Consultant ECSTR Road Engineer Michael Butler Junior Professional Associate ECSTR Road Engineer
(b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project USD Thousands Cycle No. of staff weeks (including travel and consultant costs) Lending FY04 44.73 265.98 FY05 1.98 2.98 Total: 268.96 Supervision/ICR FY05 13.81 106.11 FY06 12.84 80.55 FY07 14.53 72.58 FY08 16.22 52.59
Total: 104.11 311.83
36
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results
A beneficiary assessment 19 was carried out in 2009 to assess the impacts of road rehabilitation, implemented under the Secondary and local roads project (SLRP), on the local population. The assessment was financed by IDA credit (3938-GE) and was carried out by “Sakgzametsniereba” Ltd (the Consultant), in accordance with the agreement signed with the Roads Department (RD).
The Consultant performed the sociological study to measure the impacts related to the life, commercial and business activity of the population residing in and around the vicinity of the rehabilitated roads. The RD chose ten rehabilitated roads for the impact assessment. Three questionnaire surveys were conducted to residents in 23 design villages20 and 23 control villages. Questionnaire No.1 asked questions relating to travel mode, travel time, road conditions, accessibility to markets & services and other demographic information. Questionnaire No2 asked questions to determine the impact of rehabilitated roads on commodity supply, services, business development, the costs of the main produce inter alia the local vegetables and costs of goods that are imported from the outside. Questionnaire No.3 focused on assessing the satisfaction of beneficiaries and overall selection/management of rehabilitated roads.
In general, the road rehabilitation has positively impacted the living and working conditions of the local population. The following observations and key impacts were identified in the study: • Improved access to healthcare and the facilitation of qualified medical services in hospitals. • Additional routes for minibuses have been added on rehabilitated roads due to an increase in public passenger demand in rural areas. • Timely supply of commodities and other products to the village. • Improved access to products & services in the district center, other district, regional center and Tbilisi. • Improvement of the social services in the district centers, regional centers and Tbilisi. • Advantageous road conditions for importing raw materials and exporting the products.
19Sakgzametsniereba Ltd (2009). Assessment of Benefit Acquired by the Population Living within the Area of the Executed Road Rehabilitation Project financed by the International Development Association (IDA), Credit No. 3938–GE. Scientific-Research and Industrial -Technological Complex Institute of Roads,Tbilisi, Georgia. 20 The Design Villages were within close proximity of the rehabilitated roads; connecting to the nearest district center. On the contrary, the Control Villages were connected to the nearest district center by roads in poor condition. 37
• Better participation of the local population in economic, social, cultural and political aspects of life in the country. The assessment also identified key recommendations for improving the secondary and local road network: • It was recommended not to rehabilitate separate portions of one and the same road at different villages and regions. It recommended rehabilitating the whole stretch of road, thus solving the problems of several inhabited locals dispersed throughout the regions. • It is desirable in regions (under the Governors’ administrations) to create the regional managements of local roads that would coordinate the activities of the local municipalities in the mentioned field and, would take care of mobilization of resources and direct the received transfers to appropriate tasks. • The road teams/groups must be organized at municipal level and the mentioned groups would be responsible for regional management. • It is necessary to organize training courses for motor road employees; such courses would be useful for improving the management and qualification of workers and engineers.
38
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results
N/A
39
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR
THE MINISTRY OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE OF GEORGIA
THE ROADS DEPARTMENT OF GEORGIA
SECONDARY AND LOCAL ROADS PROJECTS
(IDA-3938GE, IBRD-7671GE)
BORROWER’S CONTRIBUTION TO
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (ICR)
December 2012
40
Contents
Introduction ...... 42
Project Description ...... 43
Project Components: ...... 43
Project Development Objective and Key Indicators: ...... 44
Design ...... 47
Supervision ...... 47
Civil Works ...... 47
Environmental Safeguard ...... 51
Social Safeguard ...... 52
Procurement ...... 52
Economic Analysis ...... 52
Institutional Strengthening A ...... 52
Institutional strengthening B ...... 54
Unintended Impacts ...... 55
Lessons Learned ...... 55
Evaluation of the Bank ...... 56
41
Introduction
Georgia is a sovereign state in the Caucasus region of Eurasia. Located at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern Europe, it is bounded to the west by the Black Sea, to the north by Russia, to the south by Turkey and Armenia, and to the southeast by Azerbaijan. Georgia covers a territory of 69,700 km² and its population is almost 4.7 million. In 2007 Georgia's real GDP growth rate reached 12%, making Georgia one of the fastest growing economies in Eastern Europe. The World Bank dubbed Georgia "the number one economic reformer in the world".
Since 2004, the development of the roads infrastructure has been one of the top priorities of the Government of Georgia, As a result, the Government of Georgia applied to the World Bank for a loan to implement the Secondary and Local Roads rehabilitation Project which was aimed at the support to the development of agriculture and sub-regional trade. To this end, the Government of Georgia continues to closely cooperate with Development Partners-Asian Development Bank, European Investment Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency to implement construction, rehabilitation, modernization of the roads network. Also, the Government of Georgia with World Bank financing started the implementation of the Second Secondary and Local Roads Rehabilitation Project after the successfully completion of the Secondary and Local Roads Rehabilitation Projects
The Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure (M.RDI) is responsible for the road sector in Georgia. The ministry was established on February 2, 2009 according to Article 81 (2) of the Constitution of Georgia and Law on the Structure, Powers and Order of Activity of the Government. The Ministry oversees regional and national infrastructure development throughout the country, which includes modification and modernization of state road networks of international and domestic importance.
The Roads Department21 is the subordinated agency of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure and is responsible for the management and administration of the International and secondary road. The Roads Department is a relatively streamlined road agency, with a total staff of 190, including 150 in headquarters and 40 in the regions. Headed by the Chairman and four Vice Chairmen, it comprises 11 divisions and units, and 6 regional offices. The Roads Department is responsible for a road network of about 6.930 km. it has a ratio of about 2.7 staff /100 km, which is relatively low compared to other road agencies in transition economies.
21 see attached Annex1-The structure of RD 42
Project Description
Financial Issues - The credit of US$20.0 million for the project was financed under a Specific Investment Loan (SIL). This was considered the most appropriate for this particular project owing to the nature of the pilot program it financed. Afterwards the Government has requested the Bank to scale up activities under the well performing SLRP by rehabilitating an additional 450 km of secondary and local roads, with a World Bank ratio of USD 70 million, with a view to both increasing employment opportunities and laying the ground work for improved productivity in the future. During the implementation of SLRP/AF the Geometrical design standards have been improved. The program of rehabilitating secondary and local roads was expected to create about 24,000 person-months of short-term employment in rural areas.
The project committed funds above the loan amount at the end stage of the implementation. The causes of the over commitment were the following: the subsequent appreciation of the GEL against the US$ caused а deficit of project funding and additional civil works. To address the deficit and to al1ow the completion of works, the Government allocated additional budget funding. To this context, the financing ratio of Government share was increased till 50%, which was reflected in the restructuring paper of a project.
SLRP Funds Bank’ s Share (mill) GoG’ s Share(mill) Financing Ratio SLRP 20.00 7.44 70% SLRP AF 70.00 30.00 70%22
Project Components: The initial project had three components Component 1: Rehabilitation of approximately 500 to 750 kilometers of paved secondary and local roads, including between 150 to 250 kilometers of local roads. Component 2: Strengthening the capacity of road sector institutions by improving engineering standards and data collection capabilities, establishing between four and six regional offices for network and works monitoring, development and implementation of regional road maintenance plans, improved interactions with local communities, and traffic safety enhancements. Component 3: Design and supervision of the road works. After the successful implementation of the initial project the Components remained unchanged, but their scope increased to reflect additional civil works and the technical assistance (TA). Therefore, the project consists of the original project and the following additional parts:
22 The financing ratio of the World Bank has been decreased from 70% to 50% 43
Component 1: The Rehabilitating about 690-710 23 kilometers of secondary and 150-170 kilometers of local roads in six regions throughout Georgia (Guria, Samegrelo, Imereti, Kakheti, Shida Kartli, and Mtskheta-Tianeti) took place. Component 2: Strengthening the Capacity of Road Sector Institutions (a) Strengthening the capacity of RDMRDI and its six regional offices in management and maintenance of the secondary road network through the provision of: (i) consultants’ services for data collection; (ii) computer equipment, laboratory, equipment, vehicles and office furniture; and (iii) training. (b) Strengthening the capacity of local government units in management and maintenance of local road network through: (i) the provision of consultants’ services for assessing needs and resources of the local governments for roads maintenance and for designing a local road management and maintenance resource manual; and (ii) conducting workshops for local governments on local road management and maintenance. (c) Provision of consultants’ services for preparing project audits. Component 3: Designing and Supervising Road Rehabilitation through the provision of consultants’ services.
Project Development Objective and Key Indicators: (1) Improve the Economic and Social Well-Being of the Rural Population in Selected Areas Through Upgrading of their Secondary and Local Road Networks. Socio-economic surveys by consultants have confirmed that road improvements made a significant impact on the economic and social well-being of rural Georgia. The surveys covered a random sample of 400 persons in five districts (Lanchkhuti, Gori, Kaspi, Gurjaani and Borjomi). In rating the various problems they face, the condition of roads ranked second only to health services as a problem for rural residents, with 93 percent of respondents rating it an important problem. Reduced transport costs increased the competitiveness of local produce, improved access to social services, i.e. schools and medical facilities, and to off farm employment opportunities, and in some cases spurred tourism development which in the past was an important sector of the Georgian economy. Indicators proposed for the baseline and follow-up surveys of villages in the zone of influence of improved roads were:
• Reduction in transport costs/time
• Increases in off-farm employment income
(2) Improve the effectiveness of the Road Department of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development to maintain a cost effective and sustainable secondary and local road network. MRDIRD’s capacity to deliver an efficient
23 The capacity of the initial project has been reduced despite the additional financing due to the improvement of the Geometrical Designs Standards. 44
road network depended on the adequacy of funding for maintenance and rehabilitation, and their ability to stretch available resources by introducing more cost-effective techniques. Following Indicators were adopted:
• Reductions in the unit costs of road works
• Annual expenditures on secondary and local road maintenance
(3) Improve the effectiveness of Road Department of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development in its interaction with communities and its responsiveness to local needs. MRDIRD’s responsiveness to local needs depended on the extent to which communities are made aware of road programs, and the extent to which their views and priorities are regularly expressed and taken into consideration. This requires well-functioning participatory mechanisms, for which the following indicators were adopted:
• Annual publication of road condition, expenditure and future program information
• Preparation of a proposal for annual local road improvements by each RMC
The project also assisted RDMID to establish regional offices six to allow closer linkages with communities, and better monitoring of implementation.
Please, see below the matrix of the Project Performance Indicators.
Year Data Collection and Reporting
Baseline Frequency and Data Collection Responsibility for Outcome Indicators 2004 Target Actual Reports Instruments Data Collection Travel time improvement 20.5 20 19.9 RDMRDI over current situation on targeted road sections
Number of person-months of 0 24000 13431* Q 1 of each year Supervision jobs created (Bank estimates) consultant Report
Road Maintenance and 20 155 183.6 State Budget rehabilitation Expenditures (GEL million p.a.) Annual report published 0 1 1 RDMRDI website
Year Data Collection and Reporting
Results Indicators for Each Baseline Frequency and Data Collection Responsibility for Component 2004 Target Actual Reports Instruments Data Collection Component One: Rehabilitation of 0 690-710 631 Quarterly Annual Reports RD
45
approximately 690-710 km 174 km under Progress reports of secondary roads SLRP 457 km under SLRP AF 211 Rehabilitation of 75 km under approximately 150-170 km 0 150-170 SLRP of local roads 136 km under SLRP AF Component Two: Regional offices operational 0 6 5** Annual
Traffic police trained/year 0 148
5 Year Rolling Maintenance No Yes 24 Plans Design and Maintenance No Partially*** Standards adopted Geometric Design Standard No Yes Adopted Guidebook produced and Yes 25 provided to Local Governments Workshop for Local Yes 26 Government conducted
Component Three: 990 km
260 km under 850 km of roads designed 0 850 SLRP 730 km under SLRP AF
*Note: The indicator was fulfilled only for 14560 man/months. It was conditioned by the optimistic planning of the indicator calculated based on the financial resources for 1 man/month. In reality, modern methodologies and technologies were applied in the construction process, which lead to the reduction of the labor force. The methods were the following: (i) cold recycling method applied using the special modern equipment (ii) installation of concrete drainage canals will also be carried out using the special equipment that results in the decrease of the number of the labor force. **Note: The Regional Offices are located in Kutaisi, Poti, Batumi, Sagarejo, Borjomi. Selection of the office space for Borjomi regional office is ongoing. The offices are provided with relevant equipment with total of 25 persons employed. The responsibilities of the regional offices are the following: cooperation with the local government in terms of roads maintenance and improvement, providing the unobstructed traffic flow in the state of emergency, monitoring of the ongoing activities. ***Note: The Employer accepted only part of the design standards namely the Guidelines for Environmental Issues. The rest of the assignment has been considered unsatisfactory due to the
24 see attached Annex 2 25 see attached Annex 3 26 see attached Annex 4 46
low quality of the documents. Maintenance standards have been adopted. For more details please, see attached Annex XXX.
Design –The total designed roads length is 990 km. The detail designs of the road sections have been prepared by the four companies (locals, foreign) based on international procurement. The shortcoming of the detail design works was that the traffic safety measures were not considered for the certain sections of the roads. During the implementation of the civil works, as a result of the consideration of the above-mentioned issues, the additional commitments have taken place, such as: access roads of the schools, nursery houses, paths in residential areas. Note: The detail design for the seven road sections with approximate length of 30 km prepared by the SLRP AF is being implemented under II SLRP.
Supervision – the supervision consultant was selected based on the international procurement and the contract was signed with Joint Venture represented by the foreign and local companies. In the earliest stage of the project, the reports submitted by the consultant did not include the sufficient technical information. After discussion of the format of the report, the parties agreed to adopt a new format to improve the quality of the information.
Civil Works – around 35 foreign and local companies were employed under the project based on the international procurement. 631 km of Secondary and 211 km of Local roads have been rehabilitated. The total rehabilitated roads length is 842 km. Due to the shortcomings of the detail designs the additional works were executed to enhance the road safety measures recommended by the World Bank. Please see below the list of the rehabilitated road sections:
Compencate sums Comment Final contract Changes of contract Appendix to # contract code project name Region contract price (sections end price price the time Share of Share of the dates) Georgia World Bank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Appendix agreement N1, Secondary road section Appendix 09.09.2009 AKHMETA - agreement N3, SLRP Appendix PHSHAVELI - 28.06.2010 30.04.2011 1 AF/CW/ICB- Kakheti 14,595,576.70 15,454,066.82 agreement N2, 3,503,425.29 8,174,659.01 NINIGORI, km30+000- Appendix executed 12 18.06.2010 km129+000 rehabilitation agreement N4, Appendix works 14.12.2010 agreement N5, 15.03.2011
Appendix Local road section agreement N1, DOREULEBI - SLRP Mtskhet 05.02.2010 Appendix NAKALAKARI - 22.10.2010 2 AF/CW/ICB- a- 1,420,004.14 1 412 945,47 Appendix agreement N2, 299,564.98 698,984.99 GORANA, km0+000- executed 25 Mtianeti agreement N2, 30.11.2010 km10+100 rehabilitation 30.11.2010 works -7058.67 GEL
47
Appendix agreement N1, Local road section SLRP 21.09.2009 KAVTISKHEVI - KASPI, Shida 10.11.2010 3 AF/CW/ICB- 2,314,454.36 2,438,071.16 Appendix 549,349.50 1,281,815.51 km0+000-km10+000 Kartli executed 26a agreement N2, rehabilitation works 28.06.2010 +123616.80 GEL Appendix agreement N1, 09.10.2009 Secondary road section Appendix SLRP KASPI - METEKHI - Shida agreement N2, 10.11.2010 4 AF/CW/ICB- AKHALKALAKI, 2,515,054.95 2 391 041,12 530,546.72 1,237,942.34 Kartli 02.02.2010 executed 26b km0+500-km12+100 Appendix rehabilitation works agreement N3, 23.02.2010 - 76068.07 GEL Appendix agreement N1, 14.09.2009 Appendix Secondary road section Appendix agreement N3, SLRP ZAHESI - MTSKHETA - Shida agreement N4, 26.07.2010 25.12.2010 5 AF/CW/ICB- KAVTISKHEVI - GORI, 2,863,973.96 3,271,564.36 760,559.74 1,774,639.40 Kartli 11.08.2010 Appendix executed 26d km41+700-km56+000 Appendix agreement N5, rehabiitation works agreement N5, 12.11.2010 12.11.2010 +40759.40GEL
Appendix Secondary road section Appendix agreement N4, SLRP KUTAISI - GEGUTI - agreement N5, 01.10.2010 31.08.2011 6 AF/CW/ICB- SAKHULIE - BASHI, Imereti 5,626,651.41 5,886,319.85 1,311,875.60 3,061,043.06 26.10.2010 Appendix executed 37 km19+00-km34+000 +259668.44 GEL agreement N6, rehabilitation works 02.05.2011
Appendix agreement N1, Secondary road section SLRP Samegre 27.07.2009 Appendix ABASHA - MARTVILI, 20.12.2010 7 AF/CW/ICB- lo Zemo 3,555,722.10 3 791 047,73 Appendix agreement N4, 1,071,644.10 2,500,502.90 km0+000-km32+000 executed 7 Svaneti agreement N3, 04.11.2010 rehabilitation works 23.12.2009 +235325.63GEL Appendix agreement N1, 21.09.2009 Appendix Local road section agreement N2, AKHMETA - BATSARA, SLRP 30.07.2010 Appendix km0+000-km13+500; 30.07.2011 8 AF/CW/ICB- Kakheti 2,617,688.64 3,049,431.87 Appendix agreement N4, 712,026.68 166,395.59 km14+500; km17+500- executed 15 agreement N3, 30.11.2010 km22+500 rehabilitatiion 26.11.2010 works Appendix agreement N5, 29.04.2011 +431743.03GEL Appendix Local r/section INGIRI- agreement N1, SLRP OKTOMBERI-KAKHATI Samegre 18.06.2009 01.10.2009 9 AF/CW/ICB- road section, km0+000- lo Zemo 1,179,325,63 1,227,572.24 Appendix 279,098.55 651,229.95 executed 18 km10+300 part Svaneti agreement N2, rehabilitation works 16.10.2009 +48247.00GEL
Local r/section Appendix SLRP KAKHATI-KOKI- Samegre agreement N2, 15.12.2009 10 AF/CW/ICB- ORSANTIA road section, lo Zemo 1,276,049.64 1,444,840.86 335,216.67 782,172.22 20.08.2009 executed 19/32 km0+00-km5+300 part Svaneti +168791.22GEL rehabilitation works
Appendix Secondary r/section agreement N1, BERDZNISTSKHARO- SLRP 12.08.2009 KOKHNARI-SERI-KETA 30.11.2010 11 AF/CW/ICB- Guria 1,756,195.18 1 899 294,96 Appendix 435,927.36 1,017,163.85 road section km0+00- executed 21 agreement N2, km5+700 part 16.12.2009 rehabilitation works +143099.78GEL
Secondary r/section Appendix SLRP KUTAISI-KHONI road agreement N1, 25.04.2010 12 AF/CW/ICB- Imereti 1,498,897.45 1,492,442.82 335,413.10 782,630.57 section km1-km7 part 24.07.2009 - executed 22a rehabilitation works 6454.63GEL
48
Appendix agreement N1, 13.10.2009 Secondary road section Appendix SLRP AKHMETA - TELAVI, Appendix agreement N2, 22.12.2010 13 AF/CW/ICB- km0+000-km16+800; Kakheti 5,600,336.31 5,885,440.43 agreement N4, 1,325,852.30 3,093,655.38 30.04.2010 executed 29a km25+000-km30+200 09.11.2010 Appendix rehabilitation works agreement N3, 11.10.2010 +285104.12GEL Appendix Secondary r/section agreement N2, SLRP ZUGDIDI - JVARI - Samegre 27.08.2009 30.11.2010 14 AF/CW/ICB- MESTIA - LASDILI, lo Zemo 5,752,067.25 6,273,155.25 Appendix 1,780,471.04 4,154,432.43 executed 38 km1+000-km29+000 Svaneti agreement N3, rehabilitation works 07.12.2009 +521088.00GEL Appendix agreement N1, Secondary road section 27.08.2009 KUTAISI - Appendix SLRP TSKHALTUBO - agreement N2, 01.09.2010 15 AF/CW/ICB- Imereti 4,686,179.99 4 951 739,00 1,130,074.81 2,636,841.23 CAGERI - LENTEKHI, 10.09.2009 executed 39 km23+000-km33+000 Appendix rehabilitation works agreement N3, 21.12.2009 +265559.01GEL
Local road section TSALENJIKHA - Appendix SLRP Samegre NAKIPHU - agreement N1, 10.09.2010 16 AF/CW/ICB- lo Zemo 1,987,489.99 2,100,820.13 469,767.03 1,096,123.07 LETSURTSUME, 20.08.2010 executed 32a Svaneti km3+000-km12+400 113330.14GEL rehabilitation works
Appendix Internal r/section IGOETI- agreement N1, SLRP KASPI-AKHALKALAKI 30.10.2009 Shida 30.07.2010 17 AF/CW/NCB road section km6+500- 777,777.54 744 592,45 Appendix 165,542.35 386,265.48 Kartli executed -50 km8+517 part agreement N2, rehabilitation works 01.02.2010 -33185.09GEL
Local road section Appendix SLRP CHOKHATAURI - agreement N1, 30.07.2010 18 AF/CW/NCB SUREBI - TOBAKHCHO, Guria 2,279,376.27 2,483,649.84 565,355.32 1,319,162.40 30.03.2010 executed -51 km0+000-km15+810 +204273.57GEL rehabilitation works
Appendix agreement N1, 08.02.2010 Secondary road section Appendix SLRP Appendix ACCESS TO KAREKI, Shida agreement N2, 15.09.2010 19 AF/CW/NCB 1,218,916.92 1,223,426.82 agreement N3, 276,602.66 645,406.20 km0+000-km4+300 Kartli 28.06.2010 executed -52 26.07.2010 rehabilitation works Appendix agreement N4, 13.09.2010 +4509.90GEL Appendix agreement N1, Appendix 30.04.2010 agreement N4, Appendix 04.01.2011 agreement N2, Appendix 17.08.2010 agreement N6, Appendix 29.07.2011 Secondary road section agreement N3, Appendix SLRP ZAHESI - MTSKHETA - 10.11.2010 Shida agreement N8, 20 AF/CW/ICB- KAVTISKHEVI - GORI, 4,774,453.01 4,915,123.43 Appendix 1,098,117.30 2,474,206.02 30.06.2012 Kartli 30.09.2011 53 km41+700-km56+000 agreement N5, Appendix rehabiitation works 29.04.2011 agreement N9, Appendix 30.10.2011 agreement N7, Appendix 30.08.2011 agreement Appendix N11, agreement N10, 30.04.2012 18.04.2012 +140670.41 Appendix Local road section agreement N1, OZURGETI - SLRP 30.04.2010 Appendix SHEMOKMEDI - 30.06.2011 21 AF/CW/ICB- Guria 4,897,137.14 5,377,997.93 Appendix agreement N2, 1,227,704.94 2,864,644.87 BJUJHESI,km0+000- executed 54 agreement N2, 14.12.2010 km17+000 rehabilitation 14.02.2010 works +480860.79GEL
Local road section GORI - Appendix SLRP SKRA, km0+000- Shida agreement N1, 30.12.2010 22 AF/CW/NCB 2,958,493.31 2,958,493.31 658,555.70 1,536,629.97 km8+342 rehabilitation Kartli 30.03.2010 executed -55 works 0.00GEL
49
Appendix agreement N3, 10.05.2011 Appendix Appendix agreement N2, agreement N4, Secondary road section 19.09.2010 30.08.2011 GURJAANI - Appendix SLRP Appendix CHABUKIANI - APHENI agreement N3, 23 AF/CW/ICB- Kakheti 10,761,535.14 10,373,290.95 agreement N5, 2,433,682.32 5,255,693.48 15.06.2012 - KABALI, km0+000- 10.05.2011 56 31.10.2011 km26+000 rehabilitation Appendix Appendix works agreement N7, agreement N6, 18.04.2012 - 28.12.2011 388244.19GEL Appendix agreement N8, 24.05.2012
Appendix Appendix agreement N1, agreement 08.06.2010 N13, Local road sectionSKRA - Appendix 12.11.2010 SLRP KARELI, km0+000- Shida agreement N2, Appendix 31.07.2011 24 AF/CWNIC 2,279,844.52 2,279,844.52 508,984.40 1,187,630.26 km13+020 rehabilitation Kartli 29.07.2010 agreement N4, executed B-57 works Appendix 26.11.2010 agreement N5, Appendix 04.03.2011 agreement N6, 0.00GEL 30.06.2011 Appendix agreement N1, 25.03.2011 Secondary road section Appendix KARELI - Appendix agreement N2, SLRP SAMTSEVRISI - Shida agreement N6, 02.05.2011 25 AF/CW/ICB- 4,337,047.41 4,015,966.71 635,269.78 1,360,968.28 29.06.2012 OSIAURI, km0+000- Kartli 18.04.2012 - Appendix 59 km122+960 rehabilitation 321080.70GEL agreement N3, works 18.08.2011 Appendix agreement N5, 31.10.2011 Appendix agreement N2, Secondary road section Appendix agreement 02.05.2011 ZESTAPHONI - SLRP N1, 26.07.2010 Appendix KITSKHI - 26 AF/CW/ICB- Imereti 6,723,288.55 6,102,235.03 Appendix agreement agreement N3, 929,031.97 2,018,207.86 30.06.2012 KHARAGAULI, 61 N6, 28.05.2012 - 29.09.2011 km0+000-km20+790 621053.52GEL Appendix rehabilitation works agreement N4, 31.10.2011 Appendix agreement N4, Secondary road section Racha- Appendix agreement 29.07.2011 KUTAISI-TKHIBULI- SLRP Lechkhu N2, 30.08.2010 Appendix AMBROLAURI road 27 AF/CW/ICB- mi 7 262 198,30 7,986,524.11 Appendix agreement agreement N5, 1,760,604.77 4,108,077.79 30.06.2012 section, km42+000- 60 Kvemo N3, 29.04.2011 12.09.2011 km57+000 part Svaneti +724325.81GEL Appendix rehabilitation works agreement N6, 31.10.2011 Appendix agreement N1, Secondary road section 30.08.2010 KUTAISI- Racha- Appendix SLRP TSKHALTUBO- Lechkhu Appendix agreement N2, 30.06.2011 28 AF/CW/ICB- CAGERI-LENTEKHI- mi 11 717 406,83 12,093,412.52 agreement N4, 2,713,138.18 6,330,655.74 23.02.2011 executed 64 LASILI road section, Kvemo 29.07.2011 Appendix km68+000-km87+000 part Svaneti agreement N3, rehabilitation 08.06.2011 +376005.69GEL Appendix Secondary road section agreement N1, SLRP BATUMI- 16.11.2010 Appendix 12.09.2011 29 AF/CW/ICB- AKHALTSIKHE road Achara 6 640 265,07 6,745,602.13 Appendix agreement N2, 1,524,081.61 3,556,190.42 executed 65 section, km23-km38 part agreement N3, 28.07.2011 rehabilitation works 30.08.2011 +105337.06GEL
Secondary road section RUPHOTI-ALISUBANI- SLRP SAZANO-TUZI- Appendix agreement Appendix 16.09.2011 30 AF/CW/ICB- KVATSIKHE-KITSKHI Imereti 2 306 076,18 2,306,055.06 N2, 15.09.2011 agreement N1, 518,861.19 1,210,676.12 executed 66 road section, km18+660- 21.12GEL 29.07.2011 km28+148 part rehabilitation
50
Appendix agreement N1, Local road section 29.07.2011 Appendix agreement SLRP SURAMI-ITRIA road Appendix Shida N4, 30.11.2011 31 AF/CW/NCB section, km0+000- 1 597 052.83 1,534,591.77 agreement N2, 252,963.98 532,427.68 30.06.2012 Kartli Appendix agreement -67 km3+743 part 30.09.2011 N5, 18.04.2012 rehabilitation works Appendix agreement N6, 30.10.2011 Appendix agreement N3, SLRP Secondary r/section Mtskhet 30.08.2011 Appendix 31.10.2011 32 AF/CW/NCB TBILISI-TIANETI KM51- a- 1 767 441.05 1,720,465.24 Appendix agreement N1, 76,857.23 179,333.53 executed -68 KM59 rehabilitation works Mtianeti agreement N5, 04.04.2011 28.10.2011 - 46975.81GEL
Secondary r/sectionDIDI DMANISI-DMANISI- SLRP Appendix agreement Appendix GOMARETI-EDIANI Kvemo 25.10.2011 33 F/CW/NCB- 4 996 129.57 4,996,129.57 N2, 23.09.2011 agreement N1, 1,123,504.75 2,621,511.08 road section, km0+00- Kartli executed 69 0.00GEL 29.07.2011 km12+741 part rehabilittion works
Secondary r/section KUTAISI- TSKHALTUBO- Appendix agreement Appendix SLRP AF 31.10.2011 34 CAGERI-LENTEKHI- Imereti 4 144 700.98 4,014,325.37 N2, 08.06.2011 - agreement N1, 172,063.58 401,481.69 CW/ICB-70 executed LASDILI r/section 130375.61GEL 10.03.2011 km29+000-km39+000 rehabilitation works
Appendix agreement N1, Secondary r/section Racha- 10.03.2011 SLRP KUTAISI-TKHIBULI- Lechkhu Appendix agreement Appendix 35 AF/CW/ICB- AMBROLAURI mi 5,324,490.65 5,876,658.13 N2, 30.05.2011 agreement N5, 196,304.635 434,781.895 30.06.2012 71 km60+000-km72+230 Kvemo +552167.48GEL 31.10.2011 rehabilitation works Svaneti Appendix agreement N6, 30.11.2011
Appendix Secondary r/section Appendix agreement agreement N1, SLRP KUTAISI-BAGDADI- N2, 06.10.2011 10.03.2011 36 AF/CW/NCB SAIRME- Imereti 2 406 551.98 2,332,067.75 Appendix agreement 609,234.78 1,124,919.18 30.06.2012 Appendix -72 ABASTUMANI- N4, 18.04.2012 - agreement N3, BENARA, km23-km26 74484.23GEL 31.10.2011
Secondary r/section Racha- KUTAISI- SLRP Lechkhu Appendix agreement TSKHALTUBO- 30.10.2011 37 AF/CW/ICB- mi 6,337,874.34 7,051,614.33 N1 30.06.2011 1,626,813.06 3,795,897.15 CAGERI-LENTEKHI- executed 73 Kvemo -130375.61 LASDILI km40+00- Svaneti km49+00 rehabilitation Appendix Local r/section CAISHI- agreement N1, SLRP Samegre Appendix agreement ERGETA-DARCHELI, 31.10.2011 10.12.2011 38 AF/CW/ICB- lo Zemo 7,304,936.44 7,417,338.11 N2, 28.11.2011 1,737,303.016 3,848,180.184 km0+00-km15+218 Appendix executed 74 Svaneti +713739.99 GEL rehabilitation agreement N2, 28.11.2011
total 162,058,661.73 167,519,199.15 35,501,612.27 80,163,400.06
Note: Please see attached Annex 5 - the map of the rehabilitated road sections.
Environmental Safeguard – Based on the nature and scope of the proposed project activities, the Project was classified through environmental screening as Category B. The project activities were confined to rehabilitation works on the existing alignment and construction of new roads or widening were not included. Therefore, the project did not carry any major risk of affecting important habitats, damaging forest stands, or affecting other ecosystems in any tangible and/or irreversible ways. Environment Impact Assessments were prepared and agreed with the World Bank for all 49 road sections. The non-compliance in terms of the environment was observed during
51
the implementation of the civil works for the several road sections. The environmental check list was prepared by the close cooperation between the World Bank’s and the Roads Department’s specialists. The environmental check list was elaborated as a part of the monthly report. As a result, the environmental part of the project was improved. The Project rehabilitated 450 km of secondary and local roads within the alignments.
Social Safeguard - the project significantly improved the basic access of the rural population in Georgia by reducing the travel time to regional centers where various social services and economic opportunities are available. The project also created short-term employment through civil works, as well as mid-term employment in the form of routine maintenance. All civil works were conducted within the existing right of way. During the rehabilitation of the road section - Ozurgeti-Shemokmedi-Bzhuzhgesi the land take cases on site took place. The RD has presented an inventory of the land take cases which included names of each owner, and description of the land taken. There were 15 cases of land take; in each case а strip of the land was taken and fence was moved. About 4,000 m2 total land was taken, the maximum width of the land strip was 9 meters. In all cases the fences were rebuilt by the contractor.
Procurement - Under the Project the following procurement methods: ICB, NCB, QCBS, QCS, LSC, IC, Shopping were used. 50 procurement activities have taken place, which have been completed successfully.
Description Procurement Methods Number NCB 14 Civil Works - Rehabilitation ICB 24 QCBS 1 QCS 1 Consultancy Services LSC 1 IC 1 Goods Shopping 8
Economic Analysis27
COMPONENTS 2 – Institutional Strengthening Institutional strengthening A – Technical Assistance for Local Governments in Management and Maintenance of Local Roads The main objectives of this project was to strengthen the capacity of Local Self- Governments in road maintenance and management as well enhancement of their skills
27 See attached Annex 6 Economic Evaluation Inputs. 52
for realization of the planned road works through providing them concise and “easy to use” manuals on:
I. Planning and management of Local Roads in Georgia.
II. Executing effective road maintenance.
Activities for this project included knowledge transfer and improvement of not only planning skills, but also execution of effective maintenance activities.
Project covered mainly 5 major activities namely:
1) Fact finding;
2) Preparing the draft manuals;
3) Approval of prepared final manuals;
4) Publishing manuals, which were disseminated to the local governments.
5) Implementation through seminars and workshops
Figure 1 – Project Organization
As a result, two manuals namely, manual for planning and management of local roads and manual for procurement and execution of the effective road works were published in
53
Georgian and English version and have been distributed to all 69 local municipalities through MRDI. This project provided the basic tools for planning and executing road work activities. However, the degree of success to improve the local road network in Georgia remains in decisions to be made by the Central Government as well as the Local Governments for sufficient budgeting for rehabilitation and maintenance works of local roads. Although, having a good plan is important but being able to execute the plan is even more important.
Workshop The two workshops were led by the Ministry of Regional development and Infrastructure and the Roads Department. The 2-day Workshop targeted participation of about two representatives from each LSG (total of 140 from LSGs, as well as about 20 participants from respective central government agencies). The participants were invited by the Ministry. The consultant assisted the Ministry and RD to design the Agenda. The Guidebooks/Manuals were distributed at the Workshop. The consultant prepared all audiovisual and other materials for presentation at the workshop, made specific presentations, and provided general logistical support. The workshops costs were a reimbursable expense on the contract.
Institutional strengthening B - Inventory of Local Roads
Objective of the client was to establish a road and pavement condition database of local roads to use with Road Management Systems to monitor network condition status and perceived benefits from the maintenance practices.
This project was a first attempt to survey and digitalize local roads, therefore it included identification and coding together with the inventory process. During the project more than 9000km of local roads has been surveyed according to specifications provided in the TOR which in detail described the mandatory requirements for data collection. Currently all geographic and inventory data is available in Roads Department’s GIS database.
This project was a parallel to the project “Technical Assistance for Local Governments in Management and Maintenance of Local Roads ” and is believed to improve and support planning procedures for local municipalities by providing access to up to date condition and inventory of local roads.
Institutional strengthening C - Technical Assistance for IT Technology
The consultant was provided with office space, equipment, supplies, etc. at the Roads Department and worked with Road Data Unit team to strengthen, update and extend the existing data base on a sustainable basis and to undertake systematic program level analysis of the road network to indicate priorities for expenditures based on economic analysis. He was responsible for the implementation and development of Geographic Information System (GIS), Road Development
54
and Management System (HDM4) and the integration of different data types into the GIS system. In particular, the consultant was responsible for:
Strengthening capacity of Planning Unit for road investment and maintenance to develop multi- year investment and maintenance programs by implementing HDM-4 2.0 new version of the software;
Calibrating the HDM-4 2.0 to better reflect local conditions. In the process, to achieve a level of understanding of the system in Road Administration. Assisting Planning Unit with the development of a programming method for annual road improvements and maintenance for asphalt and concrete roads, and assisting with the preparation of a five-year rolling Highway Management Program (updated annually); Providing support for GIS applications and assisting in data migration, planning, and maintenance of above systems; Implementation of corporate policies supporting data collection (inventory and inspection protocols) and condition analysis reporting, for supervising a process of collection and renewal of data for road pavement and inventory process; Developing and implementing the rules and procedures for providing data security and integrity. Maintaining confidentiality with regard to the information being processed, stored or accessed by the network; Training of the Roads Department and its regional offices staff in data collection, use of GIS and HDM4 systems;
The assignment Assessment of benefit acquired by the population living within the area of the executed road rehabilitation project has been prepared under initial SLRP. The report proved the relevance of the project performance indicators.
Unintended Impacts
The road rehabilitation created the good conditions for transportation. New routes for the micro- busses have been added in rural areas.28
Based on the general observations, the number of the rural residents increased as a result of the implementation of the SLRP Project.
Lessons Learned
a) adequate number of the supervision specialists which results in the intensive supervision of each contract/object b) (ii) adequate consideration of safety measures in the design documents and engineer design c) concentrated management and monitoring of the project from the side of the employer
28 See attached Annex 7 Assessment of benefit acquired by the population living within the area of the executed road rehabilitation project financed by the association for International Development (IDA), Credit No 3938-GE) 55
Based on the abovementioned lessons and weaknesses, the next project (SLRP II) considers the following: (i) increased number of the supervisors, (ii) safety audits of all the engineer designs under SLRP II have been carried out (iii) the new project considers the position of the project manager, consultant who will provide general management and monitoring of the project.
Evaluation of the Bank The team of the Bank provided all kinds of support to the project. The decisions and No Objections were provided in time. RD expresses sincere gratitude to the WB Team involved in the project for kind support and close cooperation which became the basis for successful completion of the project.
56
Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/ Stakeholders
N/A
57
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents
58
43
42
Soci To
°
° ˘ Black Sea UKRAINE 40
° l
TURKEY l l SYRIAN ARAB REP. 40
l °
l Black l
l S1
l
l Gagra
Sea l l
FEDERATION l Picunda RUSSIAN GEORGIA l IRAQ Tbilisi
l Gudauta
A
R l
M l E
N l
I A
l AZERBAIJAN
l
l
ISLAMIC REP. OF IRAN
l
Caspian
l
Kvemo-Psap l
Sea l l 41 KAZAKHSTAN
l ° ˘ 41
l Suhumi ° l l l l
l TURKMENISTAN l
l S1 Ocamcira
˘˘ l 41 ° l RUSSIAN FEDERATION Anaklia l
l l
Batumi l l
l
This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown other information denominations and any The boundaries, colors, on this map do not imply, of The World on the part Bank Group, any ugeto h ea ttso n ertr,or any endorsement status of any territory, judgment on the legal acceptance of such boundaries. l
Poti l Chaladidi
Kobuleti l Choroki l SH008
l l Enguri l
SH049 Helvacauri l
S2 Tkvarceli
l l l l
Khobi
Gali
l
l l
l
l
l l l ˘ l
l ˘
l l l l l l l l l l
S2 l l Lanchuti
l l l l
Zugdidi l l
42 l
˘ l l l
° l Keda
l l l
l SH006 l 42 l
l l
Ozurgeti Suahevi l
Cohatauri l ° TURKEY
SH001
Senaki
Dzvari
l l Rioni Calendziha
l l
Chorocku
˘ SH004
l l
˘ l Martvili
SH007 l
Abasha
SH002 l
l l Hulo
Honi l S1
SH054 l
SH053
Enguri
l l V SH015 ani
Adigeni
Kutaisi
l
l l
Chaltubo l Cageri SH014
l
l
Bagdati Chenisckali l
Simoneti l l l Mestia
l Lentehi l Rioni l
l SH017 SH019 Benara l
l Lasdili
SH055
l l 43 l l Ambrolauri
T 43 ° l
l erzola Tkibuli Haragauli Ahalcihe ° ˘
SH016
l l l l
Zestaponi l l
l
l Cesi
l l
l Ciatura l l ˘
l l SH022 l l
l PR01
S8 l
l Aslindza l
l Uravi
l l Rioni
l l
l l
Sachere
l
l l l ˘
S1
Borjomi l l Oni
l
l l Ahalkalaki K Gebi virilk
l
Ninocminda l
Gomi l l Hasuri
Kvaisi l ˘
l
l To
Kareli Leninakan
l Mamisoni SH031 Pass l
l To Dzava
44
Alagir l ˘ Chinvali 44 l Calka l ° ° T l l salka l
Dmanisi l l
l
Akhalkalaki l Gori SH070 l
l S1 SH029
l To
Bediani T Tasir
lll l etri-Ckaro
Axalgori
˘ l SH065
Kaspi l
ARMENIA Bolnisi Mtkvari (Kura) Mtkvari Kobi
l l To RIVERS GLACIER AREAS RAILROADS SECONDARY ROADS MAIN ROADS THE PROJECT ROADS EVALUATED BY Kazbegi Mleta Pasanauri
Gudauri l Vladikavkaz
Larsi l SH028
l
Aragvi l Duseti
l ˘ S6 Mcheta l l SH034 TBILISI l
l Koda PR02 S3
l l
ROAD PROJECT
Alaverdi l l SH030 01
To l
l l l l l S7 l l l l l Marneuli l l l l
l 45 S9
T l ianeti ° 53 SH066
45 l S4 l l l Iori GEORGIA Rustavi ° l l Ahmeta
l SH068
Gardabani Gazah l S5
l To 04
l l
l l V
l akhtangisi
l
Gazah To
l Sagaredzo
56
l Mtkvari
l T
SH042 elavi Iori P’shaveli
l ˘
l
0
PR03
l Alazanl
l
(Kura) l INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC (ASSR) BOUNDARIES AUTONOMOUS OBLAST (AO) BOUNDARIES DISTRICT BOUNDARIES NATIONAL CAPITAL AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC (ASSR) CENTERS AUTONOMOUS OBLAST (AO) CENTER SELECTED CITIES l
l l 75 KILOMETERS
l l SH043
l l
l l l
l l l Gurdzaani Kvareli
l l l l Dedopis-Ckaro
l 46 l ˘
°
l Signahi l
l AZERBAIJAN 46 l S5 °
l
l FEDERATION
Lagodehi RUSSIAN
Iori
Zagatala To IBRD 33305 JUNE 2004 Alazanl 42 41 43 ° ° ° IBRD 36737
40° E 41° E 42° E 43° E 44° E 45° E ID ROAD SECTION46° E DISTANCE IN KM 1 AKHMETA - KVARELI - NINIGORI (KM 30+000 - KM 129+000) 99 2 ZAHESI - MTSKHETA - KAVTISKHEVI - GORI (KM 41+700 - KM 56+000) 14.3 GEORGIA 3 KAVTISKHEVI - KASPI (KM 0+000 - KM 10+000) 10 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 4 KASPI - METEKHI - AKHALKALAKI (KM 0+500 - KM 12+100) 11.5 SECONDARY AND LOCAL ROADS AF PROJECTS 5 DOREULEBI - KVEMO NAKALAKARI - GORANA (KM 0+000 - KM 17+500) 17.5 6 KUTAISI - GEGUTI - SAKULIE - BASHI (KM 19 - KM34) 16 PROJECT ROAD SECTIONS To 7 ZUGDIDI - JVARI (KM 0+000 - KM28+000) 28.5 Sotchi MAIN ROADS 8 ABASHA - MARTVILI (KM 0+000 - KM 32+000) 32 9 AKHMETA - TELAVI (KM 0+000 - KM 16+800 - KM25+00 - KM 30+200) 22 SECONDARY ROADS 10 TSALENJIKHA - NAKIFU - LETSURTSUME (KM 3 - KM 12) 9.4 RAILWAYS 11 INGIRI - OKTOMBERI - KAKHATI (KM 0+000 - KM 10+300) 10.3 GagraGagra RIVERS 12 KAKHATI - KOKI - ORSANTIA (KM 0+000 - KM 5+300) 5.3 13 BERDZNISTSKARO - KOKHNARI - SERI - ZEMOKHETI - (KM 0+000 - KM 5+700) 5.7 NATIONAL CAPITAL 14 CHOKHATAURI - SUREBI - TOBAKHCHO (KM 0+000 - KM 4+800) 4.8 MAIN CITIES 15 AKHMETA - BATSARA (KM 0+000 - KM 13+500 - KM 14+000 - KM 14+500 - KM 17+500 - KM 22+500) 19 16 KUTAISI - KHONI (KM 1+000 - KM 7+000) 7 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES 17 KUTAISI - TSAGERI (KM 23 - KM34) 10 43° N 18 ZAHESI - MTSKHETA - KAVTISKHEVI - GORI (KM 24+300 - KM 41+700) 17.4 SukhumiSukhumi MestiaMestia Enguri 19 KASPI - AKHALKALAKI (3 KM) 3 43° N 20 ACCESS ROAD TO KARELI (KM 0+000 - KM 4+500) 4.5 21 GORI - SKRA (9 KM) 9 22 QARELI - SAMTSVERISI - OSIAURI (23.4 KM) 23.4 To Vladikavkaz 23 SKRA - QARELI (14.4 KM) 14.4 TkvarcheliTkvarcheli 24 GURJAANI - CHABUKIANI - AFENI - KABALI (KM 0+000 - KM 29+700) 29.7 25 RUFOTI - ALISUBANI - SAZANO - TUZI - KITSKHI - QVATSIKHE (KM 19 - KM 29) 9.4 DzvariDz˘vari 26 KHARAGAULI - KITSKHI - ZETAFONI (KM 0+000 - KM 21+000) 21 7 KazbegiKazbegi 10 i OniOni 12 Rioni ZugdidiZugdidi Chenisckal AmbrolauriAmbrolauri
MartviliMartvili 17 Rioni 11 Aragvi RUSSIAN Black KhoniKhoni SachkhereSachkhere Kvirilk TskaltuboTskaltubo TkibuliTkibuli 25 FEDERATION SenakiSenaki 8 16 KutaisiKutaisi TskhinvaliTskhinvali i Ior Rioni Sea SamtrediaSamtredia 6 15 PotiPoti 20 13 ZestaponiZestaponi 42° N ChokhatauriChokhatauri KharagauliKharagauli KareliKareli AkhmetaAkhmeta 1 42° N Alazanl 14 26 GoriGori 4 KhashuriKhashuri 22 23 IgoetiIgoeti 9 21 TelaviTelavi OzurgetiOzurgeti 2 3 5 LagodekhiLagodekhi BorjomiBorjomi 19 MtskhetaMtskheta KobuletiKobuleti 18 ZagesiZagesiagesi 24 GurjaaniGurjaani TBILISITBILISI To BatumiBatumi Mtkvari (Kura) Zagatala AkhaltsikheAkhaltsikhe PonitchalaPonionitchalachala Iori 40° E 41° E RustaviRustavi SarpiSarpi MarneuliMarneuli GardabaniGardabani DedoplistskaroDedoplistskaro UKRAINE KAZAKHSTAN To Trabzon AkhalkalakiAkhalkalaki VakhtangisiVakhtangisi Choroki RUSSIAN FEDERATION To Gazah Mtkvari l (Kura) Ior Black Sea i Alazan Caspian TURKEY To GEORGIA Sea To Tashir Alaverdi TBILISITBILISI TURKMENISTAN ARMENIA To Gyumri 41° N AZERBAIJAN 41° N This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. TURKEY The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information 01530 45 shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank ARMENIA Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. KILOMETERS AZERBAIJAN
SYRIAN ARAB REP. IRAQ ISLAMIC REP. OF IRAN 42° E 43° E 44° E 45° E 46° E FEBRUARY 2009