Document of The World Bank
Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: ICR507
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-H1010)
ON A
GRANT
Public Disclosure Authorized IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 27.6 MILLION (US$ 40.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
SUBSEQUENTLY REDUCED AFTER RESTRUCTURING
TO THE AMOUNT OF SDR 11.8 MILLION (US$ 18.6 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
TO THE
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH
Public Disclosure Authorized FOR A
WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM PROJECT
June 14, 2011
Urban, Water and Disaster Management Unit Public Disclosure Authorized Sustainable Development Department South Asia Region
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective March 31, 2011)
Currency Unit = Taka Taka 1.00 = US$ 0.01379 US$ 1.00 = Taka 72.52
FISCAL YEAR July 1 –June 30
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BAMWSP Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation OBA Output Based Aid Water Supply Project BWSPP Bangladesh Water Supply Program OHT Overhead Tank Project CBO Community-Based Organization PAD Project Appraisal Document DPHE Department of Public Health PDO Project Development Engineering Objectives DPP Development Proforma Proposal PMU Project Management Unit DTW Deep Tube Wells PPPs Public-Private Partnerships EOI Expression of Interest ERR External Rate of Return PPWS Pourashava Piped Water Supply GOB Government of Bangladesh RDA Rural Development Academy HFSKS Hilful Fuzul Samaj Kallayan RDPP Revised Development Sangstha (NGO managing rural Project Pro-forma piped schemes) ISRs Implementation Status and RPWS Rural Piped Water Supply Completion Reports LGD Local Government Division SCF Standard Conversion Factor LGI Local Government Institutions SIPP Social Investment Program Project M&E Monitoring and Evaluation SST Shallow Tube Well MoU Memorandum of Understanding VSST Very Shallow Tube Well MTR Mid-Term Review WAMWUG Ward Arsenic Mitigation Water User Group NPV Net Present Value WSP Water and Sanitation Program WTP Willingness to Pay
ii
Vice President: Isabel Guerrero Country Director: Ellen A. Goldstein Sector Manager: Ming Zhang Project Team Leader: Arif Ahamed ICR Team Leader: Elizabeth Kleemeier
iii
A. Basic Information Bangladesh Water Country: Bangladesh Project Name: Supply Program Project Project ID: P086661 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-H1010 ICR Date: 06/29/2011 ICR Type: Core ICR Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: BANGLADESH Original Total XDR 27.6M Disbursed Amount: XDR 11.1M Commitment: Revised Amount: XDR 11.8M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Department of Public Health Engineering Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:
B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 11/11/2003 Effectiveness: 02/25/2005 Appraisal: 04/10/2004 Restructuring(s): 10/06/2008 Approval: 06/17/2004 Mid-term Review: 03/31/2007 11/12/2007 Closing: 04/30/2010 12/31/2010
C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: High Bank Performance: Moderately Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Unsatisfactory
C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Unsatisfactory Government: Not Applicable Implementing Quality of Supervision: Moderately Satisfactory Not Applicable Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Moderately Moderately Satisfactory Performance: Performance: Unsatisfactory
iv
C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of Yes 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) Micro- and SME finance 10 Sub-national government administration 5 Water supply 85 100
Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Infrastructure services for private sector development 17 Pollution management and environmental health 33 Rural services and infrastructure 17 96 Water resource management 33 4
E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Isabel M. Guerrero Praful C. Patel Country Director: Ellen A. Goldstein Christine I. Wallich Sector Manager: Ming Zhang Jeffrey S. Racki Project Team Leader: Arif Ahamed Karin Erika Kemper ICR Team Leader: Elizabeth L. Kleemeier ICR Primary Author: Elizabeth L. Kleemeier
F. Results Framework Analysis
Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The development objective of the project is to contribute to Bangladesh's efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in water supply and sanitation by 2015. Specifically, the project will pilot innovative measures to scale up the provision of safe water supply free from arsenic and pathogens in rural areas and small towns.
v
Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The development objective of the project is to contribute to Bangladesh's efforts to achieve the Milleninum Development Goals in water supply and sanitation by 2015 in select rural and urban areas, including those in flood-affected districts, through pilots. Specifically, the project will deliver increased access to the water and sanitation services in selected rural villages and small towns, focusing on areas affected by the 2007 floods and cyclones. The project will pilot some innovative service prpvosion measures, including private sector participation in rural schemes.
(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 : Pilot innovative approaches to water supply provision in rural piped schemes Value revised indicator 21 pilot quantitative or 0 none stated after restructuring arrangements Qualitative) Date achieved 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 10/06/2008 11/30/2010 The identification, preparation, and construction phases have been piloted in 21 Comments schemes. The operations phase has been piloted as follows: in 2 schemes for (incl. % more than 3 years, 10 schemes for a median of 4 months, and not begun in 9 achievement) schemes. Indicator 2 : 570,000 people in villages and towns provided with safe water Value 0 -- assume people did revised indicator quantitative or not previously have 570,000 996,514 after restructuring Qualitative) access to safe water Date achieved 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 10/06/2008 05/27/2011 Comments 175% overfulfilled. 50,000 served through rural piped; 109,872 through (incl. % pourashava schemes; 175,000 through rural non-piped in arsenic-affected areas; achievement) 661,642 through rural non-piped in cyclone-affected areas
(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 21 villages served with [rural piped schemes using] private-sponsor Indicator 1 : arrangements for the provision of safe water supply Value 300 villages 21 villages (quantitative 0 21 schemes (schemes) (schemes) or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 10/06/2008 11/30/2010 Comments 100% achievement of the number of schemes that have private sector (incl. % arrangements. achievement)
vi
25,000 households in service areas of participating villages receiving safe water Indicator 2 : supply 10,000 households Value revised indicator 25,000 (50,000 people (quantitative 0 after restructuring households assuming 5 or Qualitative) persons/HH) Date achieved 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 10/06/2008 11/30/2010 Comments 40% achievement. No. of households served expected to rise as schemes come (incl. % into operation, and benefits of connections become more visible to consumers achievement) 20,000 households in participating pourashavas receiving safe piped water Indicator 3 : supply 21,974 households Value (computed as revised indicator 20,000 (quantitative 0 - 109,872 people after restructuring households or Qualitative) divided by 5 persons per HH) Date achieved 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 10/06/2008 11/30/2010 Comments (incl. % 110% achievement. achievement) Indicator 4 : approximately 7,000 arsenic safe point water sources provided 7,000, of 13,159, of which which 3,500 in arsenic- 2,000 expected Value affected areas in arsenic- (quantitative 0 2,000 (175,000 people), affected areas, or Qualitative) 9,659 (661,642 5,000 in people) in cyclone- cyclone- affected areas affected areas Date achieved 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 10/06/2008 05/27/2011 Comments (incl. % 188% overachievement overall. achievement) Indicator 5 : 70,000 households with access to safe water points Value revised indicator 70,000 167,328 households (quantitative 0 after restructuring households (836,642 people) or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 10/06/2008 05/27/2011 Comments (incl. % 239% achievement achievement) Indicator 6 : 9,977 point sources tested as part of water quality assessment Value revised indicator 9,977 point 10,615 point (quantitative 0 after restructuring sources sources or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 10/06/2008 10/06/2008 Comments 106% achievement
vii
(incl. % achievement) Indicator 7 : Development of water safety plans Value revised indicator 21 plans (1 per (quantitative 0 0 after restructuring scheme) or Qualitative) Date achieved 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 10/06/2008 12/31/2010 Comments (incl. % 0% achievement achievement)
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
Actual Date ISR No. DO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 09/16/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 05/19/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 3 10/12/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.41 4 05/05/2006 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.46 Moderately Moderately 5 11/17/2006 1.61 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Moderately Moderately 6 06/19/2007 1.74 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 7 12/17/2007 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 2.15 8 06/30/2008 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 2.25 9 12/28/2008 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 2.30 Moderately Moderately 10 05/26/2009 2.35 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 11 06/25/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 3.09 12 11/29/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 7.45 13 01/29/2010 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 8.87 14 05/24/2010 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 11.20 15 12/11/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 15.47
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 10/06/2008 Y U U 2.30
If PDO and/or Key Outcome Targets were formally revised (approved by the original approving viii body) enter ratings below: Outcome Ratings Against Original PDO/Targets Highly Unsatisfactory Against Formally Revised PDO/Targets Moderately Satisfactory Overall (weighted) rating Moderately Satisfactory
I. Disbursement Profile
ix
BANGLADESH Water Supply Program 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 ...... 9 3. Assessment of Outcomes ...... 12 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ...... 15 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ...... 16 6. Lessons Learned ...... 17 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners ...... 18 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing ...... 19 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ...... 20 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ...... 28 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 ...... 41 Annex 8. List of Supporting Documents ...... 47 MAP
x
1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design
1.1 Context at Appraisal Sector Background By the early1990s, over 90% of the rural population in Bangladesh had access to safe water for domestic use, thanks largely to privately owned handpumps on shallow tubewells. A shallow water table extends across most of the country. The government and donors, notably UNICEF, developed and promoted the technology for tapping this source, first through drilling programs and subsequently through activities to build capacity in the private sector for inexpensive drilling and low-cost handpump production.1 As a result, the technology became widely available and affordable, so that rural households could install their own safe water supplies in or near their compounds. 2 That led both to high access rates and high service levels, as rural consumers generally enjoyed the equivalent of a yard connection. The story changed in 1993, when the government became aware that thousands of tubewells in more than half the country’s 64 districts were contaminated by arsenic. The world had never seen arsenic contamination on such a wide scale before. While the extent of the problem and its impact were not known, it was estimated that millions of people using shallow wells were at risk of death or serious illness. The government and donors perceived a national crisis demanding urgent action. The Bank responded with the US$44 million credit for the Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply Project (BAMWSP, P050745), 1998-2006. The project’s largest component aimed to provide arsenic-safe water to the most severely affected villages and pourashavas (municipalities). The other major component comprised activities to increase understanding of the arsenic problem. The most popular and reliable alternative technology tested by BAMWSP turned out to be deep tubewells, provided that they were installed at a rate of one per 10-15 households.3 The original service level had been set at one per 200 households, but that proved to be too drastic a cut in the service standard that people enjoyed with shallow tubewells. The project developed an implementation approach based on contracting local consultants (e.g., NGOs) to support specially formed user groups,4 which then planned and implemented the water point construction activities. In 2002, the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) published research that concluded rural people overwhelmingly preferred piped water supplies for arsenic-safe water, and were willing to pay for this level of service. The research indicated that rural consumers were willing
1 In Bangladesh, a shallow tubewell is 30-50 meters deep, but the static water level is 7.5 meters or less. Therefore an inexpensive suction pump can be used. 2 Rural access remained problematic in areas where shallow handpumps could not be used, the main reasons being that the shallow aquifer was not palatable (due to iron, sea water intrusion, etc.), was not accessible through low-cost drilling (due to a stony layer), or was non-existent (northwest, southwest, and central parts of country). 3 Deep tubewells for domestic water are defined as anything over 150 meters deep. These are mainly used in coastal areas where they typically go down to 300 meters. 4 These user groups are called Ward Arsenic Mitigation Water User Groups (WAMWUGs).
1 to pay a tariff that would both cover operation and maintenance, and contribute at least 10% toward capital costs. Pilot activities by a national research institute, the Rural Development Academy (RDA), added credence to this argument. 5 Therefore, BAMWSP began a pilot activity in 2002-03 to construct 13 rural piped schemes, based on using the local private sector to build, partially finance, and operate the schemes. Bangladesh at that time had about 100 rural piped schemes, most of which had been implemented by the Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE).6 The BAMWSP schemes, along with those by RDA and a few schemes implemented by the Bank-assisted Social Investment Program Project (SIPP), stood out in terms of their efforts to introduce private sector or NGO financing and management. In the BAMWSP model, the investor-operator (called a “sponsor”) would provide 40% of the investment costs, to be recouped over 15 years of operations through the tariff. The community would make an upfront 10% capital cost contribution, and BAMWSP would provide the remaining 50%. One of these pilot schemes was largely completed by the end of BAMWSP; the others were not yet under construction. BAMWSP experienced major delays, attributed to poor project management. The Project Management Unit (PMU) had been set up as semi-independent of DPHE, because previous Bank- financed operations with DPHE had experienced problems. However, BAMWSP made very slow progress, leading to an unsatisfactory rating on implementation for 2 ½ years, and a US $5 million grant cancellation. In 2003, the Bank supported reintegrating the PMU into DPHE in an effort to solve the problem. Implementation subsequently improved, but this change could not necessarily be attributed to the reintegration of the PMU.7 Rationale for Bank Involvement The Bank could assist the Government of Bangladesh to scale up quickly the provision of safe rural water by promoting an innovative private sector approach to rural piped water supplies. The technologies (e.g., pond sand filters, dug wells, rainwater harvesting, deep tubewells) that BAMWSP had tested suffered from limited demand, due to their lower service level. The WSP research suggested that piped schemes had offered a level of service for which consumers were willing to pay tariffs sufficient to cover operation and maintenance as well as some of the investment costs. Furthermore, the new financing and management approach held out the promise that it would both enable scaling up and ensure sustainability, through private sector (“sponsors”) involvement and adequate cost recovery.
5 RDA had implemented several multipurpose rural piped schemes projects that supplied water for rice field irrigation, domestic water use, and other small-scale activities such as livestock and nurseries. In these schemes, local operators agreed to pay 10% of the investment costs upfront, and use the revenue from the schemes to cover operation and maintenance, plus repay the outstanding capital costs within 10 years.
6 DPHE is the main agency charged with water supply and sanitation in rural areas, and urban areas outside Dhaka, Chittagong, and Khulna cities. It is under the Water Supply Wing of the Local Government Division, in the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development, and Cooperatives.
7 The BWSPP PAD opted for integrating the PMU into DPHE, stating that this approach was not necessarily a solution to the poor implementation. The BAMWSP TTL said that improved BAMWSP performance was rather due to the new project director whose appointment coincided with PMU reintegration (e-mail to ICR Team Leader, May 31, 2011).
2 The Bank saw a window of opportunity to push the water reform agenda with the Government of Bangladesh. The government had expressed interest in developing new approaches in the water sector. BWSPP would capitalize on this opportunity to introduce innovation, which was why it was important to process the project rapidly and deliver it in FY2004, even before the BAMWSP had fully tested the new private sponsor based approach to rural piped schemes. The municipal sector needed a more effective approach to operation and maintenance. Water service levels in pourashavas were very poor. Only 100 out of 250 of these towns had piped water. Coverage was 30-60%, and daily supply averaged between 3 and 12 hours. A number were affected by arsenic. A pourashava component was included in BWSPP to test a private sector approach as a means to address these problems. This was another way to capitalize on the government’s interest in developing new approaches to the water sector. Contribution to Higher Level Objectives The project would contribute to health and productivity in the country. In addition to the arsenic problem, water-related diseases continued to be widespread, and to account for a large number of deaths each year. Mortality rates for infants and children under five years were respectively 77 and 134 deaths per 1,000 live births. The project would strengthen decentralization. A number of policy papers had indicated that in the future DPHE should play more of a facilitating and monitoring role, with water provision responsibilities undertaken by local government, NGOs, and the private sector. The government had also introduced some measures to devolve more decision-making authority to the local levels of government in general. The project was in line with both government initiatives, that is, the specific one to reform DPHE, and the more general reform of local government’s role. The Country Assistance Strategy (2006), Country Water Resources Assistance Strategy (2005), and Poverty Reduction Strategy Program (2005) supported Bank investment in rural piped water supplies. These documents were under preparation or planning when BWSPP was being prepared. When these three documents were subsequently published, each supported investments in rural water supplies. BWSPP would provide the transition toward developing a programmatic approach and SWAp for the water sector. The project would build capacity among various actors, and give the Bank an opportunity to engage with other development partners.
1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators Original PDO: The development objective of the proposed project is to contribute to Bangladesh’s efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in water supply and sanitation by 2015. Specifically the project will pilot innovative measures to scale up the provision of safe water supply free from arsenic and pathogens in rural areas and small towns
3 Table 1: Original Indicators and Targets
By PDO and Original Indicators and Targets Component
Project Development Pilot innovative approach to piped water supply provision functioning Objective (PDO) and attracting private sponsors*
Scaling up of rural and small town water supply on-going in a viable manner Safe water provided to at least 1.25 million people
Local government capacity in providing safe water strengthened
Rural Piped Water Number [300] of villages receiving and using effectively safe piped water supply in private sponsors arrangements in a technically and financially sustainable manner
Proportion of poor households receiving and effectively using piped water supply in service areas of participating villages
Pourashava Water Number [3] of pourashavas with expanded and improved water supply and Sanitation: with a functioning private operator arrangement
Proportion of poor households receiving and effectively using piped water supply in service areas of participating pourashavas
Number of prefeasibility studies for pourashava sanitation
Rural Non-Piped Approximately 2,000 arsenic safe point water sources provided affected Water Average number of households effectively using safe point water sources
Capacity-Building, Share of point sources with water quality assessment upon completion of Regulation, and water point (in piped and non-piped systems), and with annual record of Training water quality monitoring
Share of point sources with annual record of water quality monitoring
Local Credit Market No indicator (component only activated if funding though other IDA and GEF projects not sufficient) Monitoring and Number and quality of M&E studies during life of the project Evaluation (M&E) One analytical report to measure the effective use of improved access to safe water options and its impact, at the end of project.
* “Sponsors” is the term used by the project to refer to those individuals and organizations managing the schemes on a for-profit basis. This term is used in lieu of “private sector,” since most of the organizations are NGOs. Sources: World Bank 2004b, pg. 25-26.
4 1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification The project was restructured in 2008, mainly due to poor performance. Only 12.8% of the IDA grant had been disbursed by June 2008, and both progress toward achieving the development objective and implementation performance were rated unsatisfactory. The grant was substantially reduced, with US$25 million equivalent being transferred from BWSPP for flood and cyclone relief under other projects. In addition, US$5 million equivalent within BWSPP was allocated to a new non-piped water sub-component, providing point sources in flood and cyclone-affected areas. The Board approved this restructuring in January 2008, based on the recommendation of the Mid-Term Review mission. The project document for restructuring was approved on October 6, 2008. Revised PDO: The development objective of the project is to contribute to Bangladesh’s efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in water supply and sanitation by 2015 in select rural and urban areas, including those in flood-affected districts, through pilots. Specifically, the project will deliver increased access to the water and sanitation services in selected rural villages and small towns, focusing on areas affected by the 2007 floods and cyclones. The project will pilot some innovative service provision measures, including private sector participation in rural schemes. In terms of targets, the number of beneficiaries was cut by 54%. The goal became providing safe water to 570,000 people in villages and towns, compared to an original target of at least 1.25 million persons. The intermediate results indicators or their targets were greatly reduced, with the exception of those for the rural non-piped water component. The changes in the intermediate results indicators and targets are detailed in the table below. The principal changes were as follows: x The rural piped component was drastically cut, from 300 villages to 21 villages and 25,000 households, although still using the private sponsor model. 8 x The component to develop local financing for the piped schemes’ sponsors was cancelled. x The pourashava water component was also cut, from piloting private operator models in order to make major improvements in quality and quantity of water in 3 pourashavas, to making modest improvements in access for 20,000 households/24 pourashavas, with no change in the existing management model. The 24 pourashavas comprised the 5 originally selected to have private operators, plus 19 that had been affected by floods. x However, the result indicator for rural deep tubewells was greatly expanded. The target went from 2,000 to 7,000 deep tubewells: 2,000 as originally planned in 3 heavily arsenic affected in 3 sub-districts (upazilas), plus 5,000 additional deep tubewells in cyclone- affected areas. The original 2,000 tubewells would be constructed using the participatory approach piloted by BAMWSP. The 5,000 additional tubewells would be constructed using the traditional DPHE approach.
8 “No. of villages served” or even “no. of schemes constructed” did not prove to be a stable indicator. The PAD assumed that a scheme would serve a village of an average 300 households. However, the scheme designs that were submitted covered an average of 900 households, located in any number of villages. Some schemes served as many as 12 villages (see Annex 2).The May 2007 supervision mission estimated that the (original) component budget would only cover about 120 such schemes/villages.
5 Table 2: Revised Indicators and Targets
By PDO and Revised Indicators and Targets Component
Project Development 570,000 people in villages and towns provided with safe water Objective (PDO) Pilot innovative approaches to water supply provision in rural piped schemes Rural Piped Water 21 villages served with private-sponsor arrangements for the provision of safe water supply 25,000 households in service areas of participating villages receiving safe piped water supply
Pourashava Water 20,000 households in participating pourashavas receiving safe piped and Sanitation: water supply
Rural Non-Piped Approximately 7,000 arsenic safe point water sources provided. [Note— Water elsewhere stated that this target equals 2,000 in 3 hot-spot areas and 5,000 in cyclone-affected areas] 70,000 households with access to safe point water sources
Capacity-Building, 9,977 point sources to be tested as part of water quality assessment Regulation, and Training Development of water safety plans. Local Credit Market Cancelled
Monitoring and No indicator given Evaluation (M&E) Sources: World Bank 2008, pg. 9-10.
1.4 Main Beneficiaries The primary target group was people living in villages and municipalities. The original target was to provide at least 1.25 million of these people with safe water, revised down to 570,000.
6 1.5 Original Components (as approved)
Component Cost* Description (US$ m) Provide technical assistance and 50% capital grant to support private sponsors (entrepreneurs, coops, 1. Rural Piped Water NGOs, etc) to design, construct and operate piped schemes. OBA approach (sponsor reimbursed 23.1 Supply against meeting construction targets.) Sponsor to operate for 15 yrs. DPHE responsible for regulation and monitoring. Pourashavas create asset-holding entities which will contract private operators to design, 2. Pourashava Water and 14.8 construct/rehabilitate/expand water supplies, and operate for 10 years. Pourashavas to repay 50% of Sanitation grants. Sanitation pre-feasibility studies. Provide non-piped supplies in villages < 200 households, in upazilas where > 60% of tubewells 3. Rural Non-piped Water 4.4 arsenic-affected. Use approach piloted during BAMWSP: Ward committees to handle contracting and O&M; Community pays 10% of investment costs.
x Support adoption of new approaches to piped and non-piped water supplies. x Develop benchmarking and monitoring framework for regulatory purposes. 4. Capacity-building, x Develop regulatory framework for groundwater management and administration. regulations, and 3.2 x Strengthen water quality monitoring, with data added to national database. training x Groundwater mapping and aquifer characterization, including river bank infiltration pilot. x Water safety plans (skills and tools to communities, local govt., and private sector to protect water catchments, monitor supplies, and promote safe water storage and handling).
5. Local credit market and x Either develop a mechanism (e.g., partial guarantee) to interest local banks in long-term maturity risk management for 4.9 loans to sponsors, or provide such loans through Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. village piped water
supply x Develop an insurance instrument to mitigate sponsors’ risk from floods, tornadoes, arsenic, etc. Provide lessons from implementation, monitor compliance by sponsors and communities, develop 6. Project monitoring and 1.4 system that govt. can use for large-scale piped water program, develop piped scheme benchmarking evaluation system, continue evaluation of non-piped arsenic mitigation measures. 7. Project management 3.3 PMU within DPHE. * These costs total US$55.1 million, or the total project costs at the time of appraisal including physical and price contingencies. Source: World Bank 2004b. pgs. 4-7, 39.
7 1.6 Revised Components The Board approved the restructured project on October 6, 2008.
Revised Component Cost Description of Change in Component (US$ m) Reduced by US$18.4 million. Greatly reduced in scale (from 300 to 21 villages, from 100,000 to 1. Rural Piped Water Supply 4.7 25,000 households). Reduced required capital investments from sponsors from 40% to 20%, plus 10% which sponsors to collect from community. Reduced by US$10.5 million. Original conception of piloting private operators to manage schemes on behalf of 3-5 pourashavas cancelled. Major civil works and sanitation studies in 2. Pourashava Water 4.3 those pourashavas cancelled. Instead, immediate priority civil works in 5 pourashavas, plus 19 others affected by floods, undertaken. Water departments to ring-fence their operations and accounts.
Increased by US$1.2 million. Original activity unchanged: community contracting to construct 2,000 deep tubewells with 10% community contributions in 3 upazillas heavily affected by 3. Rural Non-piped Water 5.61 arsenic. An additional activity: DPHE to construct 5,000 deep tubewells with 100% project financing in cyclone-affected areas. Reduced by US$1.8 million. TA to establish legal and institutional framework for pourasahava private operators cancelled. Further activity on regulatory framework for groundwater 4. Capacity-building, management stopped. Activities to continue: ჀTA for rural private sponsors. Ⴠtest water quality 1.36 regulations, and training of all BAMWSP-BWSPP sources, and enter data in national database. Ⴠriver bank infiltration pilot. Ⴠtest borehole data entered in deep aquifer database. Ⴠwater safety plans for all schemes constructed. 5. Local credit market and risk management for village 0 Reduced by US$4.9 million. Cancelled. piped water supply Reduced by US$0.9 million. Reduced in scale. Rely on data extracted from private sponsor 6. Project monitoring and 0.5 proposal and progress reports, and TA reports. One technical and performance audit to be carried evaluation out. 7. Project management 2.19 Reduced by US$1.1 million. In line with downsizing of project. Source: World Bank 2008. Eng 2008, for monitoring and evaluation component description.
8 1.7 Other Significant Changes The closing date was extended by eight months, to December 31, 2010. This was to allow the GOB to complete ongoing works, and achieve the targeted outcomes. The GOB set 2 targets differently in its Revised Development Project Proforma (RDPP), as compared to the project Document approved by the World Bank Board.. First, the RDPP retained the original target for total number of beneficiaries served by safe water as 1.25 million. Second, the RDPP raised the target number of water points in heavily arsenic-affected areas to 3,180, compared to 2,000 in the Results Framework. Note that the ICR reports against the targets in the results Framework and not those in the RDPP.
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry The rural non-piped water supply component succeeded quite well because its design was based on a well-tested modification to a program that was thoroughly familiar to the implementing agency, private sector, and communities. DPHE had long worked with the private sector to construct handpumped water supplies and turn them over to communities to manage. BAMWSP had developed, tested, and gone to scale with modifying the traditional approach to so that communities had a larger role in site selection and contracting. BWSPP seamlessly took over and continued this modified approach to deep boreholes in one of the same districts where BAMWSP had worked.9 Otherwise, the overly ambitious project design contributed to the eventual need for restructuring. The designs were particularly demanding for 3 components: rural piped schemes, a local credit market, and pourashava water and sanitation. The rural piped scheme component sought to scale up a new approach before a pilot program had shown results. BAMWSP began testing the new approach in 13 schemes in 2002- 03. Implementation experienced serious delays. By the end of the BAMWSP, construction had not even begun on 12 of the 13 schemes, and this despite the project being extended by a year. BWSPP was already under implementation by then. In fact, the BWSPP concept note, including plans to scale up the pilot approach, had been developed at almost the same time that the BAMWSP pilot began.. The local credit market component was based on a reasonable idea that had not been sufficiently developed. The logic behind having such a component was reasonable: local banks would have to provide credit to the private sector, if it was supposed to provide all the initial financing (as OBA required), and some of the long-term capital investment for piped schemes in rural areas and pourashavas. However, preparatory work for this component appears limited. The Mid-Term Review Mission pointed to the fact that private sponsors could not come up with the required capital as one of the bottlenecks leading to restructuring.
9 BWSPP introduced changes in the approach as recommended by the BAMWSP ICR: increase village eligibility level to 400 households; use Ward Arsenic Mitigation Water Users Groups (WAMWUGs) for implementation; rigorous water quality and material testing; establish GPS database for all point sources, and improve transparency and fiduciary capacity of WAMWUGs
9 Preparation of the pourashava component was deferred to project implementation. The idea to use private operators to design, build, and manage municipal water supplies was in line with sector thinking at that time. However, BAMWSP had done nothing in pourashavas, due to some early failures, and preparatory work for this component in BWSSP was deferred to project implementation. The time required to do this preparation work was significantly underestimated given the range of tasks to be completed in order for the component, as planned, to be a success: x introduce changes in existing local government legislation, x hire the technical consultancy to prepare the proposed activities, x build political consensus in each identified pourashava, x establish ring-fenced Pourashava Water Supply Entities to own the assets of the municipal water supplies, x select and mobilize the private operators, and x have the private operators design, build, and begin operating the infrastructure. In addition the pourashava component required that the PMU interact with the local government structures for municipalities, in addition to the rural local government institutions. This was an unanticipated demand placed on the relatively weak PMU by this component’s design. The procurement aspects of the project design were onerous. The project design comprised more than 170 activities, some of which were themselves made up of multiple contracts. The rural piped schemes component, for example, targeted 300 discrete contracts, each with multiple procurement stages – a significant challenge given the PMU capacity (see below). The risk for poor project management was candidly recognized, but the solution did not prevent the problem from derailing implementation for a significant period. BAMWSP and previous Bank operations with DPHE had experienced management problems with the PMU. As the next section will explain, BWSPP also experienced a long period of unsatisfactory performance due to poor management by the PMU.
2.2 Implementation The project had to be restructured because implementation progress steadily declined, coming to a “virtual standstill” by the Mid-Term Review. Project performance was downgraded to Moderately Unsatisfactory less than 10 months after the effective data. The actual assessment was borderline Moderately Unsatisfactory. By the Mid-Term Review, disbursement stood at 5.2%, with about 30 months until the project closed, and 33 months after it became effective. Lack of commitment by the government, and poor management by PMU, were significant factors behind the poor performance. The performance rating was initially downgraded because, 18 months after project approval, the majority of PMU staff had not been put in place, and the technical assistance for the pourashava component had not been procured.10 Management worsened when a new PMU Director with a very weak track record under BAMWSP was appointed, despite resistance from the Bank team.11 The Mid-Term Review
10 In fact, this contract would not be signed until 2 years after project approval.
11 The Bank held repeated meetings with the Secretary of the Local Government Department about the situation, with no change.
10 Mission noted, “The PMU continues to demonstrate an inability [to move towards] implementation at a reasonable rate”. The Mid-Term Review Mission also concluded that the project design had been too ambitious, given that BWSPP was essentially a pilot project. The inability of the PMU to manage the project was only part of the reason that it would have to be restructured. The other reason was that project design had entailed both pilot-testing innovations and scaling up coverage. The previous section has detailed this aspect of the design. The Mid-Term Review Mission’s assessment of the situation was as follows: “…the project has many features of a pilot project. It is assessed that the scope and extent of innovative measures, together with coverage targets, were by far too ambitious given the weak implementation capacity and the lack of experience in implementing these innovative measures” In summary, the need for restructuring was precipitated by the following three factors: x overly ambitious assumptions in the design of the rural piped and pourashava water components, x the overall complexity of the operation’s design, including multiple innovative components, an unusually heavy procurement burden, and multiple sets of institutional partners, and x poor PMU management, including a poor choice of PMU Director. Restructuring reduced the credit by 57%, to SDR 11.8 million from SDR 27.6 million (to US$18.6 million from US$40 million equivalent). Beneficiaries were reduced to 570,000 from 1.25 million. The Board approved the proposal for restructuring in October 2008. Section 1.6 details the restructuring proposal by component. Implementation improved after restricting because a new PMU Director was appointed. The weak PMU Director retired about the time of restructuring, and was replaced by a dynamic individual. Implementation improved considerably as a result. The experience resembles that of BAMWSP: implementation slows and speeds up, depending on the qualities of the PMU Director.
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization Restructuring curtailed the M&E component. By the time of restructuring, the M&E framework had not yet been developed. The plans were therefore scaled back significantly, given “the reality of the project,” the very limited ability to implement activities to-date. The restructured M&E component comprised progress reports from sponsors and one technical and performance audit. The latter was carried out by consultants just prior to the end of the project. The scaled back M&E program did not provide certain basic information. For example, the ICR Team had to request the PMU to gather information about the number and types of connections on the various rural and pourashava schemes in order to estimate the number of beneficiaries. The beneficiary estimates are based on quite a number of assumptions, rather than solid data. Furthermore, there is no information the degree to which the poor are served by the schemes, or the views of a cross-section of community on the project results. Key design features in the rural piped water component were never adequately evaluated. For example, such issues such as the effectiveness of OBA, the business model based on single schemes rather than clusters, and water quality regulation, were never evaluated. This is a major shortcoming, given that the project was meant to test these innovations.
11 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance Financial management, procurement, and environmental specialists were not recruited for the PMU in a timely fashion. Section 2.2 has already explained that poor PMU staffing quickly led to the project performance rating being downgraded. No other safeguard or fiduciary problems were noted in the aide memoires or Implementation Status and Completion Reports (ISRs). Aide memoires mentioned some fiduciary problems such as not using the computerized accounting system for a period. None of these problems were sufficiently grave as to be noted in ISRs. The fact that no water safety plans for the rural piped schemes were produced was a potential problem. The PAD had pointed to water source quality protection as one of several key environmental concerns. However, the final supervision mission visited a random sample of rural piped and non-piped supplies, and found no problems with construction impact, water quality, or health.
2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase On the Bank side, preparations for a follow-on project began in 2010, in the anticipation of taking this project to the Board in February 2012. The Concept Review meeting was successfully held in January 2011. There was good collaboration between the ICR and Project Preparation Teams, to ensure that lessons learned are incorporated in the next project. The follow-on project will seek to develop and test both the implementation and the operations phases of using a public-private partnership approach to rural piped schemes. The project design will incorporate the lessons learned from BWSPP about the need for simplicity and reasonable scale in order to have a successful outcome.
3. Assessment of Outcomes ICR Guidelines require that the project outcomes be assessed against both the original and the restructured objectives. The two ratings are then combined in a weighted average, where the weights are the percentages of actual loan disbursement before and after restructuring.12
3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation Rating: Satisfactory Relevance of Objectives: Highly satisfactory before and after restructuring. The project objective remains highly relevant: to assist Bangladesh to achieve the MDGs in rural water supply through piloting innovative approaches top arsenic-safe water supply. Restructuring added another aspect to this objective, namely assisting with providing safe water supplies to areas hit by devastating cyclones and floods. This was a very appropriate adaptation to changing circumstances. Relevance of Design and Implementation: Moderately satisfactory before restructuring and satisfactory after restructuring. Testing public-private partnerships to rural piped schemes remains highly relevant to situation in Bangladesh. However, a design that emphasized testing and evaluation, rather construction on a sizeable scale would have been better. The WAMWUG model remains a relevant and appropriate design for non-piped water supply. However,
12 The weights before and after restructuring for BWSPP are 0.14 and 0.86 respectively.
12 allocating supplies based on the number of households in a village (originally 200, then raised to 400, or fewer) has had the effect of arbitrarily denying safe water to some.
3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives Rating: Moderately Satisfactory Before restructuring: Highly unsatisfactory. The low disbursement rate—14%—at restructuring, three and a half years after the project became effective, indicates how little had been achieved. After restructuring: Moderately satisfactory. With restructuring, the project development objective shifted in favor of providing water supplies to flood and cyclone affected areas, rather than through widespread use of innovative models working with the private sector. The objective in regard to the latter was refocused on pilot innovative models in a small number of rural piped schemes. Table 3: Comparisons of Targets and Achievement in Number of Beneficiaries by Component Component Target Achievement Rural Piped Schemes 125,000 50,000
Pourashava Schemes 100,000 109,872
Non-piped: Arsenic-affected areas 100,000 175,000
Non-piped: Cyclone-affected areas 250,000 661,642 Total 575,000 996,514 Source: Annex 2. As the above table indicates, the project had a highly satisfactory outcome in regard to three components, exceeding the target number of beneficiaries. In regard to the rural piped scheme component, the target number of beneficiaries was not met. As Annex 2: Outputs by Component explains, the project made a major step forward in pilot- testing the innovative private sponsor approach to piped rural water supply schemes. However, there remain facets of that approach still to be developed and tested. This annex also explains that the targeted output of 21 water safety plans for the rural piped schemes was not met.
3.3 Efficiency Rating: Satisfactory The following table presents ex post Net Present Value and Economic Rate of Return for three main components of the project. Details are presented in Annex 3.
Table 4: Net Present Value (NPV) and Economic Rate of Return (ERR) of Three Main Project Components Bangladesh Taka million
Component NPV @ 10% ERR (%) Rural Piped Water Supply 78.59 14.20% Pourashava Water Supply 128.85 14.59%
13 Component NPV @ 10% ERR (%) Non-piped water supply 3,554.5 61.33% Source: Annex 3 The following table presents the financial rate of return for two piped schemes. The net benefits are those of the water sold only. Table 5: Financial Rate of Return Component Financial Rate of Return ERR PAD Rural Piped Water Supply 12.62% 19.88% Pourashava Piped Water 9.29% 15.66% Supply ICR Rural Piped Water Supply 9.25% 10.29% Pourashava Piped Water 10.59% 11.32% Supply Source: Annex 3
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Moderately satisfactory This rating reflects the moderately satisfactory rating on the achievement of the project development objectives.
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts
(a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development There is no indication from supervision missions that there were any major issues or problems with poverty impact, gender, or social development. Unfortunately, the virtual demise of the M&E system makes it impossible to discuss poverty, gender, and social issues in more detail. The original M&E system included annual consumer surveys. This system was never put in place due to the problems described in Sections 2.1-2.2. However, the PMU did hire a consultant firm to produce an end-of-project M&E report.
(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening DPHE, the implementing agency, has demonstrated willingness to support innovative concepts. The WAMWUG approach to deep borehole supplies was successfully implemented as originally designed, despite the many problems which BWSPP encountered in the course of implementation. Since restructuring, the PMU has worked hard and well to complete the 21 rural piped schemes using the very innovative private sponsor approach. The institutional capacity of DPHE to manage projects does not seem to have improved, although PMU performance increased markedly in the last two years of BWSPP. The appointment of a new PMU Director improved DPHE performance considerably. BAMWSP, had a similar experience whereby implementation progress varied hugely, depending on the choice of PMU Director. This recurring boom or bust pattern of management is not indicative of institutional development.
14 The sector-wide impacts, which formed part of the rationale for Bank involvement and contribution to higher level objectives, have not yet materialized. As Section 1.1 explained, BWSPP was supposed to contribute to the “reinvention of DPHE,” utilize a “window of opportunity” to push the water sector reform agenda, and help the Bank engage with other development partners and the government in moving toward a programmatic approach. There does not seem to be much evidence of this. Piped schemes are more widely viewed as a good option for rural water supplies, but the type of public-private partnership that BWSPP promotes is not well-understood, much less copied. The WAMWUG model, which appears successful, has not been copied. Indeed, even within BWSPP, the majority of deep boreholes were constructed using the classic DPHE approach, not the community contracting approach.
(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts The majority of beneficiaries were served through traditional, rather than innovative approaches. The original project development objective was to provide safe water supplies to people through using innovative approaches such as private sponsor arrangements and WAMWUGs. In practice, BWSPP delivered safe water supplies to many more people than originally targeted, but only a small percentage were served via an innovative approach. The vast majority were assisted in flood-affected pourashavas and cyclone-affected areas through the classic DPHE approach to civil works.
3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops A consultant firm carried out a beneficiary and stakeholder survey at the end of the project (see Annex 5). Restructuring had eliminated the plan to have annual consumer surveys as part of a monitoring and evaluation system, but call for one technical and performance audit. The main conclusions were: x consumers served through non-piped supplies were satisfied with the water quality, access, and location of the handpumped sources, x beneficiaries and other stakeholders of the rural piped schemes were satisfied, but also had numerous suggestions about how to improve the implementation process, x pourashava beneficiaries and stakeholders in some schemes had complaints about the water bill and water quality, but the majority were satisfied, and x the failure to put in place the monitoring and evaluation system affected the ability to get a complete view of how beneficiaries viewed the project’s outputs.
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: High The risk to development outcome is high, since most (71%) of the beneficiaries lives in cyclone- affected areas. The risk of another natural disaster wrecking the handpumps is therefore high although BWSPP did create procedures intended to improve responses to future disasters. For the non-piped water supplies in cyclone-affected areas, the project introduced standardized bidding documents together with batch procurement of these water points at the district scale, handled by the district DPHE. This could form the basis for expedited procurement in the response to future disasters. An additional risk to development outcome exists because the innovative private sponsor approach is just now entering the operations phase. Evidence is still lacking about the willingness
15 and ability of consumers to pay the necessary tariffs, and the interest and capacity of sponsors to operate the schemes sustainably. The experience from other countries with rural private operators managing water schemes suggests that considerable support services must be put in place to help operators, local government institutions, and community organizations perform their expected roles. This is challenging even in countries where the government has already committed itself to a rural water strategy based on private operators. The task will be all the more challenging in Bangladesh, where this approach is still one option among several under consideration.
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Unsatisfactory The PAD recognized that the Bank could make an important contribution to Bangladesh rural water supply, and specifically the response to arsenic contamination, through piloting an innovative private sponsor approach to rural piped schemes. The project design also rightly carried forward the approach to deep borehole water supplies than had been successfully piloted in BAMSWP. However, the design of the project was overly ambitious and complex, and this contributed significantly to the need to restructure the project in 2008. In particular the design underestimated the following challenges: x rapid scaling up of the rural piped schemes initiative, when the BAMWSP pilot schemes were already experiencing delays, x complex pourashava private operator component, with an unrealistic timeline for introducing major reforms, x unusually heavy procurement requirements, x the overall complexity of having all of the above in a single project, and x misjudging the risk for poor PMU performance, which had been a problem in previous projects. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Moderately Satisfactory Supervision missions visited the project frequently. They recognized in less than a year that implementation was off-track and signaled this through downgrading the progress ratings. The missions regularly set clear milestones in an effort to focus implementation efforts. The Country Director and supervision missions met with the Secretary of the Local Government Department in an effort to address the problems with PMU management. However, the decision to restructure the project was unnecessarily delayed. The justification was to delay any decision until Mid-Term Review, and this was in turn delayed due to a change in the Task Team Leader. Given that BAMWSP had by 2006 failed to construct most of its pilot piped schemes, and BWSPP implementation was downgraded early, it should have been clear that action was needed.
16 (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory The overall rating reflects that the Development Outcome and Quality of Supervision Performance Ratings were in the satisfactory range, but the Quality at Entry Performance Rating was unsatisfactory.
5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government and Implementing Agency Performance13 Rating: Moderately unsatisfactory For most of the project period (31.5 months, or 59%) ISR implementation performance was rated in the unsatisfactory range. For an additional 6 months, the rating was borderline Moderately Satisfactory. The implementation problems were directly related to the PMU management problems, and a principal factor in the restructuring. Section 2.2: Implementation has provided background on this situation, including that at core this was a government problem in putting a capable PMU management in place.
6. Lessons Learned The following list focuses on those lessons that have most clearly emerged from preparing the ICR. Additional lessons are summarized in Annex 6: Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results and the last section of Annex 7: Summary of Borrower’s ICR. Weak PMU capacity can significantly impede implementation, due to factors beyond the Bank’s control. PMU performance has been a reoccurring problem for water projects implemented through DPHE. In the cases of both BAMWSP and BWSPP, this resulted in unsatisfactory implementation and partial grant cancellation. Different structures for the PMU have not prevented the problem. Interventions by the Bank supervision teams and the Country Director have not solved the problem. This is an implementation risk that the Bank has not yet found a method of mitigating in this sector. Given the weak capacity of the PMU, operations with DPHE should be simple and keep the number of local institutional partners to a minimum. The PMU Team was challenged by the complexity of the project, and by the need to work with both the local government institutions for rural areas as well as the parallel set of such institutions for municipalities. The need to manage two sets of partners was too burdensome for the PMU. More attention should be paid to pre-requisites required for innovative components to succeed. Both the rural piped water and the pourashava components experienced problems because certain pre-requisites were not in place. In the case of the rural piped schemes, the BWSPP component for a credit facility really should have been in place before the private sponsors began construction. As this was not the case, the component had trouble attracting and retaining private sponsors because they could not obtain loans for financing and capital investment. The pourashava component, as originally designed, required changes in legislation and buy-in from the municipalities before the private operators could effectively begin to work. Better sequencing of various activities could have avoided at least some of the implementation problems.
13 The ICR Team was not in a position to unravel how DPHE performance was affected by factors in the ministry and government as a whole. Therefore, only a single rating has been given.
17 The procurement burden, especially of innovative projects using local private operators for water supplies, needs to be well-evaluated during project preparation. At the time of restructuring, BWSPP had 170 procurement packages pending. But given that many of these involved multiple steps, the burden was more like 300. Too many innovative components in a single operation can overtax the PMU’s implementation capacity. Attempting to introduce a private operator approach in both rural piped and pourashava schemes was extremely demanding. The non-piped water component was successfully implemented, despite the many problems faced by BWSPP, in part because the approach had been developed and tested in the course of BAMWSP.
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners The comments received from the Borrower may be found in their entirety in Annex 7. The borrower points out two differences between Project Document approved by the World Bank Board and the Revised Development Project Proforma (RDPP), approved by the Government of Bangladesh. First, the revised target for the Project Development Objective was 570,000 beneficiaries supplied with safe water, whereas the government document retained a target of 1.25 beneficiaries. Second, the Project Document sets the revised target for deep tubewells in heavily arsenic affected areas at 2,000, as compared to the 3,810 target set by the government. The ICR reports on achievements against the Results Framework. Therefore, Section 1.7: Other Significant Changes has been added to explain how these targets differ from those in the RDPP. The borrower points out the various factors that should be considered in assessing borrower performance. The borrower points out that implementation problems can be attributed to the project being simultaneously innovative, ambitious, and complex. The ICR points to the same factors in describing the poor implementation results in Section 2.2: Implementation. The same factors explain why Bank performance was rated unsatisfactory in regard to the quality of project design at entry (Section 5.1: Quality at Entry). However, Section 2.2, and the Aide memoires and ICRs on which it is based, also documents the long periods when the government failed to appoint staff to the PMU, and kept a non-performing PMU Director in place. Perhaps the best testimony to how poor PMU management was during this period lies in how much implementation improved when a new PMU Director took over. However, the rating for borrower performance must reflect the entire project period, and not only the final years. A summary table has been added to Annex 2.3: Rural Non-Piped Water Component to show more clearly how the number of beneficiaries for deep tubewells has been estimated. The borrower reports a larger number of beneficiaries has been served through non-piped water supplies than the ICR estimates. The basic assumptions used in the ICR estimations are consistent with those indicated in the Project Document, the Beneficiary Survey, and the average number of persons per rural household as given by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. The summary table with its accompanying notes and sources will hopefully make the basis for the estimates clearer. Note, that the ICR uses a higher figure for number of non-piped water supplies constructed than the figure given in the borrower’s completion report. The ICR team was previously requested to use the number of constructed tubewells as of April 30th, 2011. The borrower’s report uses the figure as of December 31, 2010. Table 6 has now been updated with the latest figures provided by the PMU on the number of operational connections in the rural piped schemes. The number of beneficiaries does not change, because the earlier generous assumptions produced an estimate slightly higher than that generated by the most recent data.
18 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) PIPED VILLAGE WATER 19.32 2.83 15% SUPPLY WATER AND SANITATION IN 12.60 3.60 29% MEDIUM-SIZE TOWNS NON-PIPED ARSENIC 3.76 9.24 246% MITIGATION FOR VILLAGES CAPACITY BUILDING, REGULATIONS AND 2.88 0.71 25% TRAINING DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL 4.31 0 0 CREDIT MARKET MONITORING AND 1.27 0.12 9% EVALUATION PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.94 2.42 82%
Total Baseline Cost 47.08 18.91* 40%
Physical Contingencies 4.16
Price Contingencies 3.87 Total Project Costs 55.11 18.91 34% Project Preparation Fund 0.00 0.00 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 Total Financing Required 55.11 18.91 34%
* Component costs in the table sum to 18.92 due to rounding to two decimal places.
(b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Estimate Estimate Percentage of Source of Funds Cofinancing (USD (USD Appraisal millions) millions) Borrower 5.83 1.90 33% IDA GRANT FOR POOREST 40.00 15.89 40% COUNTRY Sub-borrower(s) 9.28 1.16 12%
19 Annex 2. Outputs by Component
2.1 Rural Piped Schemes Component
Physical outputs The component constructed 21 schemes, of which 12 schemes were in operation in November 2010.14 Each scheme comprises 2 production tubewells, one pump house, a pump and pumping machinery, storage tank (either ground or overhead), piped distribution network, and consumer connections. Most schemes include treatment works, and a few have begun adding household meters. The status of civil works in these schemes as of November 2010 (one month before project closure) was as follows: x Six schemes fundamentally completed: The only outstanding work on these schemes was to complete the planned number of connections. All these schemes were in operation. x Twelve schemes 80-95% completed: Seven of these schemes were not yet in operation, in six cases because the schemes had not yet received an electricity connection. x Three schemes were 65-75% completed: Two of these schemes were not yet in operation. By project closure, 17 schemes were in operation. Detailed information on their physical completion was not available.15. Three of the 17 schemes had not yet received electrical connections, and were operating with a generator. Numbers served The component achieved its revised target of serving 21 villages. The 21 schemes serve an unknown number of villages, but far in excess of 21. The PAD had assumed that schemes would serve about 300 households, and that they would all live in a single village. However, as the schemes increased to cover an average of 900 households, it become less likely that they would all live in a single village. 16 For example, Fatehnagar scheme serves 13 villages, each with an average of around 200 households. The component served around 10,000 households (50,000 people) with rural piped water. The PMU reported that 7, 427 connections had been completed as of October 24, 2010, later updated to 9,037. The note to the table at the end of this section explains how the number of households and beneficiaries were calculated.
14 The data in this section come from the October progress report of the PMU on behalf of the GOB.
15 Due to this lack of data, the previous paragraph detailed construction status two months prior to project closure.
16 To complicate matters further, “village” is not an administrative unit, and sometimes even local residents are hazy about where villages start and end.
20 Innovative approach piloted The project developed and refined a process to involve private sponsors in the planning, implementation, and operation of rural piped schemes. The principal steps in the approach were: (1) request Expressions of Interest, (2) prequalify interested respondents, (3) sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), (4) approve Inception Reports (proposed village, socio- economic characteristics, proposed team, water quality report, etc.), (5) approve feasibility study, (6) approve design study, and (7) sign grant agreement. At this point, construction began. Upon completion, the sponsors were to manage operations for 15 years, later extended to 18 years. The planning process took a considerable time to complete. The number of months required to go from MoU to approved design study ranged from 10 to 39 months for the 21 schemes, with a median of 20 months. To go from MoU to grant agreement required from 16 to 55 months, with a median of a little over 3 years. The reasons for the long lag time included the following: poor PMU management; sponsors’ difficulty in making capital contribution, and cash flow problems; difficulties in procuring land; need for additional test drilling; price escalation. The project successfully recruited NGOs and a few private enterprises to serve as private sponsors. The project twice called for expressions of interest from the private and NGO sector, which produced 155 responses for the first round, and 104 responses for the second round. From the first round, 84 potential sponsors completed 88 inception reports, of which 71 were approved. The various project documents give conflicting figures as to how many sponsors proceeded further in the process, and in any case, the decision to restructure the project limited the number of sponsors who would be allowed to complete construction of schemes. The failure to complete 6 of the 13 BAMWSP schemes taken over by BWSPP illustrates the sponsor attrition problems. The reasons for dropping these schemes were as follows: 3 contracts were cancelled due to slow or no progress on civil works; 1 sponsor decided not to continue; and the lack of available land led to cancelling 2 schemes. Sponsors’ difficulty in getting financing likely lies behind the 4 schemes dropped due to lack of progress and interest. The sponsors do not have a fully commercial view of the schemes. Sixteen NGOs and 3 private enterprises serve as sponsors for the 21 schemes constructed. All these sponsors are committed to cost recovery. However, they all have a rather relaxed attitude toward recovering their capital investment; they are as much concerned with providing a service to the communities. This is even true for the 3 private enterprises, all of which manage schemes in their owners’ home communities. The benchmarking and monitoring framework, and the water safety plans for water quality control, were not implemented. Both activities were part of the original design. Work on the regulatory framework was eliminated as part of the restructuring. Water quality plans were supposed to be completed for each scheme, but this target was not achieved, as discussed below under Section 2.4: Capacity-building, Regulation, and Training. Pilot-testing of the operations phase is just beginning. Most schemes have only been in operation a short while. Two schemes have been in operation for three and four years respectively. At the other extreme are the 9 schemes that have not yet begun operations. The remaining schemes have been in operation for a median of 4 months. So far, service delivery is generally for 6 hours per day, divided among morning, mid-day, and evening periods. Service has been curtailed in this way to reduce costs in line with revenue collection. At least 1 scheme, however, provides water 24/7. Revenue collection exceeded estimated monthly operation and maintenance charges in September 2010, for 7 out of 9 schemes. The balances range from a surplus of US $705 to a debit of $76, with a median of $84. The monthly O&M estimates appear to cover only routine costs, not
21 reserves for major replacements and repairs. The other 12 schemes were not in operation, or data were not available. Another indication of possible threats to financial sustainability is that some consumers have successfully lobbied for tariffs to be lowered from the agreed-upon rate. In summary, a promising start to innovative private sponsor model was made, but more work will be needed. The project has shown that the private sponsor model could be a vehicle for expanding piped water supply services in Bangladesh. It will be important for the Bank to examine how it could provide follow up support to the BWSSP pilots to increase the likelihood of their long term sustainability and scale up.
22 Table 6: Data related to Outputs of Rural Piped Schemes Component NA = Not available Borrower’s ICR Report October 2010 Progress Report No. of Operational Connections Name and Location of the Sponsor % Physical Scheme Months in One Month’s Profit Works Shared Yard House operation September 2010 -- USD Completed Duptara HFSKS 98 48 65 20 450 140 District: Narayanganj Fatehnagar HFSKS 98 37 23 2 532 397 District: Dhaka Nalta Sharif DAM 96 8 198 10 735 25 District: Satkhira Shankarpur REDA 95 9 163 15 242 93 District: Mymensingh Teghara AFAUS 97 4 84 64 455 156 District: Dinajpur Anup Nagar Md. Sarwar District : Chapai 97 5 (76) 5 327 115 Hossain Nawabganj Mollah Uttar Subidkhali NA** 95 705** 0 498 347 Enterprise District : Patuakhali No electricity Tikarpur OSAD 80 0 NA 0 440 52 District : Dhaka Dhalikandi HFSKS 95 4 NA 0 205 147 District : Dhaka Ambag 0 SSUS 85 NA 332 441 District: Gazipur No electricity Shakrail & Chandair SPS 92 1 NA 0 335 85 District: Manikganj Kashinathpur 0 ASKS 90 NA District: Pabna No electricity NDP Paikoshba 0 80 NA 52 544 17 District : Sirajganj No electricity
23 Borrower’s ICR Report October 2010 Progress Report No. of Operational Connections Name and Location of the Sponsor % Physical Scheme Months in One Month’s Profit Works Shared Yard House operation September 2010 -- USD Completed Dhruba Nimarpara 90 NA NA 0 525 35 Society District: Bogra Md. Kholshi Mosibur District : Chapai 90 2 166 0 449 223 Rahman Nawabganj Baroicha 0 CEPAFW 65 NA District : Narshingdi No electricity Buripota HDMBS 65 0 NA 0 654 0 District: Meherpur Ambola BRIDGE 75 NA (74) 0 29 0 District: Barisal 0 Patkelghata Not yet collecting JSSS 90 treatment plant 0 225 0 District : Satkhira payments not approved Budhata 0 Not yet collecting SUF 80 District: Satkhira No electricity payments
Dakhin Monoshatoli 0 Not yet collecting INSAF 90 District: Barguna No electricity payments
Totals 168 6,977 2,273 Note: These data are from November 2010 (PMU 2010). Based on these data, the number of beneficiaries was estimated as 48,770, assuming 3 households per shared connection and 5 persons per household. An earlier calculation on the data then available had produced an estimate of 50,000 beneficiaries. Since the two estimates are quite close, and the estimation error likely significant, the figure of 50,000 beneficiaries was retained. Source: PMU 2010 for data in columns labeled October 2010 Progress Report. Borrower’s ICR report for list of 17 operation schemes. Data on types of connections from May 29, 2011 e-mail “Re: Revised beneficiary figures for BWSPP,” from TTL to ICR Team Leader, Dhaka.
24 2.2 Pourasahava Water Component
Physical Outputs and numbers served The main and additional civil works were completed in 24 pourashavas. The civil works comprised drilling test and production tubewells, pump house construction, pumping unit installation, and pipeline construction. The DPHE supplied figures showed that 9,156 additional domestic (household and public standpost) connections were delivered as a result of the project. The borrower’s ICR contains more details on the connections and pourashava civil works.
2.3 Rural Non-Piped Water Component Heavily arsenic-affected areas (3 upazilas in Munshiganj District The target for this sub-component was over-achieved. The project paper on restructuring BWSPP set the target at 2,000 deep tubewells, increased to 3,180 by the Bangladeshi government when it revised its project documentation. As of October 2010, 3,500 deep tubewells had been completed, and 320 were under construction. An estimated 35,000 households (175,000 people) were served through this sub- component. This calculation is based on the assumption that the 3,500 deep tubewells served an average of 10 households each, in line with the assumption in the restructuring paper. The implementation procedure developed by BAMWSP was successfully followed: Two NGOs were contracted by the PMU to assist and train ward committees (WAMWUGs) to select sites, collect a 10 % capital cost contribution from users, and contract for the tubewell construction. All completed tubewells were reported to be in operation as of November 2010. Note the following two observations about the WAMWAG approach: The implementation procedure does not appear to have gained widespread acceptance yet. For example, the Danida-assisted Hysawa program works through local government (union parishads) rather than ward committees. Comparative data on the long-term sustainability of deep tubewells managed by WAMWUGs would help make a convincing case for this approach. Data is needed on the operation, maintenance, and use of tubewells that were constructed, say, ten or more years ago, and under different approaches. The BWSPP criterion of only financing deep tubewells in villages with less than 400 households was administratively simple but may not have reflected demand from communities. The criterion originally had a financial rationale, namely that villages with less than 400 households could not be economically served by a piped scheme. In practice, however, BWSPP funded piped schemes that serve villages of less than 200 households through supplying several such villages in a single scheme (cf. Fatehnagar, Dhalikandi). Also, BWSPP simply denied deep tubewells to larger villages without offering another option for safe water. This had the perverse effect of keeping the project out of the villages which had the greatest number of people in need of safe water. It became all the more arbitrary given that the populations of some villages fluctuate over time above and below the cut-off of 400 households.
25 Cyclone-affected areas17 This sub-component serves estimated 167,320 households (836,642 people) were served.18 The target for this sub-component was over-achieved. A total of 9,659 tubewells were been completed (mostly deep tubewells, but some shallow), compared to a target of 5,000.19 The consultant survey of consumers, at the end of the project, found all tubewells working, and providing water of acceptable quality (DPHE 2010). These tubewells were constructed using the traditional DPHE approach. Sites were selected based on government procedures. The DPHE Executive Engineer executed the work through contractors, paid by PMU. The beneficiaries were not required to make a contribution.
Table 7: Summary of Calculations of Estimated Number of Beneficiaries served through Non-piped Water Component.
Non-piped water supply Number Estimated Number of sub-components Constructed Beneficiaries Arsenic-affected Areas 3,500 175,000 SIDR-affected Areas 5,484 375,654 AILA-affected areas 4,175 285,988 Total 13,159 836,642 Notes: The number of beneficiaries has been estimated as follows: (1) 10 households using a tubewell in the arsenic-affected areas, the same figure as used in the PAD. (2) 13.7 average number of households using a tubewell in the two other areas, based on survey results presented in the consultant’s report (DPHE 2010, pgs. 138-142). (3) The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics gave an estimate 4.89 people per rural household and 4.72 people per urban household. This figure has been rounded to 5 persons per household and used throughout this report in calculating beneficiaries. Source: Figures supplied by BWSPP Director (Md. Abdul Kaium) to Task Manager (Arif Ahamed) in an e-mail, May 10, 2011, and forwarded to ICR Team Leader on May 15, 2011.
2.4 Capacity-building, Regulation, and Training BWSPP achieved its target water quality testing. The restructured interim results indicator was “9,977 point sources tested for water quality and information put in water quality database.” The project tested 10,615 boreholes. More than 58% of these borehole records were entered in the national database.
17 Cyclone Sidr struck in 2007, and Cyclone Aila in 2009.
18 The 13.7 estimated average number of families using a tubewell is based on survey results presented in the consultants’ report (DPHE 2010, pgs. 138-142). The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics gave an estimated 4.89 people per rural household and 4.72 people per urban household. The figure of 5 persons per household has been used throughout this report to calculated number of persons served from number of households.
19 The figures for the number of completed tubewells were provided by the PMU, and forwarded by the TTL to the ICR Team Leader in a May 29, 2011 e-mail (“RE: Estimated Number of beneficiaries.”) The e-mail is available in IRIS.
26 Table 8: Achievements in BAMWSP-BWSPP- Point Source Water Quality Testing and National Database Program Updating. No. of Water Points Activity Entered in Constructed Tested database
Arsenic affected areas 3,500 2,000 2,000
SIDR area 5,484* 5,036 5,036 AILA area 4,175* 3,579 partial Sub-total 13,159 10,615 Over 7,036
BAMWSP 9,272 0 0
Total 22,431 10,615 Over 7,036 * These two figures were updated by the PMU, and forwarded by the TTL to the ICR Team Leader in a May 29, 2011 e-mail (“RE: Estimated Number of beneficiaries.”) The e-mail is available in IRIS. Sources: Personal Communication with TTL. March 22 and May 29, 2011. PMU. 2010. World Bank 2007. BWSPP fell significantly short in updating the national database begun under BAMWSP. The restructured project document stated in the text (but not in the table of outcome indicators) that “the quality testing of all wells drilled under BAMWSP and BWSPP would be completed and fed into a water quality database”. As the above table indicates, this activity would require much more borehole testing and database entry than the quantitative target set at the time of restructuring. BWSPP did not develop Water Safety Plans for any of the rural piped schemes. The description of the restructured project also stated that it would develop 21 such plans, that is, one per scheme. None were developed, although some orientation and training on the subject was provided by the PMU to the sponsors.
27 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis
This Annex will assess the ex-post socio-economic benefits derived from the restructured project in providing access to safe water in the project areas; and therefore, aim to demonstrate the degree to which the project development objectives were achieved despite sizable reduction in the project scope. Due to major project restructuring, it would not be possible to compare the Economic Analysis presented in the PAD with that in the ICR. Nevertheless, economic analysis was carried out for similar components, with scope as summarized below. Implementation of 21 Rural Piped Water Supply Schemes; Implementation of scheduled works under selected 24 Pourashavas (small towns); Implementation of water point sources (non-piped water supply scheme) in 3 Upazilas of Munshigonj District; and in areas affected by two Cyclones of SIDR and AILA.
The project benefited an estimated 996,514 people directly, and provided many positive spillover social and economic impacts at the individual, community and national levels. Health and environmental benefits and cost saving from medical and health related expenses are the largest benefits of any water supply and sanitation project, but they are difficult to quantify in entirety. The full range of economic impacts include: (i) direct benefits which consist of access to safe water for 1.0 million people; (ii) indirect benefits that are additional economic activities resulting from linked businesses, suppliers of goods and services, additional employment opportunities in services sector (transport, sales, monitoring, etc.), private sector development activities, and provision of operating inputs; and (iii) induced benefits which measure the consumption expenditures of those who have been involved in the investment activities directly (Private Sponsors) and indirectly (suppliers, service providers) which further stimulate the local economy. A summary of estimated number of people benefited from various schemes so far is presented in Table 8 below. Many more people in project areas are expected to directly and indirectly benefit from this project when all schemes are fully operational and expanded in the future.
Table 9: Number of Direct Beneficiaries by Component – As of May 2011 Number of Direct Component Beneficiaries Rural Piped Water Supply Component 50,000
Pourashava Piped Water Supply Component 109,872 Non-piped Water Component in heavily arsenic-affected areas 175,000 Non-piped Water Component in Cyclone affected areas 661,642
Total 996,514 Source: Annex 2
Methodology - A benefit-cost framework using a “with” and “without” project methodology has been used to calculate the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) and the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project under various schemes. Without project situation is what would have been prevailed without the project vis-a-vis factors such as population increase, continued exposure to Arsenic, and economic growth. The full range of economic benefits derived from this project cannot be measured due to incomplete and lack of data. To the extent possible, selected meaningful quantifiable benefits are estimated for this analysis. With conservative assumptions used, the quantified results and net benefits are therefore, an underestimation of the true impacts of provision of safe water.
28
The Economic Analysis covers a project life of 25 years (and 20 years for non-piped water supply scheme) and cash flow is discounted at 10%, which is the cost of capital.20 For the private sector investment in the piped water scheme, the Economic Rate of Return is calculated at discount rates of 10% and above. For purposes of calculating the NPV of the investment of water supply, the stream of financial cost was adjusted for impacts of taxes, subsidies, and externalities to arrive at the economic value, using an estimated Standard Conversion Factor (SCF) of 0.938 as of year 2009. For simplicity and the fact that the cost of the project includes labor and physical capital, the SCF is applied to the total flow of financial costs of the project minus the cost of land.
Sector Issue – Without Project Situation
The Arsenic related problems in Bangladesh dates to the 1970s, when large number of shallow wells installed throughout the country, unwittingly tapping into natural occurring Arsenic in the ground. The Arsenicosis symptoms and deadly effects of Arsenic poisoning take a long time to manifest. According to a survey conducted by the DPHE 21, 51 (out of 64) Districts in the country are affected by various levels of Arsenic in the ground water, putting over 82 million of Bangladesh population at risk of exposure to Arsenic. Of this number, 53% (43.6 million people) live in 1,575 unions (out of total of 4,498 unions) where 20% of tube wells exceed Bangladesh drinking water limit of 0.05 mg/liter and 13.4% (11 million people) live in 466 unions where contaminated ratio is more than 80%. That is, 33% (27 million people) of 82 million people are at very high risk with exposure to more than 0.05 mg/liter. Estimated 29 million people are at risk with exposure to Arsenic of 0.05 mg/liter.22 Chronic Arsenicosis can lead to various forms of skin lesions, cancers, vascular diseases, ischemic heart diseases, hypertension, and other disabling and deadly diseases. Each year, 46 out of 100,000 people are contracted with Arsenic related diseases. This mass poisoning has adverse effects on the individuals, productivity, and the entire economy.
The average per capita health cost for a concentration of 0.028 mg/liter Arsenic in water was estimated to be about TK 140 per year in 2004 current prices.23 Concentration of Arsenic in most of the project areas is above 0.05mg/liter causing more serious illnesses (and therefore a higher treatment cost) among a wider population, as indicated above. For example, in the 3 Upazilas of Munshiganj District where non-piped water scheme was implemented, the concentration of Arsenic on average is 80%. With inflation rate of over 6 percent per annum, the per capita health cost could reach at least to TK 230 in 2010.
Health impacts and diseases associated with lack of access to safe water have direct implication for population welfare (health related quality of life) but also have financial and economic impacts (spending on health care and loss of income or production) not only for the individual but the entire nation. The Willingness to Pay (WTP) survey conducted by the Private Sponsors for the appraisal of rural piped water supply schemes indicates that households are willing to pay for safe potable water. The results indicate that they are willing
20 Based on the data from World Bank Dhaka office and IMF, average interest rate for domestic public debt is 9.7 percent, and that for foreign public debt is 0.9 percent. On average the cost of government borrowing is around 5 percent. For cash flow analysis a 10 percent discount rate is used. 21 Situation Analysis of Arsenic Mitigation 2009, DPHE, June 2010. 22 This is the acceptable limit in Bangladesh, while that under WHO is only 0.01 mg/liter. 23 Maddison, D. R. Catala and D. Pearce, 2004. The Economic Cost of Arsenic Contamination of Ground Water in Bangladesh. Referred to in the Project Appraisal Document.
29 to pay average TK150 per month (or TK 1,800 per year) for safe water. As in the without the project scenario, they actually pay somewhat higher than TK150 per months to collect water from a water source 1 to 4 Kilometers from their houses, taking 20 to 60 minutes to collect water. Rickshaws are hired, at a cost, in some villages on daily basis to transport water. The water from these shallow wells is likely to have Arsenic contamination and other impurities such as high level of iron and salinity. The water tariff that people in the project areas actually pay indicated their willingness to pay for safe water; which factor in their opportunity cost of time (cost of their labor), and other costs (health related, loss of output) associated with consuming poor quality and unsafe water and other ripple adverse impacts on their social and economic life.
The Economic Rate of Return is calculated for the 3 components of the project.24 The results presented below shows that even with significant reduction of scope and coverage of the original project and conservative assumptions 25 the project generates a range of economic benefits for the beneficiaries, those involve in the implementation, and for the country as a whole.
With Project: Economic Benefits of Piped Rural Water Supply - Component 1
This component had significant social and economic benefits for the communities, the Private Sponsors, and the economy as a whole. Each of the 21 contract agreements consist of initial capital investment by the Sponsors at 20% of the total costs and Operation & Maintenance of the schemes for 18-20 years. After 18-20 years the schemes will be handover to the respective CBOs of the Water User Group of each scheme. Economic analysis for this component was conducted to assess the impact of the project based on incremental economic costs and benefits. Incremental costs include investment costs (adjusted by Standard Conversion Factor), and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs during the life of the project. Quantifiable gross benefits of the piped water supply considered for the calculation of NPV are made of an estimate of the following:
(i) Water sold at flat tariff rate established based on the willingness to pay of the beneficiaries26 which comprise of economic value of incremental water consumptions by families who were provided with access to piped water under the project. Collection efficiency is appraised by the Sponsors at 95% on average. Base case inflation rate is estimated at 6% per annum. (ii) Institutional benefits for the 21 Private Sponsors. In addition to revenue earned from water sale each scheme, on average, has provided long term (18 years on full time basis) job opportunity for 3 Scheme Operators (1 Manager, and 1 Tariff Collector) plus 1 Pump Operator. Institutional benefits (which are indirect benefits) are calculated as the difference between the salaries that they would have earned without
24 The Economic Analysis is carried out for the life of the project and takes into account the full scope of the project and implementation of the entire planned design. 25 Avoided health costs only apply to those at very high risk of Arsenic related diseases. Also, the 30 % of the health cost born by the beneficiaries already factored in their willingness to pay (or actual payments for water) and only 70% of health cost born by the government is considered for NPV exercise. 26 In the ex-ante Economic Analysis carried out for the PAD, it was assumed water is sold at a tariff rate per volume (m3) used. However, in reality the tariff charged in piped water scheme of component 1 and 2 is a flat monthly rate. Base year tariff for rural piped water was set at TK 180, TK 150, TK120, and TK 400 for multiple, single, shared, and commercial connections respectively. This tariff is expected to rise with inflation.
30 the project (not being a steady job) with that they can earn with the project. The incremental institutional benefits as a result of higher earnings and steady income for 63 persons (21 scheme times 3 people) also generate induced benefits pumped back into the economy (which is difficult to quantify). 27 (iii) Health benefit of the project for country is the avoided costs of treatment of people with arsenic related illnesses.28 Health care costs can fall on both patients and public health system, which would impact the entire population and national economy. Out- of-pocket cost to individual is assumed to be 30% with 70% of the treatment cost is born by the government health system. While, the 30% cost to individual is factored in their willingness to pay for water, the avoided 70% remaining cost to the economy is incremental benefit resulting from the project, with ripple benefits to the individual and the country as a whole.
Economic Benefits - Conservative assumptions are used to calculate economic rate of return. Project benefit derived from the implementation of 21 piped water schemes when subsidized by the IDA borrowing is positive at 10% with ERR at 13.15% even without health benefits. With health benefits, the NPV is higher with an ERR of 14.20% as presented in Table 9 below. The net benefits to the Private Sponsors and CBOs (gross benefits minus costs borne by the sponsors) for managing the schemes are huge (higher profit margin as investment is subsidized by IDA) with an ERR of 25.26% discounted for the period of 25 years. A Risk Analysis with 25% increase in inflation and costs when subsidized by IDA still show positive NPV at 10% with an ERR of 12%.
Table 10: Economic Rate of Return – Rural Piped Water
NPV @ 10% Base Case (water sold, institutional, and health ERR (%) (TK Million) benefits) PAD – Option A 664.88 36.15% PAD – Option B 897.27 44.69% ICR – Restructured Project 78.59 14.20%
Risk/Sensitivity Analysis – 25% increase in costs PAD – Option A n.a. n.a. PAD – Option B 703.26 32.11% ICR – Restructured Project 54.00 11.90%
An affordability analysis (Table 10 below) revealed that monthly water bill for rural household ranges from 1% to 1.9% of household’s income which is within the range of acceptable international norm. While comparison between ex ante and ex post economic
27 It is assumed that the Manager earns TK 6,000 and Tariff Collector and Pump Operator each earn TK 5,000 per month with the project. On 24 day / month basis, it is conservatively assumed that, on average, they would lose two days of work per month without the project as they may not have steady work. That gives TK 6000 / year incremental higher income for Manager and TK 5000 of that for the Two Operators. This is the case for each 21 scheme.
28 Health benefits for individual are factored in their willingness to pay and agreed tariff with communities. Treatment cost (avoided) only apply to people at higher risk of contamination assumed to be 0.35% of people in the project areas which is estimated based on data provided in the report mentioned in footnote 2 above.
31 analysis is not possible due to project restructuring, the following tables show that even with substantive reduction of size and scope of the this component, the economic benefit/cost ratio is still significantly positive even when discounted at much higher cost of capital.
Table 11: Affordability Analysis – Rural Piped Water Monthly Monthly Water Bill Water Bill Average HH Average as % of as % of Income (TK) Tariff Rate Income Income (PAD Income groups and Water Connections 1/ (TK) (ICR) Estimates)
High Income Group (multiple connections) 15,000 180 1.20 0.94 Middle Income Group (single connection) 7,000 150 2.14 1.68 Low Income Group (shared connection) 2/ 3,500 40 1.14 1.88 1/ Average estimate based on the data from the survey and detailed appraisal done by the Private Sponsors for their respective project areas and villages. 2/ Every 3 Households use one shared connection, the figure is per household.
Economic Benefits of Urban-Piped Water Supply (Pourashavas) – Component 2
Quantifiable gross benefits of the Pourashavas piped water supply component considered for calculation of NPV are estimate of: (i) Value of incremental water sold to the consumers at a flat tariff rate per connection. As a result of the project an estimated 9,156 new connections were provided and close to 22,000 households (or estimated 109,872,000 people) received connections. An average flat rate of TK 164 per connection per month is assumed for calculating the economic value of water sold.29 (ii) Health benefits (avoided health costs to the public health system) to additional 109,872 people in the 24 Pourashavas. The health costs to the individuals are factored in their willingness to pay.
Economic Benefits – The scheme is highly beneficial for the supplier and beneficiaries. The NPV discounted at 10% is TK 128.85 million and the IRR is 14.59%, indicating that the net benefit of the restructured project with smaller scope and coverage is still positive discounted at much higher rate than the current cost of capital. Table 11 shows the result of ex ante economic analysis presented in the PAD and that of the ICR, ex post. Risk analysis with 25% increase in costs would still result in positive NPV of TK 112.15 and ERR of 14.03%. Affordability analysis after the project completion shows that the household’s water bill as % of their income is 1 for high income group and around 0.6 for the middle income groups, which is in the range of the ex ante estimate.
Table 12: Economic Rate of Return – Pourashavas Piped Water NPV @ 10% (TK ERR (%) Base Case (water sold, and health benefits) Million) PAD – Option A 1,464.7 27.39% PAD – Option B 2,383.9 34.34% ICR – Restructured Project 128.85 14.59%
Risk/Sensitivity Analysis – 25% increase in costs 1/ PAD – Option A n.a. n.a.
29 This is an average of flat tariffs rate collected by all 24 Pourashavas.
32 PAD – Option B 1,843.4 25.51% ICR – Restructured Project 112.16 14.03% 1/ For PAD cost increase apply to total cost, while in the ICR the capital cost is actual and increase apply to O&M only.
Economic Benefits of Non-Piped Rural Water Supply – Component 3
Under this component, 3,500 point sources (tubwells) provided in 407 hot spot (80% Arsenic concentration) in 3 Upazilas of Munshiganj District benefiting more than 175,000 people with access to safe and more reliable water. In addition, 9,659 deep tubewells were constructed in districts affected by SIDR and AILA cyclones; together benefiting a total of 661,642 people with access to safe water. Quantifiable gross benefits of the new piped water supply considered for the calculation of NPV are made of an estimate of:
(i) Health benefits to the individual and the country as a whole. That is avoided health costs to the individuals and to the public health system; and its ripple positive impacts on the social and economic life and livelihood of individuals and well being of general public. (ii) Potential time cost saving for collecting water from distant source. One of the significant benefits from water supply project is the time saved by bringing the source of water closer to households.30 Without the project, rural population reportedly spent 40 minutes per day, on average, to collect water which could still be contaminated. Average monthly income of rural population is estimated at about Tk 4,500 for eight hours of work/day. The economic value of cost of time saved is estimated using the opportunity cost of labor or the income foregone in other income generating activities; which is considered benefits to the households and the society.
Economic Benefits - The non-piped rural water generate significant benefits for the beneficiaries and economy as a whole. In particular, as the cost of capital is not high and that the O&M cost per year is low. The ERR is 61.33% when the stream of net benefits discounted over a period 20 years (life of this scheme). Discounting net benefits of time saved alone has an ERR of 49% and that of the health benefits alone has IRR of 12%. Table 12 below presents the ex ante economic rate of return compare to that of ICR, ex post. The large ERR indicates that the cost of this scheme is relatively low while the derived benefits are substantial.
Table 13: Economic Rate of Return – Non-Piped Rural Water NPV @ 10% (TK ERR (%) Base Case (time saving and health benefits) Million) PAD – Option A 195.9 43.43% PAD – Option B 278.9 57.15% ICR – Restructured Project 3,554.5 61.33%
Financial Rate of Return – An ex ante estimate of financial return was presented in the PAD for rural and urban piped water schemes. The financial rate of return was calculated for net benefits of the water sold only and the cost includes the IDA subsidy. While, comparable ex
30 While, there is a high concentration of tube wells (in many instances are shallow) in rural areas, due to high level of contamination in several of these water sources, rural population had to walk a distance to get safe water from sources far from their home. In Coastal areas (where affected by SIDR and AILA cyclone) concentration of tube wells are less; therefore, it takes longer to fetch water.
33 post figures cannot be calculated due to project restructuring and other factors described above, a similar approach and concept were used to calculate the financial return for the two piped schemes for this ICR. The net benefits are those of the water sold only. The result is presented in table 13 below.
Table 14: Financial Rate of Return Component Financial Rate of Return Economic Rate of Return (ERR)
PAD Rural Piped Water Supply 12.62% 19.88% Pourashava Piped Water 9.29% 15.66% Supply
ICR Rural Piped Water Supply 9.25% 10.29% Pourashava Piped Water 10.59% 11.32% Supply
Business Model prepared for two piped schemes presented in the PAD to assess financial viability of the approach (with private participation) to provide water supply in urban and rural project areas. With project restructuring, no Private Operator was involved in Pourashavas piped water scheme and the scheme was limited to augmentation and expansion of the existing piped system managed by the water departments in respective Pourashavas. That is just o add new water points in the Pourashava. With respect to the rural piped water scheme, the 21 Private Operators have prepared detailed appraisal reports (including social and financial analysis) for their respective project area. These reports and analysis are prepared based on some common frameworks and parameters which agreed with respective communities and DPHE. These appraisal reports are available with the DPHE. Most of the 21 schemes are in partial operations only less than one year. Therefore, their financial books (profit & loss accounts and income statements) cannot be fully prepared for a meaningful financial assessment ex post.
34 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes
(a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Alain R. Locussol Consultant ETWWA Amal Talbi Water Supply Specialist AFTU2 Burhanuddin Ahmed Sr Financial Management Specialist SARFM Carla P. Vale de Holguin Research Analyst SASES Debabrata Chakraborti Sr Procurement Spec. SARPS Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez Manager ETWWP Junaid Kamal Ahmad Sector Manager SASES Karin Erika Kemper Lead Water Resource Management SASES TTL Khawaja M. Minnatullah Consultant SASES Md. Abul Fayez Khan Program Assistant ETWSA Mona Sur Senior Economist SASAR Nilufar Ahmad Sr Social Scientist SASES Razia N. Sultana Program Assistant SACBD Tanveer Ahsan Consultant ETWSA Supervision/ICR Abdul Fayez Khan Program Assistant SASDO Abdul Motaleb Sr Water & Sanitation Spec TWISA Albert Tuinhof Consultant, Groundwater Specialist AFTWR Water Supply and Sanitation Arif Ahamed SASDU TTL Specialist Bernardo Gomez Consultant TWIWA Burhanuddin Ahmed Sr Financial Management Specialist SARFM Catherine Signe Tovey Sr Water Resources Spec SASDI Cecilia Belita Senior Program Assistant SASSD David Meerback Environmental Specialist Debabrata Chakraborti Procurement Specialist SARPS Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez Sr. Water Supply and Sanitation Elizabeth Kleemeier TWIWA ICR Team Leader Specialist Fook Chuan Eng Sr. Water and Sanitation Specialist SASDU TTL Guillermo Yepes Consultant, Urban Water Supply Husein A. Rashid Consultant, Water Supply Engineer SASES Jeffrey Racki Consultant AFTUW Karin Erika Kemper Sector Manager, Environment LCSEN TTL Khawaja M. Minnatullah Consultant SASDI M. Khaliquzzaman Consultant SASDI Mohammad Abdullah Sadeque Consultant, Procurement Specialist SARPS Naresha Duraiswamy Sr. Operations Officer ECSSD Nilufar Ahmad Senior Gender Specialist SDV Pieter David Meerbach Young Professional YPP Razia N. Sultana Program Assistant SACBD Sabah Moyeen Social Development Analyst SASDS Sanjay Pahuja Sr Water Resources Spec. SASDI
35 Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Shideh Hadian Economist SASDU ICR Team member Siet Meijer Operations Analyst SASDI Swarna Kazi Program Assistant SACBD Syed Abuhena Mostafa Kamal Consultant SASES Toufiq Ahmed Procurement Specialist SARPS Vandana Mehra Communications Officer TWISA
(b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) USD Thousands Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks (including travel and consultant costs) Lending FY04 317.71 FY05 10.61 FY06 5.94 FY07 3.74
Total: 338.00 Supervision/ICR FY04 0.00 FY05 204.50 FY06 117.23 FY07 66.70
Total: 388.43
36 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results A consultant firm was hired by the PMU to do a completion report, including beneficiary and stakeholder surveys, on BWSPP just prior to its closure. The field work included discussions with beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the rural pipe, pourashava, and rural non-piped components. The results are presented below. The survey results showed that the consumers served through non-piped supplies were satisfied with the water quality, access, and location of the supplies. The beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the rural piped scheme component had numerous suggestions about how to improve the process, as shown in the following table. The following table the most frequently cited problems with the process “as-is”. The quality of the beneficiary survey could have been improved but there are some important messages to be taken away. From the content of the views expressed it appears that the responses seem to come predominantly from the sponsors and possibly some members of the user associations, although focus group discussion in each community did take place. Table 15: Beneficiary and Stakeholder Views on Problems with Rural Piped Schemes Number of Problem Expressed Schemes where expressed (N=21) 20% deduction for security from every bill reduced sponsor liquidity too 18 much Land cost should be part of grant 16
Inclusion of tax and VAT on water costs not justified 14
Certification of all bills by local DPHE time consuming and disruptive 13 Preparation cost subsidy is inadequate/should not be uniform across all 12 schemes Standardized bill of quantities rates not in line with market 11
Difficult to get electricity connection; being charged at commercial rate; 10 no provision for installing generator
Estimated scheme costs too rigid, inadequate 9
No guidance on construction material testing. material testing time- 9 consuming
Lack of coordination among stakeholders (DPHE, PMU, CBO, LGI) 8
Administrative/overhead costs not included in grant 8
Reimbursement is complex and time-consuming 8
70% grant contribution too low 7 Approved cost per HH should not be standard across geographic areas 7
Remuneration not sufficient to recruit good technical staff 7
Unrealistic to install connections only after all other work completed 7
No remuneration for CBO staff 7
37 Number of Problem Expressed Schemes where expressed (N=21) Village selection process poor 6 Poor interdepartmental-ministry communication 5
No significant training conducted. No training on report preparation and 5 billing.
Local DPHE labs not well-equipped/Testing is kept open only for BUET 5 Local DPHE staff apathetic 5
2% contingency is inadequate 5
Proposal preparation takes too long 4
Tariff setting is not flexible 4
Insufficient involvement of CBO staff in construction 3 Decision-making delayed 1
Construction period not sufficient 1 Note: Some problems had to be omitted because they were unclearly stated. Source: DPHE 2010, pgs. 41-84. The methodology used for surveying pourashava beneficiaries and stakeholders produced a positive, but ambiguous, picture of the post-project situation. The survey covered 19 put of the 24 pourashavas, but with missing data for 2 of the 19 schemes. The survey results showed a high level of arsenic awareness (N=17), good water quality (N=12), and a view that the water bills were reasonable (N=15). However, the methodology was generally weak and no firm conclusions could be drawn about the views of the ultimate beneficiaries of the project. i.e., the water consumer.
38 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results A workshop was held on December 20, 2010 to discuss the consultants’ report. The 49 participants came from the PMU, DPHE, and the Local Government Department. They suggested the remedial solutions listed in the following table to the problems described in the consultant report (see previous annex). Table 16: Possible Remedial Solutions Identified in Stakeholder Workshop, December 20, 2010
Ⴠ Proposal preparation (Part I & II) should be 7-8 months and preparation cost should be Tk. 7-8 lacs based on the geographical areas. Ⴠ Decision should be provided in prompt manner Ⴠ DPHE may provide technical design in one stop service Ⴠ Proper arrangement should be undertaken for selection process and proper coordination among the stakeholder is to be ensured. Ⴠ Proposal preparation phase must be properly evaluated Ⴠ The scheme implementation period should be 15 (procurement 2 + Construction 10 + Test operation 3 months). Ⴠ The Grant Agreement should be signed considering the realistic market price and cost should be varied on geographical variation Ⴠ The land cost must be covered under Grant Ⴠ The material test be kept for open for any quality organization. Local DPHE labs should be well equipped. Ⴠ There should be a provision of 15% increase considering the relevant judgment. Ⴠ Knowledge sharing workshop/training should be arranged for a 3 months interval Ⴠ 5% administrative cost to be treated under Grant Ⴠ Proper demand driven training is required. Ⴠ There should be specific time frame for billing to payment Ⴠ Joint signature with the CBO should be stopped Ⴠ Media campaign should be accelerated Ⴠ Tariff should be set pre or post implementation period of the scheme Ⴠ Electric connection under the scheme must be prompt and electricity bill should be treated in subsidized rate (like household or agriculture) Ⴠ Provision of Generator must be ensured from the Grant Portion of the scheme Ⴠ Inter departmental/Ministerial relation and coordination must increased for the better and early implementation of the scheme works
39 Ⴠ Standard material test for construction materials must take in to consideration for quality works Ⴠ All concerned stakeholder including the local DPHE Officials must be trained through time bound capacity building training/ workshop etc. Ⴠ Minimum 3 months time should be kept for house connection after completion of infrastructure Ⴠ Incentive should ensured for CBO personnel Ⴠ Tax & VAT should be excluded from the budget due to social business Ⴠ Minimum 1.5 years (1 year for construction + 6 months for house connection) is to provide for scheme completion period. Ⴠ 20% deduction for Security money and Bank Guarantee for Mobilization Advance should be excluded from the Guideline Ⴠ The fund allocation system of scheme will be as: 85% Grant + 10% Sponsor Equity + 5% Community Contribution. Ⴠ Payment should be made through one stop Billing system from PMU. Ⴠ The real consent for providing ‘Upfront contribution’ and ‘Monthly Tariff’ should be collected before finalizing the scheme cost and signing of Grant Agreement through another field level intervention. Ⴠ Staff salary/remuneration must be kept till to house connection Ⴠ In the Guideline written provision should be kept that based on the ‘community upfront contribution’ and ‘monthly tariff’ the existence of sponsors will be ensured Ⴠ Incentive should be provided (like performance bonus’ should be arranged for good-deeds Ⴠ Necessary required logistics should be make in to consideration with the grant amount as well as O&M cost for the scheme. Ⴠ A provision for ‘Seed money’ to meet up the emergency during the O&M period need to be arranged (on 70% - 30% approach) Ⴠ An independent ‘Monitoring Cell’ should be formed by PMU/DPHE to ensure quality implementation works of the scheme Ⴠ Minimum 6 month time to be provided from PMU during the O&M period for sound technical and financial operation of the scheme for sustainability Ⴠ Credit facility should be made available for sustainability of the scheme. Ⴠ Horizontal lesson learning should be made available for proper lesson learning
Source: Rahman 2010.
40 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR The complete PMU ICR is attached at the end of these annexes. The borrower’s unabridged comments are inserted below: The initial target of implementing the major 300 rural piped water supply schemes at US $ 40 million was taken having no experience in this sector - particularly in the form of PPP in Bangladesh.
It took substantial time to motivate private sector (sponsor) to invest money in water supply which has enough risk for cost recovery. So, there was uncertainty of cost recovery. At the same time, the new concept of ‘rural piped water supply scheme’ through sponsor could not be well managed. The reduction of target to piloting 21 schemes and divert the grant to other two components particularly ‘urban (paurshava) water supply’ and hand pump installation under’ non-piped water supply component’. The improved management create momentum in the implementation of project activities.
Anyway, the lesson learnt from the project is now providing guidance to formulate new project to implement with better management strategies.
This is probably the achievement of BWSPP to bring new concept to implement ‘rural piped water supply scheme’ in light of PPP and involve the community to implement individual point source of water supply in rural context of Bangladesh.
However, few specific comments on ICR are provided below :
The comments of BWSPP on ICR of the World Bank :
Ref. Source Subject/Term BWSPP Comments/ Clarification Page 5 (and In terms of targets, It is a fact that the numbers of Rural piped water also in the number of supply schemes are drastically reduced from 300 to different beneficiaries was cut 21. But the average number of average households pages of ICR) by 54%. The goal per scheme was increased from 300 to 920. So in became providing safe terms of serving the households coverage the 21 water to 570,000 schemes stands as 63 (three times higher). On the people in villages and other hand the number of paurshavas stands initial 5 towns, compared to an to 24 and the number of non-piped options increased original target of at from 2000 to 13776. Considering these numbers of least 1.25 million increasing water service delivery in the other two persons. components, the initial targeted 1.25 million persons is kept unchanged in the Revised Development Project Proforma (RDPP). So, the project beneficiaries should be 1.25 million.
Page 12, 14 WAMUG, The term is ‘Ward Arsenic Mitigation Water WAMWG User Group (WAMWUG)’ Page 17 (a) Government and Implementing Following are the hindrance/key problems those
41 Ref. Source Subject/Term BWSPP Comments/ Clarification Agency needed to be considered for settling the rank of Performance31 implementing agency : Rating: Moderately ¾ The project formulation is innovative in unsatisfactory nature and types of sponsors are come from For most of the project wider variety; period (31.5 months, ¾ The PPP model is new in the country and or 59%) ISR there were no proven track record or implementation organized market for getting technical and performance was rated in the unsatisfactory financial support ; range. For an ¾ The sponsors were not shown there additional 6 months, eagerness due to the modality of financing the rating was of 50% from their end. borderline Moderately ¾ The rules and regulation, guidelines, way of Satisfactory. approach and M&E tools have been framed during the project period. ¾ Due to price hike of the construction materials, the sponsors were not in a position to start the implementation works with the earlier approved ‘Bill of Quantity’ under Grant Agreement.
Page 25 The target for this sub-component was The target for this sub-component was over- over-achieved. The achieved. The project paper on restructuring project paper on BWSPP set the target at 2,000 deep tubewells, restructuring BWSPP increased to 3,810 by the Bangladesh set the target at 2,000 government when it revised its project deep tubewells, documentation. increased to 3,180 by the Bangladeshi government when it revised its project documentation.
42
Comments on Table 8: Number of Direct Beneficiaries by Component (under page 28)
Comments of BWSPP Data as per ICR
Number of Direct Number of Direct Component Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Rural Piped Water Supply Component 50,000 58,927
Pourashava Piped Water Supply Component 109,872 109,872 Non-piped Water Component in heavily arsenic- 240,983 175,000 affected areas Non-piped Water Component in Cyclone affected 712,569 661,642 areas Total 996,514 11,22,351
43 Comments on Table 6 (of page no. : 23-24) : Data related to Outputs of Rural Piped Water Supply Schemes
Comments provided through ICR Comments of BWSPP Connections Est. Month’s Sponsor % Physical Status of service Name and Location of the Months in Profit Actual connection as Works % delivery with Scheme operation No. September 2010 – on 31-12-2010 Completed planned electricity USD 562 Duptara HFSKS 98* 48 562 95 65 610 Operational District: Narayanganj Fatehnagar Operational HFSKS 98* 37 934 97 23 931 District: Dhaka Nalta Sharif Operational DAM 96* 8 454 53 198 770 District: Satkhira Operational Shankarpur REDA 95* 9 248 59 163 350 District: Mymensingh
Teghara Operational AFAUS 97* 4 450 70 84 675 District: Dinajpur Operational Md. Sarwar Anup Nagar 97* 5 324 62 (76) 447 Hossain District : Chapai Nawabganj Operational Mollah Uttar Subidkhali NA** 95 900 71 705** 845 Enterprise District : Patuakhali No electricity Tikarpur Operational OSAD 80 0 NA NA NA 492 District : Dhaka Dhalikandi Operational HFSKS 95 4 369 42 NA 352 District : Dhaka
Ambag 0 Operational with SSUS 85 280 29 NA 773 District: Gazipur No electricity generator
44 Comments provided through ICR Comments of BWSPP Connections Est. Month’s Sponsor % Physical Status of service Name and Location of the Months in Profit Actual connection as Works % delivery with Scheme operation No. September 2010 – on 31-12-2010 Completed planned electricity USD 562 Shakrail & Chandair 420 Operational with SPS 92 1 316 44 NA District: Manikganj generator Kashinathpur 0 Non- Operational ASKS 90 250 29 NA 315 District: Pabna No electricity NDP Paikoshba 0 Operational 80 350 55 NA 613 District : Sirajganj No electricity
Dhruba Nimarpara 560 Operational 90 NA 125 12 NA Society District: Bogra Md. Kholshi Mosibur 90 2 646 93 166 672 Operational District : Chapai Nawabganj Rahman Baroicha 0 Non- Operational CEPAFW 65 NA NA NA 100 District : Narshingdi No electricity Operational with Buripota HDMBS 65 0 NA NA NA 654 generator District: Meherpur
Ambola Operational BRIDGE 75 NA 189 29 (74) 29 District: Barisal i) Operational. 0 Not yet ii) Treatment plant Patkelghata JSSS 90 treatment plant 214 38 collecting 225 approved at Project District : Satkhira not approved payments Proposal approval stage. Not yet Non-Operational Budhata 0 SUF 80 NA NA collecting 239 District: Satkhira No electricity payments
45 Comments provided through ICR Comments of BWSPP Connections Est. Month’s Sponsor % Physical Status of service Name and Location of the Months in Profit Actual connection as Works % delivery with Scheme operation No. September 2010 – on 31-12-2010 Completed planned electricity USD 562 Not yet Dakhin Monoshatoli 0 INSAF 90 816 83 collecting 306 Non- Operational District: Barguna no electricity payments Totals 7,427 10378
46 Annex 8. List of Supporting Documents
Numerous aide memoires and Implementation Status and Results Reports for BWSPP were reviewed. Only ISRs and aide memoires cited in the ICR are listed below.
Concept Review Package for BANGLADESH: Bangladesh Rural Water Supply Program Project – P086661—Tuesday, November 11 7:00 AM Washington. 2003
DPHE. 2010. Bangladesh Water Supply Program Project: External Monitoring & Evaluation of Implemented Schemes/Subprojects under Component 1, 2, and 3 (as well as other related activities). Report submitted by Development Planners and Consultants . December. Dhaka.
Eng, Fook Chuan. 2008. Implementation Status and Results Report for Investment Projects, Bangladesh, BD – Water Supply Program Project (Project ID: P086661 – Loan/Credit No.: IDAH1010). June 30.
Kemper, Karin. 2007. Implementation Status and Results Report for Investment Projects, Bangladesh, BD – Water Supply Program Project (Project ID: P086661 – Loan/Credit No.: IDAH1010). June 19.
OPCS. 2010. Implementation Completion and Results Report Guidelines. August 2006. Updated May 25, 2010.
Rahman, Md. Shahidur. 2010. Proceedings of the Workshop on Sustainability of Public- Sponsor-Community Managed Rural Water Supply in Bangladesh. BWSPP PMU. December 30. Dhaka.
Supervision Mission. 2005. Aide memoire. December 10-21.
Supervision Mission. 2007a. Aide memoire. Technical Supervision mission. July 27, August 5- 9.
Supervision Mission. 2007b. Aide Memoire. Mid-Term Review. November 5-12.
Supervision Mission. 2010. Aide memoire. Implementation Review Mission. August 22- September 2.
PMU. 2010. Progress Report of BWSPP (as of October 24, 2010). BWSPP. DPHE. Dhaka.
World Bank. 1998. Project Appraisal Document for a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 24.2 million equivalent to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for a Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply Project. Rural Development Sector Unit. South Asia Region. Washington D.C. August 7.
World Bank. 2004a. Development Grant Agreement (Water Supply Program Project) between People’s Republic of Bangladesh and International Development Association. Grant Number H101-BD. Washington D.C.
47 World Bank. 2004b. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Grant in the Amount of SDR 27.6 Million (US$40.0 Million Equivalent) to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for a Water Supply program project. Environmental and Social Unit. South Asia Region. Washington D.C. May 18.
World Bank. 2007. Implementation Completion and Results Report on a Credit in the Amount of SDR 24.2 million (US$44.4 million equivalent) to Bangladesh for Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply. Environment and Water Resources Unit. Sustainable Development Department. South Asia Region. June 10. Washington D.C.
World Bank. 2008. Project Paper for Proposal to Restructure Bangladesh Water Supply Program Project. Urban Water Sector Unit. Sustainable Development Department. South Asia Region. unpublished. August 13.
48 ICR of Borrower's (BWSPP) [as on December 31, 2010]
Bangladesh Water Supply Program Project (BWSPP) is one of the significant project of DPHE. The initial project cost of BWSPP was Tk. 319,82 lakh where the IDA Grant was Tk. 232,00 lakh, GoB fund was Tk. 34,00 lakh and community Contribution was Tk. 53,82 lakh respectively [1 million=10 lakh]. The major activities as per the original DPP was as follows :
(i) Promoting rural water supply through implementing 300 rural Piped Water supply Schemes with private sector participation ; (ii) Promoting private sector participation in water supply in selected paurashavas & (iii) implement arsenic mitigation options in selected arsenic affected areas.
The original DPP was approved by ECNEC on 09.01.2005 with a timeframe from July, 2004 to June, 2009. Due to the insignificant performance of the project, the World Bank Mid-Term Review Mission (November 5-12, 2007) recommended for restructuring of the project in respect of scope of work, targets, conditions, funding etc. (including reducing the IDA Grant to Tk. 12804 lakh). This resulted in a revision of the DPP. The first revision of DPP was approved by ECNEC on 22.12.2008 with an extension up to June 30, 2010) with the following component- wise targets :
(i) Implementation of 21 Rural Piped Water Supply Schemes ; (ii) implementation of scheduled works under selected 24 paurashavas & (iii) Implementation of water point sources in selected 3 upazilas of Munshigonj.
According to the above target, the project has implemented its activities. In response to Government request dated August 25, 2009, the World Bank gave its concurrence to utilize potential project savings for the installation of additional 4000 water point sources in cyclone AILA affected areas. The subject was discussed during the World Bank’s Implementation Review Mission of May-June 2009 and August, 2009 during which an assessment of the current and potential project savings were made. During the August, 2009 Mission, the World Bank also agreed to the proposal of increasing the number of water point sources in the arsenic affected 3 upazilas of Munshigonj district.
In light of the above-mentioned recommendations in Aide Memoire of the World Bank and the instruction of Planning Commission, the 2nd revision of DPP was made which was approved by the Government of Bangladesh on May 26, 2010. The precise monetary picture of the revised amount under RDPP–I & RDPP–II are given below : (Figure in Lakh Taka)
Sources of fund Revised DPP -I Revised DPP -II GOB 1450.00 1560.00 Sponsor/Community 1890.00 1215.00
IDA 12804.00 12804.00
Total: 16144.00 15579.00 [Note: Conversion Rate in Revised DPP-II is US $1 # Tk.68.58].
This is relevant to mention here that after restructuring BWSPP conditions and activities, it has been performed its activities satisfactorily with its new management and leadership. The World Bank has noted this positive project implementation turnaround in its last series of Aide Memoire and they assess that BWSPP will be completed satisfactorily. The project implementation rating was changed from ‘Moderately unsatisfactory (MU)’ to ‘Satisfactory (S)’ during these period. As
49 per Aide Meoire of the last Supervision Mission of the World Bank (August 22-September 2, 2010) the achievement of PDO and Implementation Progress of the project stands as ‘S’ (satisfactory).
The World Bank noted that BWSPP has demonstrated success and significant sector advancement that should be scaled up. The need to analyze and record BWSPP lessons for future scale up project and minimize the gap between the project end and any scale up efforts was also noted. A request for the World Bank to continue intervention in the rural water and sanitation by scaling up the BWSPP component activities which is come in to light by the name of ‘Bangladesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project (BRWSSP). Items of Out-put Estimated quantity expected at full capacity Actual quantity of output during the years of operation at full capacity
(a) Provide arsenic 1. It is expected that the increased availability of safe Total 1.123 million population safe and Bacteria & water, through 21 piped water supply in rural areas against targeted 1.25 million are pathogen free and selected 24 paurashavas and 13776 non-piped getting safe drinking water at the drinking water arsenic mitigation options in small villages and in project completion period through SIDR & AILA affected upazilas will bring result in installation of : significant health benifits and reduced medical (a) 21 RPWS schemes expenditure. (b) installed infrastructure support of (b) Reduced 24 targeted paurashavas & mortality and 2. Potential health benifits, including reduction in reductions in other mortality and morbidity, are expected to be significant (c) 3810 deep tubewells under 3 arsenic and other for children under 5 years of age, due to the decreased upazilas of Munshigonj district and water borne related incidence of diarrhea, as well as for the population 9966 water point sources under SIDR diseases. currently reliant on arsenic contaminated water. and AILA affected upazilas of coastal areas.
(c) Time savings in 3. Timesavings arising from reduced time spent in Note : House connection under ‘Rural bringing clean collecting water, which implied that the time Piped Water Supply (RPWS)’ and water from nearby allocation to productive activities and hence increased ‘Paurashava Piped Water Supply sources, and better household incomes. (PPWS)’ component of the project is overall water use. a continious process. 4. Institutional Strengthening and sustainibility achieved by strengthening the capacity of the private We believe that the tergeted 1.25 sponsors/operators/SOs to plan and deliver rural & million popuation could be possible urban water supply services and strengthening the to attaned within the project regulatory capacity of local and central government. disbursement completion period.
Estimated target from the overall project output:
Comp No. of Average HH Total Population - scheme/ per scheme/ Total Population in million Name of the Component onent options/ Options/ HHs (1 hh=5.5 No. Pourashava Pourashava persons) 1 Rural Piped Water Supply Component 21 920 19320 106260 0.106 Pourashava Piped Water Supply 2 24 1441 34584 190212 Component 0.190 Non-Piped Arsenic Mitigation Option 3810 11.5 43815 240983 0.241 3 Construction works at SIDR &AILA 9966 13 129558 712569 affected districts 0.713 Total 13821 227277 1250024 1.250
50 The beneficiaries observed during the closure (December 31, 2010) of BWSPP :
No. of Average HH Comp scheme/ per scheme/ Total Total Population onent Name of the Component options/ Options/ HHs Population in million No. Pourashava Pourashava 1 Rural Piped Water Supply Component 21 510 10714 58927 0.059 Pourashava Piped Water Supply 2 24 382 9156 109872 Component 0.110 Non-Piped Arsenic Mitigation Option 3810 11.5 43815 240983 0.241 3 Construction works at SIDR &AILA 9966 13 129558 712569 affected districts 0.713 Total 13821 193243 1122357 1.123 The precise component-wise description mentioning present status are given below:
A. Component wise justification of revision (along with Present Status)
Component 1: Rural Piped Water Supply (RPWS):
As per the original DPP, engaging private sponsors targeted it to implement 300 Rural Piped Water Supply (RPWS) schemes. 70 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) were signed with the respective sponsors. But as per the restructured modality and revised DPP, only 21 pilot ‘Rural Piped Water Supply (RPWS)’ schemes were targeted for completion by the project period. It is also relevant to mention here that the 2nd round of ‘Request for Expression of Interest’ was called for implementation of ‘Rural Piped Water Supply Scheme’ and total 104 sponsors were listed from the submitted EOIs.
Under BWSPP, sponsors completed 33 ‘Project Proposals (Part-I)’. After acceptance of PP-I, sponsors submitted 18 Project Proposals (Part-II); out of which PMU accepted 15 RPWS schemes and signed Grant Agreements for implementation works. Out of 11 Schemes transferred from BAMWSP, 6 schemes have been completed under BWSPP. So, the total RPWS schemes stands 21.
Achievement of RPWS component of BWSPP:
On the basis of the delivery of safe and pure drinking water in arsenic, salinity, manganese, iron prone areas of the country, BWSPP completed the program to implement ‘PPP’ based piped water supply scheme in selected villages. It implemented the targeted schemes through the sponsors in close co-ordination with the community, local DPHE Officials, and Local Government Institutions.
It is relevant to mention here that implementation of ‘Rural Piped Water Supply’ system through public private partnership is a new approach in Bangladesh. Due to this, there are many problems and difficulties observed to implement the scheduled schemes properly. Overcoming those difficulties, 21 RPWS schemes were successfully implement under BWSPP.
All of the physical works of the following 21 RPWS schemes have been completed in the respective areas as mentioned below :
Sl. Name of the sponsor Name of Schemes & working area No.
51 Sl. Name of the sponsor Name of Schemes & working area No. Hilful Fuzul Samaj Kallayan Sangstha Duptara RPWS Scheme (Extension) 1 (HFSKS) (Araihazar upazila of Narayangonj district) Hilful Fuzul Samaj Kallayan Sangstha Fatehnagar RPWS Scheme 2 (HFSKS) (Keranigonj upazila of Dhaka district) Dhaka Ahsania Mission (DAM) Nalta Sharif RPWS Scheme 3 (Kaligonj upazila of Satkhira district) Shankarpur RPWS Scheme 4 REDA (Muktagacha upazila of Mymenshing district) Ambola RPWS Scheme 5 BRIDGE (Agailjhara upazila of Barisal district) Organization for Social Action & Tikarpur RPWS Scheme 6 Development (OSAD) (Nababgonj upazila of Dhaka district) Ambag RPWS Scheme 7 Sandhani Samaj Unnyan Sangstha (SSUS) (Gazipur Sadar upazila of Gazipur district) Shakrail and Chandair RPWS Scheme 8 Sukhi Paribar Sangstha (SPS) (Manikgonj Sadar upazila of Manikgonj district) Centre for Envl. Protection & Arsenic Free Baroicha RPWS Scheme 9 Water (CEPAFW) (Belabo upazila of Narshingdi district) Patkelghata RPWS Scheme 10 Jamuna Samaz Seba Sangstha (JSSS) (Tala upazila of Satkhira district) Sonali Unnayan Foundation Budhata RPWS Scheme 11 (SUF-1) (Assasuni upazila of Satkhira district) Uttar Subidkhali RPWS Scheme 12 M/S. Mollah Enterprise (Mirzagonj upazila of Patuakhali district) Kashinathpur RPWS Scheme 13 Ananya Samaj Kallayan Sangstha (ASKS) (Santhia upazila of Pabna district) Anup Nagar RPWS Scheme 14 Md. Sarwar Hossain (SARWAR) (Chaipai Nababgonj Sadar upazila of Chapai Nababgonj district) Teghara RPWS Scheme 15 Al-Falah Aam Unnayan Sangstha (AAUS) (Birol upazila of Dinajpur district) Kholshi RPWS Scheme 16 Md. Mosibur Rahman (MOSIBUR) (Nachol upazila of Chapai Nawabganj district) Paikosha RPWS Scheme 17 National Development Program (NDP) (Kamarkhand upazila of Sirajganj district) Harirampur Dusta Mahila Bahumukhi Buripota RPWS Scheme 18 Sangstha (HDMBS) (Meherpur Sadar upazila of Meherpur district) Chandihara and Nimarpara RPWS Scheme 19 Dhrubo Society (DS) (Sibganj upazila of Bogra district) Indigent Social Advancement Foundation Dhakhin Monoshatoli RPWS Scheme 20 (INSAF) (Borguna Sadar upazila of Borguna district) Hilful Fuzul Samaj Kallyan Sangstha Dhalikandi RPWS Scheme 21 (HFSKS) (Keraniganj upazila of Dhaka district)
52 Most of the schemes could able to deliver the piped water supply system to its beneficiaries within the project completion period. This is relevant to be mentioned here that due to government embargo some ‘RPWS’ schemes could not able to get ‘electrical connection’ from the concerned power supply authority (Rural Electrification Board) during the closure of the project completion period. As the entire physical works of the scheme was completed, the concerned sponsors are operating their system/delivering the piped water to the users through hiring generator. A formal request has been sent to the concerned authority for providing electric supply on the remaining schemes considering the greater national interest as well as project completion period. It is observed that the line Ministry has taken the issue in positive consideration and it is hoping that the concerned ‘schemes’ could able to get the electric connection in soonest possible time.
This also relevant to be mentioned that the average household under a scheme was considered as 400 nos. But at the end it is observed that the average households under the implemented 21 RPWS schemes is 920. So, it can simply say that considering the numbers of household, BWSPP could abele to serve more than two and half times higher numbers of households than that of initial targeted numbers of households under the targeted schemes.
Every scheme consist of two PTWs, one pump house, pump and pumping machinery, pipeline network and house connections and other relevant works. Treatment Plan/Pressure filter are part of the scheme – where the health hazard related water quality parameter lying above the standards that set as ‘Bangladesh Standard’. Some schemes containing OHT and some other are ground water reservoir. Water is delivering direct pumping where OHT is not provided. Three types of house connections are there; a) single, b) multiple and c) shared connection. There is some provision for the hardcore poor to get pure and safe drinking water from the scheme in free of cost. To implement the scheme components at the field level, technical knowledge is very important and necessary as the schemes containing civil, electrical and mechanical infrastructures. So, BWSPP has provided two technical persons (one B.Sc. and one diploma Engineer having 3 years experience for both of them) from the project to implement the infrastructures perfectly in the technical point of view. PMU personnel and the local Engineers of DPHE are frequently visited the scheme areas to supervise the construction works. BWSPP also provided two nos. of ‘Social Mobilizer’ to mobilize local people about merits and usefulness of piped water supply system. This assistance directly benefited the sponsors to achieve their targeted house connections and ensure their marketing campaign. Operation & Maintenance of schemes are being performing by the sponsors and they will do the same for 18 years. After 18-20 years the schemes will be handover to the CBO of user group of the scheme implemented village(s).
Status of 21 Rural Piped Water Supply (RPWS) schemes at a glance (as on December, 2010) :
Component 2: Paurashava Piped Water Supply (PPWS):
As per approved RDPP, small infrastructure works and immediate priority works at 24 Paurashavas (initial targeted 5 + 19 post flood rehabilitation paurashavas) have been targeted under this component. As per the World Bank Mission’s recommendations, some more works (covering max. 15% of the contracted price) have been carryied out under the concerned paurashavas.
53 Total Pipe SI No. of No. of Pump No. of Pourashava District No. of TTW Pumping Line no. PTW House Unit Network 1 Bagerhat Bagerhat 2 2 1 2 8.05 2 Brahmonbaria Brahmonbaria 2 2 2 2 7.78 3 Chandpur Chandpur 2 2 1 2 11.70 Chapai Nawabganj Chapai 2 2 2 2 13.23 4 Nawabganj 5 Chuadanga Chuadanga 2 2 2 2 11.31 6 Comilla South Comilla 2 2 2 2 9.80 7 Chowmuhani Noakhali 1 1 1 1 12.20 8 Faridpur Faridpur 4 4 4 4 3.75 9 Feni Feni 2 2 2 2 7.91 10 Gazipur Gazipur 2 2 2 2 6.23 11 Gopalganj Gopalganj - - - - 5.60 12 Hajiganj Chandpur 3 2 2 2 10.56 13 Jamalpur Jamalpur 2 2 2 0 4.89 14 Kurigram Kurigram 1 1 1 1 8.96 15 Magura Magura 2 2 2 2 9.48 16 Manikganj Manikganj 2 2 0 2 8.84 17 Munshiganj Munshiganj 5 5 5 5 1.00 18 Narshingdhi Narshingdhi 2 2 2 2 5.04 19 Rajbari Rajbari 1 1 1 1 16.48 20 Shariatpur Shariatpur 1 1 1 1 9.50 21 Sirajganj Sirajganj 2 2 2 2 8.23 22 Sunamganj Sunamganj - - - - 1.39 23 Tangail Tangail 3 3 - - 4.47 24 Tongi Gazipur 3 3 3 3 1.27 Total 48 47 40 42 187.67
Component 3: Non-Piped Water Supply (RPWS): i. Works under Munshiganj district:
As per Revised DPP-II, provision has been kept for installation of 3500 water point sources through hiring Support Organizations (SOs/NGOs. NGOs was hired for working in selected 3 upazilas. After receiving scheduled training, selected NGOs were completed field level activities like community development works, forming Ward Arsenic Mitigation Water User Groups (WAMWUGs) and prepared ‘Ward Arsenic Plan (WAP) with the help of WAMWUGs, and Local Government Institutions (LGIs). As per World Bank’s recommendation, additional 310 water point sources/options are installed for covering more arsenic affected villages in the selected upazilas. The water points are only deep hand tube wells; other options are PSF, SST, VSST, Dug wells etc. are also open for the community. But through the demand driven approach the respective communities have chosen the ‘deep tube well’ options only. The closing implementation status of water point sources under the 3 selected upazilas of Munshigonj district are given below :
54
% of arsenic Option already Sl. No. Union Name concentration Village Served installed Upazila: Lowhajang 1 Bejgaon 93.15% 9 101 2 Boultali 79.64% 11 103 3 Gaodia 88.72% 13 125 4 Haldia 93.78% 7 111 5 Kalma 94.67% 11 118 6 Khidirpara 88.90% 34 190 7 Medinimondol 91.48% 8 74 8 Lowhajang Teotia 90.82% 5 39 9 Kanaksar 58.47% 7 30 10 Kumarvogh 59.87% 5 45 Total of Lowhajang upazila 110 936 Upazila: Tongibari 1 Arial 80.00% 29 276 2 Autshahi 85.08% 15 239 3 Josholong 78.42% 18 224 4 Kamarkhara 91.40% 15 155 5 K-Simulia 92.29% 6 34 6 Panch Gaon 96.28% 13 127 7 Sonarong Tongibari 80.21% 7 105 8 Betka 60.65% 16 156 9 Dheepur 91.78% 11 102 10 Hasail Banari 93.68% 8 37 11 Abdullapur 52.15% 6 100 12 Digirpara 59.47% 4 30 Total of Tongibari upazila 148 1585 Upazila: Sreenagar 1 Atpara 88.57% 12 154 2 Baghra 92.02% 18 117 3 Hashara 64.81% 4 64 4 Kolapara 65.67% 13 148 5 Patavogh 87.72% 13 180 6 Kukutia 90.37% 25 167 7 Shologhar 89.62% 9 104 8 Tantor 86.51% 12 100 9 Baraikhali 59.39% 9 80 10 Bhagyakul 57.68% 7 76 11 Birtara 58.97% 10 15 12 Rarikhal 76.25% 9 37
55 % of arsenic Option already Sl. No. Union Name concentration Village Served installed 13 Sreenagr 58.01% 8 47 Total of Sreenagar upazila 149 1289 407 Vill. 3810 options Total of Lowhajang, Sreenagar and Tongibari upazila served installed ii. Works under Cyclone SIDR/AILA affected areas:
NPWS & its progress under SIDR [under 12 affected districts]
The details picture of target and achievement as on installation of 5459 (5000+459) options during the Reporting period in SIDR affected areas are liked below :
No. of Options installed SI No. Name of District Awarded 1 Awarded 2 Total 1 Bagerhat 750 38 788 2 Barguna 557 54 611 3 Barishal 524 62 586 4 Bhola 270 32 302 5 Gopalganj 150 22 172 6 Jhalokathi 305 36 341 7 Khulna 487 36 523 8 Madaripur 135 20 155 9 Patuakhali 633 75 708 10 Pirojpur 511 60 571 11 Shatkhira 513 0 513 12 Shariatpur 165 24 189 Total No. of Options 5000 459 5459
The distribution list and progress of works of 4049 (4000+49) water point source in AILA affected areas :
SI No. of Options installed Name of District No. Awarded 1 Awarded 2 Total 1 Bagerhat 220 220 2 Barguna 378 378 3 Barishal 230 230 4 Bhola 530 530 5 Chittagong 140 140 6 Cox'sbazar 140 140
56 SI No. of Options installed Name of District No. Awarded 1 Awarded 2 Total 7 Feni 72 72 8 Jhalokathi 160 24 184 9 Khulna 690 690 10 Laxmipur 70 10 80 11 Noakhali 120 15 135 12 Patuakhali 455 455 13 Pirojpur 335 335 14 Shatkhira 460 460 Total No. of Options 4000 49 4049
Component 4: Capacity building and training:
Under this component, relevant capacity building trainings/workshops have been conducted for developing skill of the project manpower as well as project stakeholders. Bangladesh Water Supply Program Project has taken so many initiatives for capacity building, workshop/training (local) or Study Tour/Exposure (international) etc. These arrangement were being arranged by DPHE Training division and other contractual 3rd parties. As foreign exposure training the concerned selected personnel visited South Africa, Philippine, India. Other than the above training, BWSPP has conducted two significant workshop like below :
o “Orientation Course on Rural Piped Water Supply Component” was conducted on August 4, 2009 at the premises of World Bank, Dhaka office (where all sponsors with 1 of their scheme concerned personnel, All field level DPHE Officials are the key participants) &
o Paurashava Piped Water Supply Component held on December 29, 2009 on the same venue (where all Mayor of Representative of them from concerned 24 Paurashavas and concerned DPHE Officials were the key participants).
Component 5: Development of local credit market and risk management: This component was dropped.
Component 6: Monitoring and Evaluation: Under this component, Monitoring and Evaluation was carried out through hiring consulting firm (DPC). The M&E Report includes the PCR also.
Component 7: Project Management Unit: As per RDPP, the project is being managed by a Project management Unit (PMU) headed by a full time Project Director, three Executive Engineer consultants and GOB personnel.
Other key factors :
Procurement: All of the procurement under works, goods and services under the project is completed satisfactorily.
57 Disbursement: The Withdrawal submission to Chennai is made in a monthly manner (sometimes it happens in weekly manner) for smooth financial operation of the project. The replenishment status is supposed to be excellent.
MONITORING AND AUDITING:
(a) Installed infrastructure under Rural Piped Water Supply (component 1) : The all concerned DPHE field level officials under 21 Rural Piped Water Supply (RPWS) schemes are the closest vigilance for the better implementation of the schemes on behalf of Project Management Unit (PMU) of BWSPP. The Superintending Engineers of the concerned Circle, the Executive Engineers of the respective District, the Asst. Engineers and the Sub-Assistant Engineers (SAE) of the respective Upazila pays their close visit in every step for construction of the scheme. Not only this, the DPHE field level officials put their signature for certification on bills and vouchers and forwarded it to PMU for the payment against the completed works of the scheme. No payment has been made from PMU if there the recommendations of the DPHE field level officials are observed. Other than this, the respective Members of the Community Based Organization (CBO) of every RPWS scheme were also maintained a closer visit of the construction of the schemes. The head of CBO were also put signature for certification of passing bill from PMU in every step.
(b) Installed infrastructure support of 24 targeted paurashavas (component 2) : The Supers, the Executive Engineers and other selected personnel of Mayor of the respective Paurashava and the Executive Engineer of the respective District and the Asst. Engineer as well as the Sub- Assistant Engineers (SAE) of DPHE of the respective Sadar Upazila have closely monitored the scheduled construction works under the paurashava for ensuring quality execution of the scheduled works.
(c) Installation of Non-Piped options : Installation of 3810 deep tube wells under 3 upazilas of Munshigonj district and 9966 water point sources under SIDR and AILA affected upazilas of coastal areas (component 3): i. Non-Piped options installation under Munshigonj district: In the rural and peri-urban area, Community Based Organization (CBO) were formed in hot spot villages (percentage of contaminated tube wells is t 40%). They prepared the sub-projects and opened a separate Bank Account in a Commercial Bank to deposit community’s share (10% as per modality). At the field level, monitoring of the project fund disbursement and supervision of interventions were performed by the local government entities. Internal monitoring and evaluation of project activities was the responsibility of the PMU. This was made through the Engineers and Financial experts of PMU, BWSPP. ii. Non-Piped options installation SIDR and AILA affected upazilas : The DPHE Superintending Engineers of the concerned Circle, the Executive Engineers of the respective District and the Asst. Engineer as well as the Sub-Assistant Engineers (SAE) of the respective Upazila pays close visit in every steps of construction of the scheme. Not only this, the DPHE field level officials put their signature for certification of their bills and vouchers. Until and unless the payment recommendation come from the concerned filed no payment has been made from PMU.
Audit: the ‘Foreign Aided Project Audit Department (FAPAD)’ of GoB accordingly audits the transaction of the project of every financial year.
Reporting: The monthly, quarterly Report to GoB (DPHE, LGD & IMED) and quarterly submission of FMR to the World Bank is made in a timely manner.
58 Lesson learnt from the project
Bangladesh Water Supply Program Project (BWSPP) has been launched officially in June 2005. In the midst of the project, the World Bank Mid-Term Review Mission (November 5-12, 2007) reviewed the implementation status of the project; identified the causes of slow progress and recommended for project restructuring in respect of Scope of Work, implementation modalities, funding etc.
During project implementation period, following lessons have been learnt under three main components of the project:
1) Rural Piped Water Supply Component: a. The approach of ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ and the involvement of Sponsors in ‘rural water supply system’ is new in Bangladesh. Technical knowledge and financial capabilities of the Sponsors are to be upgraded for sustainable investment. b. Revising financing modality from 50% to 70% as project grant helped the participated mid-level Sponsors in implementing RPWS Schemes. This approach may be continued. c. Care should be given in selecting scheme having some characteristics such as (i) crisis of potable water, (ii) densely household, (iii) affluent people and growth centers. d. Release of grant money through simplification of ‘Grant disbursement’ modality of ‘Guidelines to Sponsors’ has made the scheme implementation easier. e. The average household under a scheme should be minimum 500 and maximum 1000 for smooth delivery, O&M and sustainability of the scheme in the long run. f. The CBO and the LGI should be involved with more actively from the very beginning of the Feasibility study as well as scheme implementation. g. The duration of the scheme operation and maintenance under the sponsor should be within 10 years (to get back the invested fund of the sponsors earlier and to handed over the infrastructure of the scheme in better position to the concerned CBO). If the sponsors could prove its efficiency in a significant manner, the CBO can extend the duration for another term as desired/settle among themselves). h. It is observed that OHT is an essential part of the scheme to ensure better service delivery. This is cautiously learned that, where OHT is not provided; sometimes the sponsors could not able to supply water said time to the beneficiaries due to power failure/load shedding.
2) Paurashava Piped Water Supply Component:
Creating Paurashava Water Supply Entity and engagement of Private Operator could be able to help the project in sustainable implementation of this component. Unfortunately the idea was dropped in restructured modality. This innovative idea should be practiced in some new project.
Ring Fencing of Service Provision in the project coverage paurashavas : It is mentioned in the approved RDPP that the operations and management of the service provision in the Paurashavas will be financially ‘ring fenced’ through separate financial account. For that BWSPP tried it best for introducing ‘ring fencing’ service in the concerned Pourashavas in order to improve the accountability and traceability of the water supply operation. BWSPP motivated the ‘Water Supply section’ of the respective Pourashava to separate the ‘transaction, record keeping and maintaining books of accounts’ from their other sections.
It is a fact that the Pouarshava due to inadequate revenue generation required for sustainable operation and maintenance often subsidizes the water supply operations. Poor revenue collection is one of the main reasons behind the lower level of development of Paurashavas. In some extreme cases, some Paurashavas are unable to operate its revenue collection mechanism. They have to depend largely on Government fund for their survival, which undeniably affects their
59 development programme and service standard. As such, inadequacy of urban utility services (specially on safe water supply delivery to the city dwellers) is obvious. For a safer, sound, transparent accountable and sustainable water supply delivery system ‘ring fencing’ is a unique role model to follow.
At the end of the project period, it is observed that the Pourashavas have dedicated their ‘Water Supply Sections’ to keep separate accounts.
3) Non-piped Water Supply Component:
Revising the criteria for selecting the villages having max. 200 households to maximum 400 households for installation of point sources helped more arsenic affected villages to get safe water through this project. The demand driven modalities through forming WAMWUG under this component is well accepted by the concerned beneficiaries and this approach may be replicated in the upcoming project.
60 IBRD 33368R To Gangtok 88ºE 89ºEBHUTAN 90ºE 91ºE BANGLADESH
DISTRICT CAPITALS DIVISION CAPITALS To Dispur PanchagarPanchagar NATIONAL CAPITAL
To PANCHAGARPANCHAGAR RIVERS Patna BANGLADESH MAIN ROADS LALMONIRHATLA LM 26ºN ThakurgaonThakurgaon O NILPHAMARINILPHAMARI N RAILROADS IR THAKURGAONTHAKURGAON NilphamariNilphamari H A LalmonirhatLalmonirhat T DISTRICT BOUNDARIES KurigramKurigram RangpurRangpur DIVISION BOUNDARIES To KURIGRAMKURIGRAM Katihar RANGPURRANGPUR DinajpurDinajpur INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES DINAJPURDINAJPUR To Goalpara
To INDIA Katihar GaibandhaGaibandha To 92ºE To Dispur Dispur GAIBANDHAGAIBANDHA
JOYPURHATJOYPURHAT SERPURSERPUR SunamganjSunamganj JoypurhatJoypurhat SYLHETSYLHET 25ºN 25ºN NAOGAONNAOGAON SerpurSerpur NETROKONANETROKONA JamalpurJamalpur SUNAMGANJSUNAMGANJ SylhetSylhet NaogaonNaogaon BOGRABOGRA BograBogra JAMALPURJAMALPUR NetrokonaNetrokona RAJSHAHIR A J S H A H I MymensinghMymensingh SYLHETS Y L H E T NOWABGANJNOWABGANJ To
JJam Silchar a MYMENSINGHMYMENSINGH NowabganjNowabganj m u
nna RAJSHAHIRAJSHAHI a KishorganjKishorganj MOULVIMOULVI BAZARBAZAR DHAKAD H A K A SerajganjSerajganj HABIGANJHABIGANJ MoulviMoulvi BBazarazar G NatoreNatore a RajshahiRajshahi SERAJGANJSERAJGANJ KISHORGANJKISHORGANJ ng TANGAILTANGAIL es NATORENATORE HabiganjHabiganj TangailTangail
GAZIPURGAZIPUR PABNAPABNA
NARSINGDINARSINGDI PabnaPabna GazipurGazipur a 24ºN n 24ºN NarsingdiNarsingdi h g INDIA e BrahmanbariaBrahmanbaria ManikanjManikanj DHAKADHAKA M INDIA KUSHTIAKUSHTIA KushtiaKushtia BRAHMANBRAHMAN BARIABARIA MeherpurMeherpur MANIKGANJMANIKGANJ RajbariRajbari NARAYNGANJNARAYNGANJ MEHERPURMEHERPUR ChuadangaChuadanga RAJBARIRAJBARI DHAKADHAKA NaraynganjNaraynganj FaridpurFaridpur CHUADANGACHUADANGA COMILLACOMILLA JhenaidahJhenaidah MaguraMagura MUNSHIGANJMU NSHIGANJ Ga MunshiganjMunshiganj JHENAIDAHJHENAIDAH FARIDPURFARIDPUR nges MAGURAMAGURA ComillaComilla I R
A To H SARIATPURSARIATPUR CHANDPURCHANDPUR H Calcutta SariatpurSariatpur C A JessoreJessore NarailNarail MadaripurMadaripur ChandpurChandpur R G KhagrachhariKhagrachhari
MADARIPURMADARIPUR A NARAILNARAIL H JESSOREJESSORE GOPALGANJGOPALGANJ KHAGRACHHARIK 23ºN GopalganjGopalganj FeniFeni 23ºN KHULNAK H U L N A LUXMIPURLUXMIPUR LuxmipurLuxmipur NOAKHALINOAKHALI FENIFENI KhulnaKhulna BARISALBARISAL NoakhaliNoakhali RANGAMATIRANGAMATI SatkhiraSatkhira KHULNAKHULNA PEROJPURPEROJPUR JhalukathiJhalukathi BarisalBarisal BholaBhola CHITTAGONGC H I T T A G O N G BagerhatBagerhat JHALUKATHIJHALUKATHI RangamatiRangamati To SATKHIRASATKHIRA KaptaiKaptai Calcutta BAGERHATBAGERHAT PerojpurPerojpur LakeLake BARISALB A R I S A L CHITTAGONGCHITTAGONG PatuakhaliPatuakhali BHOLABHOLA l t a PATUAKHALIPATUAKHALI ChittagongChittagong D e BargunaBarguna g e s BandarbanBandarban G a n BARGUNABARGUNA 22ºN 22ºN s Mt. Mowdok s e (957 m) a n n g a r b G a n d e BANDARBANBANDARBAN S u t h o f COX’SCOX’S BAZARBAZAR u t h s M o Cox'sCox's BBazarazar 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers Bay of Bengal 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles MYANMAR This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. 21ºN The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information 21ºN shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. To 89ºE 90ºE 91ºE 92ºE Sittwe
MARCH 2008