sanitation and drainage project...swa ta wwtp – – – – – – – – – – – – –...
TRANSCRIPT
Completion Report
Project Number: 28314 Loan Numbers: 2026, 2440 Grant Number: 0114 June 2012
Samoa: Sanitation and Drainage Project
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
Currency Unit – tala (ST)
At Appraisal At Project Completion
2 September 2003 31 December 2010 ST1.00 = $0.323 $0.424
$1.00 = ST3.100 ST2.356 SDR1.00 = $1.377 $1.540
At Supplementary Loan and Grant
At Project Completion
15 July 2008 31 December 2010 ST1.00 = $0.399 $0.424
$1.00 = ST2.504 ST2.356 SDR1.00 = $1.377 $1.540
ABBREVIATIONS ADB
CBA EIRR EU FIRR MNRE MOF MWTI O&M OMM PIA PMU PSC SOPAC SPSO SDR SNA SWA TA WWTP
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Asian Development Bank central business area economic internal rate of return European Union financial internal rate of return Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Ministry of Finance Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure operation and maintenance operation, maintenance and management project implementation assistance project management unit project steering committee South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission South Pacific Subregional Office special drawing rights special needs area Samoa Water Authority technical assistance wastewater treatment plant WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
m – meter m3 – cubic meter ML – million liters mm – millimeter
NOTES (i) The fiscal year (FY) of the government ends on 30 June. FY before a calendar year
denotes the year in which the fiscal year ends, e.g., FY2008 ends on 30 June 2008.
(ii) In this report, "$" refers to US dollars unless otherwise stated.
Vice President S. Groff, Operations 2 Director General X. Yao, Pacific Department (PARD) Director A. Ruthenberg, South Pacific Subregional Office (SPSO), PARD Team leader
M. Paniagua, Portfolio Management Specialist, SPSO, PARD
Team member L. Uruvaru, Associate Project Analyst, SPSO, PARD
In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgements as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
CONTENTS
Page BASIC DATA i
MAP xv I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 1
A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 1 B. Project Outputs 2 C. Project Costs 4 D. Disbursements 5 E. Project Schedule 5 F. Implementation Arrangements 6 G. Conditions and Covenants 7 H. Related Technical Assistance 7 I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 7 J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 9 K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 10 L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 10
III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 11
A. Relevance 11 B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 11 C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 12 D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 13 E. Impact 13
IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15
A. Overall Assessment 15 B. Lessons 15 C. Recommendations 15
APPENDIXES 1. Project Framework 17 2. Summary of Project Outputs 22 3. Summary of Capacity Building and Training Events 24 4. Community Awareness Program 29 5. Appraisal, Revised Estimates, and Actual Project Costs 34 6. Currency Equivalents 35 7. Summary of Contracts Funded by the Asian Development Bank 36 8. Cumulative Projected and Actual Disbursements 38 9. Project Implementation Schedule 41 10. Chronology of Major Events 42 11. Status of Compliance with Major Loan Covenants 44 12. Technical Assistance Completion Report 57 13. Cost Recovery and User Charges 59 14. Economic Reevaluation 63 15. Quantitative Assessment of Overall Project Performance 68
BASIC DATA Loan No. 2026-SAM
A. Loan Identification 1. Country 2. Loan Number 3. Project Title 4. Borrower 5. Executing Agency 6. Amount of Loan 7. Project Completion Report Number
Samoa 2026-SAM (SF) SAM: Sanitation and Drainage Independent State of Samoa Ministry of Finance SDR 5,604,000 ($8.0 million equivalent) 1326
B. Loan Data 1. Pre-Appraisal a
– Date Started – Date Completed 2. Loan Negotiations – Date Started – Date Completed 3. Date of Board Approval 4. Date of Loan Agreement 5. Date of Loan Effectiveness – In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions 6. Closing Date – In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions 7. Terms of Loan – Interest Rate – Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years) 8. Terms of Relending – Interest Rate – Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years) – Second Step Borrower
14 May 2003 22 May 2003 27 October 2003 29 October 2003 27 November 2003 1 June 2004 30 August 2004 30 August 2004 0 30 June 2009 9 May 2011 1 1.0% per annum during grace period 1.5% per annum thereafter 32 8 5% per annum 32 years 5 years Samoa Water Authority
a It is recorded in the Project Administration Manual that the appraisal mission was from 1–12 September 2003, however there is no back-to-office report, aide memoire etc. on file for the appraisal mission.
9. Disbursements a. Dates
Initial Disbursement
15 December 2004
Final Disbursement
28 March 2011
Time Interval
75 months
Effective Date
30 August 2004
Original Closing Date
30 June 2009
Time Interval
58 months
b. Amount ($ million)
Category Original
Allocation Last
Revised Allocation
Amount Cancelled
Net Amount
Available
Amount Disbursed
Undisbursed Balance
01 Civil Works 01A Drainage 1.296 2.486 0.000 0.000 2.486 0.000 01B Sanitation 1.717 4.064 0.000 0.000 4.064 0.000 02 Equipment & Materials 02A Drainage 0.253 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 02B Sanitation 1.212 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 03 Allocation for Additional Special Needs Areas
0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
04 Design 0.148 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 05 Consulting Services 1.689 1.913 0.000 0.000 1.913 0.000 06 Interest Charges 0.473 0.132 0.000 0.000 0.132 0.000 07 Unallocated 1.146 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 8.000 8.635 0.000 0.000 8.635 0.000
c. Amount (SDR million)
Category Original
Allocation Last
Revised Allocation
Amount Disbursed
Undisbursed Balance
01 Civil Works 01A Drainage 0.908 1.589 1.589 0.000 01B Sanitation 1.203 2.642 2.642 0.000 02 Equipment & Materials 02A Drainage 0.177 0.000 0.000 0.000 02B Sanitation 0.849 0.016 0.016 0.000 03 Allocation for Additional Special Needs Areas 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 04 Design 0.104 0.010 0.010 0.000 05 Consulting Services 1.183 1.261 1.261 0.000 06 Interest Charges 0.331 0.086 0.086 0.000 07 Unallocated 0.803 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 5.604 5.604 5.604 0.000
10. Local Costs (Financed) Appraisal Revisedb Actual Amount ($ million) 4.20 NA NA Percent of Local Cost 67.74 Percent of Total Cost 42.00
NA = not applicable b Cost estimates were not split according to foreign and local currency costs. Revised refers to supplementary
financing.
ii
C. Project Data
1. Project Cost ($ million) Cost Appraisal Cost
Estimate Revised Cost
Estimatec Actual
Foreign Exchange Cost 3.80 17.81 17.91 Local Currency Cost 6.20 Total 10.00 17.81 17.91
c Cost estimates were not split according to foreign and local currency costs. Revised refers to supplementary financing.
2. Financing Plan ($ million)
Cost Appraisal Cost Estimate
Revised Cost Estimated
Actual
Implementation Costs Borrower Financed 2.00 4.74 4.43ADB Financed 7.50 12.50 13.32 Other External Financing Total 9.50 17.24 17.75
IDC Costs Borrower Financed ADB Financed 0.50 0.57 0.16 Other External Financing Total 10.00 17.81 17.91
ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDC = interest during construction. d Cost estimates were not split according to foreign and local currency costs. Revised refers to supplementary
financing. 3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ million) Component Appraisal Cost
Estimate Revised Cost
Estimatee Actual
A. Drainage 2.20 2.61 3.31 B. Sanitation 4.00 7.53 10.52 C. Capacity Building and Project Implementation 2.00 2.14 3.49 D. Taxes and Duties 0.00 2.17 0.43 E. Base Costs (A+B+C+D) 8.10 14.44 17.75 F. Contingencies consisting of 1. Physical 0.70 2.17 2. Price 0.60 0.63
Subtotal F 1.30 2.80 G. Interest during Constructions 0.50 0.56 0.16 Total 10.00 17.81 17.91 e Revised refers to supplementary financing. Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. Source: Asian Development Bank calculations.
iii
4. Project Schedule
Item Appraisal Estimate Actual Date of Contract with Consultants
PIA Consultancy Services Q3 2004 21 February 2006 PMU Consultancy Services Q3 2005 25 November 2005
Civil Works Contract Part A Floodway and Drainage Improvement Works Date of Award Q1 2005 21 January 2008 Completion of Work Q3 2009 13 May 2010
Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning Q1 2007 30 July 2010 Beginning of Startup Q1 2007 13 May 2010 Part 1B Pressure Sewerage Date of Award Q1 2005 1 April 2008 Completion of Work Q4 2006 25 November 2010
Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning Q4 2006 30 November 2010 Beginning of Startup Q4 2006 30 November 2010
Part 2B Wastewater Treatment Plant Date of Award Q3 2004 13 June 2008 Completion of Work Q4 2006 30 April 2010
Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning Q4 2006 31 May 2010 Beginning of Startup Q4 2006 30 April 2010 Other Milestones 1. Minor Change in Implementation Arrangements on 21 March 2006. 2. Extension of Loan Closing Date on 4 April 2008 to 31 December 2010. 3. Minor Change in Scope and Reallocation of Loan and Grant Proceeds 10 February 2010. 4. Major Change in Implementation Arrangements and Reallocation of Loan Proceeds on 4 August 2010. 5. Major Change in Implementation Arrangements and Reallocation of Loan Proceeds on 5 November 2010. 6. Minor Change in Implementation Arrangements arising from Reallocation of Loan Proceeds on 6 December 2010. 7. Closing of Loan and Grant Accounts on 9 May 2011. PIA = project implementation assistance, PMU = project management unit, Q = quarter.
5. Project Performance Report Ratings Implementation Period
Ratings
Development Objectives
Implementation Progress
From 1 November 2003 to 31 December 2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2004 to 31 July 2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 August 2004 to 31 October 2004 Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory From 1 November 2004 to 31 December 2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2007 to 31 March 2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 April 2007 to 31 May 2007 Satisfactory Unsatisfactory From 1 June 2007 to 31 December 2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2008 to 28 February 2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 March 2008 to 31 August 2008 Satisfactory Partly Satisfactory From 1 September 2008 to 31 December 2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010
Satisfactory Satisfactory
iv
D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions
Name of Mission a Date
No. of Persons
No. of Person-
Days
Specializationof Members b
Fact-finding mission 17 February–6 March 2003 5 90 a,b,c,d,e Pre-appraisal mission 14–22 May 2003 2 18 a,c Inception mission 2–5 May 2005 2 8 a,i Loan review mission 1 13–17 February 2006 2 10 a,f Special loan administration mission
17–21 September 2007 3 15 g,h,i
Midterm review and supplementary financing fact-finding mission
25 March–4 April 2008 4 44 g,i,j,k
Loan review mission 2 9–13 March 2009 2 10 g,l Loan review mission 3 16–18 February 2010 3 9 g,h,m Loan review mission 4 17–24 August 2010 3 24 h,m,n Project completion review c 12–16 September 2011 1 5 o
a Fielded concurrently with other missions. b a = water supply and urban development specialist, b = social protection specialist, c = staff consultant- economist and financial analyst, d = staff consultant-environmental engineer, e = technical assistance consultant (team leader), f = country programs, specialist-economist, g = water supply and sanitation specialist, h = head, project administration unit, i = operations, officer, j = energy specialist, k = counsel, l = development partner staff, m = project implementation officer, n = finance, administrative and control officer, o = staff consultant-economist. c The project completion review mission comprised an infrastructure economist (staff consultant).
v
BASIC DATA (Loan No. 2440-SAM)
A. Loan Identification 1. Country 2. Loan Number 3. Project Title 4. Borrower 5. Executing Agency 6. Amount of Loan 7. Project Completion Report Number
Samoa 2440-SAM (SF) SAM: Sanitation and Drainage (Supplementary) Independent State of Samoa Ministry of Finance SDR 1,710,000 ($2.8 million equivalent) 1326
B. Loan Data 1. Appraisal – Date Started – Date Completed 2. Loan Negotiations – Date Started – Date Completed 3. Date of Board Approval 4. Date of Loan Agreement 5. Date of Loan Effectiveness – In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions 6. Closing Date – In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions 7. Terms of Loan – Interest Rate – Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years) 8. Terms of Relending – Interest Rate – Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years – Second Step Borrower
Not required 15 July 2008 15 July 2008 12 September 2008 10 October 2008 8 January 2009 16 January 2009 1 31 December 2010 9 May 2011 0 1.0% per annum during grace period 1.5% per annum thereafter 32 8 5% per annum 32 years 5 years Samoa Water Authority
vi
9. Disbursements a. Dates Initial Disbursement
23 April 2009
Final Disbursement20 December 2010
Time Interval20 months
Effective Date
16 January 2009
Original Closing Date31 December 2010
Time Interval23 months
b. Amount (US$ million)
Category Original Allocation
Last Revised
Allocation
Amount Cancelled
Net Amount
Available
Amount Disbursed
Undisbursed Balance
01 Civil Works - Sogi Wastewater Treatment Plant
0.791 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
02 Equipment 02A Sogi Wastewater Treatment Plant 1.398 2.203 0.000 0.000 2.203 0.000 02B Pressure Sewerage 0.364 0.394 0.000 0.000 0.394 0.000 03 Unallocated 0.154 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 04 Financing Charges during
Construction 0.073 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000
Total 2.780 2.622 0.000 0.000 2.622 0.000
c. Amount (SDR million)
Category Original Allocation
Last Revised Allocation
Amount Disbursed
Undisbursed Balance
01 Civil Works - Sogi Wastewater Treatment Plant
0.486 0.000 0.000 0.000
02 Equipment 02A Sogi Wastewater Treatment Plant 0.860 1.438 1.438 0.000 02B Pressure Sewerage 0.224 0.256 0.256 0.000 03 Unallocated 0.095 0.000 0.000 0.000 04 Financing Charges during
Construction 0.045 0.016 0.016 0.000
Total 1.710 1.710 1.710 0.000
10. Local Costs (Financed) Appraisal Reviseda Actual Amount ($ million) 4.20 NA NA Percent of Local Cost 67.74 Percent of Total Cost 42.00
NA = not applicable a Cost estimates were not split to foreign and local currency costs. Revised refers to supplementary financing. C. Project Data 1. Project Cost ($ million) Cost Appraisal Cost
Estimate Revised Cost
Estimateb Actual
Foreign Exchange Cost 3.80 17.81 17.91Local Currency Cost 6.20 Total 10.00 17.81 17.91 b Cost estimates were not split to foreign and local currency costs. Revised refers to supplementary financing.
vii
2. Financing Plan ($ million) Cost Appraisal Cost
Estimate Revised Cost
Estimatec Actual
Implementation Costs Borrower Financed 2.00 4.74 4.43 ADB Financed 7.50 12.50 13.32 Other External Financing Total 9.50 17.24 17.75 IDC Costs Borrower Financed ADB Financed 0.50 0.57 0.16 Other External Financing Total 10.00 17.81 17.91 ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDC = interest during construction. c Cost estimates were not split to foreign and local currency costs. Revised refers to supplementary financing.
3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ million)
Component Appraisal Cost Estimate
Revised Cost Estimated
Actual
A. Drainage 2.20 2.61 3.31 B. Sanitation 4.00 7.53 10.52 C. Capacity Building and Project Implementation 2.00 2.14 3.49 D. Taxes and Duties 0.00 2.17 0.43 E. Base Costs (A+B+C+D) 8.10 14.44 17.75 F. Contingencies consisting of 1. Physical 0.70 2.17 2. Price 0.60 0.63
Subtotal F 1.30 2.80 G. Interest during Constructions 0.50 0.56 0.16 Total 10.00 17.81 17.91 d Cost estimates were not split to foreign and local currency costs. Revised refers to supplementary financing. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Source: Asian Development Bank.
viii
4. Project Schedule
Item Appraisal Estimate Actual Date of Contract with Consultants PIA Consultancy Services Q3 2004 21 February 2006 PMU Consultancy Services Q3 2005 25 November 2005 Civil Works Contract Part A Floodway and Drainage Improvement Works Date of Award Q1 2005 21 January 2008 Completion of Work Q3 2009 13 May 2010 Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning Q1 2007 30 July 2010 Beginning of Startup Q1 2007 13 May 2010 Part 1B Pressure Sewerage Date of Award Q1 2005 1 April 2008 Completion of Work Q4 2006 25 November 2010 Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning Q4 2006 30 November 2010 Beginning of Startup Q4 2006 30 November 2010 Part 2B Wastewater Treatment Plant Date of Award Q3 2004 13 June 2008 Completion of Work Q4 2006 30 April 2010 Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning Q4 2006 31 May 2010 Beginning of Startup Q4 2006 30 April 2010 Other Milestones 1. Extension of Loan Closing Date on 4 April 2008 to 31 December 2010. 2. Reallocation of Loan Proceeds 10 February 2010. 3. Major Change in Implementation Arrangements and Reallocation of Loan Proceeds on 5 November 2010. 4. Minor Change in Implementation Arrangements arising from Reallocation of Loan Proceeds on 6 December 2010. 5. Closing of Loan and Grant Accounts on 9 May 2011. PAI = project implementation assistance, PMU – project management unit, Q = quarter, 5. Project Performance Report Ratings Implementation Period
Ratings
Development Objectives Implementation Progress
From 1 September 2008 to 31 December 2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory
ix
D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions
Name of Mission a
Date
No. of Persons
No. of Person-Days
Specialization of Members b
Fact-finding Mission 17 February–6 March 2003 5 90 a,b,c,d,e Pre-Appraisal Mission 14–22 May 2003 2 18 a,c Inception Mission 2–5 May 2005 2 8 a,i Loan Review Mission 1 13–17 February 2006 2 10 a,f Special Loan Administration Mission
17–21 September 2007 3 15 g,h,i
Midterm Review and Supplementary Financing Fact-finding Mission
25 March–4 April 2008 4 44 g,i,j,k
Loan Review Mission 2 9–13 March 2009 2 10 g,l Loan Review Mission 3 16–18 February 2010 3 9 g,h,m Loan Review Mission 4 17–24 August 2010 3 24 h,m,n Project Completion Review c 12–16 September 2011 1 5 o
a Fielded concurrently with other missions. b a = water supply and urban development specialist, b = social protection specialist, c = staff consultant- economist and financial analyst, d = staff consultant-environmental engineer, e = technical assistance consultant (team leader), f = country programs specialist-economist, g = water supply and sanitation specialist, h = head, project administration unit, i = operations officer, j = energy specialist, k = counsel, l = development partner staff, m = project implementation officer, n = finance, administrative and control officer, o = staff consultant-economist. c The project completion review mission comprised an infrastructure economist (staff consultant).
x
BASIC DATA (Grant No. 0114-SAM)
A. Grant Identification 1. Country 2. Grant Number 3. Project Title 4. Borrower 5. Executing Agency 6. Amount of Grant 7. Project Completion Report Number
Samoa 0114-SAM SAM: Sanitation and Drainage (Supplementary) Independent State of Samoa Ministry of Finance $2,220,000 1326
B. Grant Data 1. Appraisal – Date Started – Date Completed 2. Grant Negotiations – Date Started – Date Completed 3. Date of Board Approval 4. Date of Grant Agreement 5. Date of Grant Effectiveness – In Grant Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions 6. Closing Date – In Grant Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions 7. Terms of Grant – Interest Rate – Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years) 8. Terms of Relending – Interest Rate – Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years) – Second Step Borrower
Not required 15 July 2008 15 July 2008 12 September 2008 10 October 2008 8 January 2009 16 January 2009 1 31 December 2010 9 May 2011 0 Not applicable 5% per annum 32 years 5 years Samoa Water Authority
xi
9. Disbursements a. Dates Initial Disbursement
27 March 2009
Final Disbursement
17 March 2011
Time Interval
24 months
Effective Date
16 January 2009
Original Closing Date
31 December 2010
Time Interval
24 months
b. Amount (US$ million)
Category
Original Allocation
Last Revised Allocation
Amount Canceled
Net Amount
Available Amount
Disbursed Undisbursed
Balance a 01 Civil Works (Septic Tank Program) 0.612 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 02 Equipment (Sogi Wastewater
Treatment Plant) 1.266 1.859 0.000 0.000 1.859 0.000
03 Consulting Services 0.342 0.336 0.000 0.000 0.336 0.000 Total 2.220 2.220 0.000 0.000 2.220 0.000a A total of only $56.61 was actually cancelled on 9 May 2011
10. Local Costs (Financed) Appraisal Revisedb Actual
Amount ($ million) 4.20 NA NA Percent of Local Cost 67.74 Percent of Total Cost 42.00
NA = not applicable b Cost estimates were not split to foreign and local currency costs. Revised refers to supplementary financing. C. Project Data
1. Project Cost ($ million)
Cost Appraisal Cost Estimate
Revised Cost Estimatec
Actual
Foreign Exchange Cost 3.80 17.81 17.91Local Currency Cost 6.20 Total 10.00 17.81 17.91
c Cost estimates were not split to foreign and local currency costs. Revised refers to supplementary financing.
2. Financing Plan ($ million)
Cost Appraisal Cost Estimate
Revised Cost Estimated
Actual
Implementation Costs Borrower Financed 2.00 4.74 4.43 ADB Financed 7.50 12.50 13.32 Other External Financing Total 9.50 17.24 17.75 IDC Costs Borrower Financed ADB Financed 0.50 0.57 0.16 Other External Financing Total 10.00 17.81 17.91 ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDC = interest during construction. d Revised refers to supplementary financing.
xii
3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ million)
Component Appraisal Cost
Estimate Revised Cost
Estimated Actual
A. Drainage 2.20 2.61 3.31 B. Sanitation 4.00 7.53 10.52 C. Capacity Building and Project Implementation 2.00 2.14 3.49 D. Taxes and Duties 0.00 2.17 0.43 E. Base Costs (A+B+C+D) 8.10 14.44 17.75 F. Contingencies consisting of 1. Physical 0.70 2.17 - 2. Price 0.60 0.63 -
Subtotal F 1.30 2.80 -G. Interest during Constructions 0.50 0.56 0.16 Total 10.00 17.81 17.91 d Numbers may not add up due to rounding. Revised refers to supplementary financing. Source: Asian Development Bank calculations
4. Project Schedule
Item Appraisal Estimate Actual Date of Contract with Consultants PIA Consultancy Services Q3 2004 21 February 2006 PMU Consultancy Services Q3 2005 25 November 2005 Civil Works Contract Part A Floodway and Drainage Improvement Works Date of Award Q1 2005 21 January 2008 Completion of Work Q3 2009 13 May 2010 Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning Q1 2007 30 July 2010 Beginning of Startup Q1 2007 13 May 2010 Part 1B Pressure Sewerage Date of Award Q1 2005 1 April 2008 Completion of Work Q4 2006 25 November 2010 Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning Q4 2006 30 November 2010 Beginning of Startup Q4 2006 30 November 2010 Part 2B Wastewater Treatment Plant Date of Award Q3 2004 13 June 2008 Completion of Work Q4 2006 30 April 2010 Start of Operations Completion of Tests and Commissioning Q4 2006 31 May 2010 Beginning of Startup Q4 2006 30 April 2010 Other Milestones 1. Extension of Loan Closing Date on 4 April 2008 to 31 December 2010. 2. Reallocation of Loan Proceeds 10 February 2010.
3. Major Change in Implementation Arrangements and Reallocation of Loan Proceeds on 5 November 2010. 4. Minor Change in Implementation Arrangements arising from Reallocation of Loan Proceeds on 6 December 2010. 5. Closing of Loan and Grant Accounts on 9 May 2011.
xiii
5. Project Performance Report Ratings Implementation Period
Ratings
Development Objectives Implementation Progress
From 1 September 2008 to 31 December 2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory
D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions
Name of Mission a Date
No. of Persons
No. of Person-Days
Specializationof Members b
Fact-finding mission 17 February–6 March 2003
5 90 a,b,c,d,e
Pre-appraisal mission 14–22 May 2003 2 18 a,c Inception mission 2–5 May 2005 2 8 a,i Loan review mission 1 13–17 February 2006 2 10 a,f Special loan administration mission
17–21 September 2007 3 15 g,h,i
Midterm review and supplementary financing fact-finding mission
25 March–4 April 2008 4 44 g,i,j,k
Loan review mission 2 9–13 March 2009 2 10 g,l Loan review mission 3 16–18 February 2010 3 9 g,h,m Loan review mission 4 17–24 August 2010 3 24 h,m,n Project completion review c 12–16 September 2011 1 5 o
a Fielded concurrently with other missions. b a = water supply and urban development specialist, b = social protection specialist, c = staff consultant- economist and financial analyst, d = staff consultant-environmental engineer, e = technical assistance consultant (team leader), f = country programs special-economist, g = water supply and sanitation specialist, h = head, project administration unit, i = operations officer, j = energy specialist, k = counsel, l = development partner staff, m = project implementation officer, n = finance, administrative and control officer, o = staff consultant-economist. c The project completion review mission comprised an infrastructure economist (staff consultant).
xiv
MAP
xv
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Following a request from the Government of Samoa in February 2003, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved a loan for the Sanitation and Drainage Project. The request followed implementation of a technical assistance (TA) project that identified infrastructure investments to improve Apia’s environmental quality; 1 these were required as a result of increased economic activity and population growth, which had placed pressure on the drainage and wastewater infrastructure. The project was part of the government’s overall strategic urban management strategy.2 Rehabilitation and improvement of drains and floodways to mitigate regular flooding in the central business area (CBA), markets, and low-lying adjacent areas was urgently needed. Wastewater and sanitation improvements were needed to meet basic public health requirements for households and mitigate the impacts of inadequate wastewater facilities in the CBA and other priority areas. The project was to be the first phase of a longer-term urban drainage and wastewater improvement strategy. 2. Project objectives included (i) improved public health, (ii) improved environmental quality, (iii) improved surface and groundwater quality, and (iv) reduced frequency of flooding in specific low-lying areas. The project was also intended to promote private sector participation. At appraisal the project had three components: (i) drainage, (ii) wastewater management and sanitation, and (iii) capacity building. A comparison of the project framework at appraisal with the project’s achievements is in Appendix 1.3 The government requested that TA be associated with the loan for concurrent institutional strengthening of infrastructure planning as it related to the project, and long-term planning for drainage and wastewater management.
II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Relevance of Design and Formulation
3. The project supported ADB’s strategy for Samoa 4 and the government’s strategy (footnote 2), which included sanitation and wastewater management as a key area of focus. The design was sound at the time of project formulation (in 2003). Unfortunately, there was a significant time delay between project formulation and the start of implementation, which resulted in cost estimates not being realistic from the outset of implementation (para. 15). 4. A wastewater and sanitation master plan was not available at the commencement of implementation, although the design did recognize that the piped sewer system constructed by the project would constitute only a first step, and initially concentrated on commercial, government and institutional premises in the CBA and special needs areas (SNA). The design also recognized that households in the low-lying areas would be unable to connect to the main sewers in the short term, and rehabilitation of onsite sanitation facilities was therefore included in the project. 5. There was no specific feasibility study with updated costs undertaken for the project prior to the start of implementation. Although a number of additional studies of wastewater strategy and technical aspects were completed between the formulation of the design and the start of 1 ADB. 1998. Technical Assistance to the Independent State of Samoa for Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Options.
Manila (TA3044-SAM). 2 Government of Samoa. 2002. Strategy for the Development of Samoa 2002-2004. Apia. 3 The project framework at appraisal was modified in accordance with the revised design and monitoring framework
currently in use by ADB. 4 ADB. 2002. Samoa Country Strategy and Program Update (2003-2005). Manila.
2
implementation, the project implementation assistance (PIA) consultants had to undertake a number of feasibility options analyses prior to development of the preliminary designs and bid documents, in order to: (i) develop an appropriate strategy for the floodway scope of works, based on realistic land aspects and resettlement requirements; (ii) determine the most cost-effective wastewater collection system; (iii) determine the most effective design approach to the septage facilities; and (iv) determine the most appropriate approach for onsite sanitation works. 6. The design formulation included estimated tariffs and user charges for the wastewater system. For the smallest business type considered, assuming 4 cubic meters (m3) of water used per day, the estimated wastewater tariff resulted in monthly costs around 5 to 10 times the water supply charges. The wastewater tariff was calculated to cover operation, maintenance, and management costs (OMM) at full cost recovery. The high cost of a wastewater system was clearly identified during the design stage but not reflected at appraisal through incorporation into the project costs. This later resulted in the need for supplementary financing (para. 19). B. Project Outputs
7. At appraisal, the project scope comprised three components: (i) Component A: Drainage for the Gasegase and Asaga Catchments; (ii) Component B: Wastewater Management and Sanitation Infrastructure for Apia, which included three subcomponents: (a) individual system rehabilitation and septage collection and treatment program; (b) CBA wastewater collection and treatment system; and (c) SNA wastewater treatment; and (iii) Component C: Capacity Building in technical and management areas as well as community awareness programs. Appendix 2 contains details of the outputs for each component under the project. A brief discussion of the outputs are given below. 8. Component A: Drainage for the Gasegase and Asaga Catchments. At appraisal the outputs under this component included (i) improved floodways (2,850 meters [m]); (ii) rehabilitation of existing drains (2,425 m); (iii) installation of water gauges for flood monitoring and to establish survey levels to support future master planning and drainage design; and (iv) surveys to establish levels in the floodplain and low-lying areas, to support hydraulic modeling of flood flows, and to guide the design and implementation of civil works. The actual outputs were (i) 1,600 m of floodway improved; (ii) 2,900 m of existing storm drainage cleaned and improved; and (iii) 680 m of new storm drains constructed. 9. The scope of floodways work was reduced when it became apparent that over 100 households would need to be moved to retain the original scope (para. 51). The rehabilitation of 1,000 m of existing drains included drain widening, bank protection and the replacement of broken or damaged covers. A further 1,900 m of existing roadside and connector drains were cleaned to maximize the existing system’s effectiveness and to provide a safer pedestrian environment. A major drain comprising approximately 280 m of covered culvert, approximately 400 m of twin 1,600 millimeter (mm) diameter pipe and an outlet structure into the harbor was constructed to collect storm water from the regularly flooded area of Fugalei market and surrounding streets. The construction works for the floodway and drainage component was completed in January 2010. Although there were some minor defects, including the retrofitting of lids and step irons to the drainage system manholes and chambers, these have now been rectified as confirmed by the project completion review mission. 10. The installation of water gauges for flood monitoring was removed from the project due to limited funds. However, overlaps with other similar projects were identified; in particular, implementation of a European Union (EU) grant for Hydrological Cycle Observing System in the
3
South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) program for the Vaisigano catchment, which was extended to include the Fuluasou and Gasegase rivers, thereby covering the hydraulic modeling and flood gauging.5 11. Component B: Wastewater Management and Sanitation Infrastructure for Apia. At appraisal the component included: (i) initiation of an individual system rehabilitation and septage collection and treatment program, (ii) a CBA wastewater and collection system, and (iii) a SNA wastewater collection and treatment system. 12. At appraisal it was estimated that 500 households in low-lying areas could be included in the rehabilitation program, and approximately 8,000 households in the greater Apia area would be provided septage collection services and repair and replacement of septic tanks. The program was to provide regular pumping out of septic tanks, initially on a 2-year cycle, and replace approximately 400 septic tanks per year, so that 8,000 premises would receive new septic tanks over a 20-year period.6 The program was to be financed under a revolving fund, with an initial capital injection of $900,000.7 Funding constraints (para. 15–16) limited the number of onsite sanitation systems that could be constructed, however, and only 100 septic tanks were constructed. The proposed revolving fund for septic tank maintenance and replacement was shelved as the scheme was not aligned with Samoa's National Sanitation Policy, approved in 2010. 13. The CBA and SNA wastewater collection and treatment system at appraisal included: (i) design and construction of approximately 8,450 m of pressure sewers inclusive of all sewerage pumps, and training of Samoa Water Authority (SWA) personnel for systems maintenance; and (ii) design, construction, and operation of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at Sogi, inclusive of effluent disinfection facilities, with a nominal treatment capacity of 1,000 m3/day to serve both the CBA and SNAs. 8 This system was to serve approximately 110 business and government customers. The WWTP constructed under the project has a capacity of 1.4 million liters (ML)/day. A total of 125 businesses, government and institutional properties have been connected to the pressure sewer network. The sewer network is now delivering an average of about 1 ML/day of wastewater to the WWTP. The septage collection and treatment program was not considered feasible within the project budget, but the EU Water Sector Support Project funded the development of a sludge lagoon and drying beds at the existing Tafaigata landfill site, into which the treated sludge from the WWTP is deposited after dewatering.9 There are 77 connections to the system, including 28 grease traps. The estimated length of the pressure sewers at appraisal was 8,450 m, while the actual installed total was 9,141 m. 14. Component C: Capacity Building. The capacity development component of the project consisted of capacity building in technical and management areas and included funding for a twinning arrangement for the SWA with a well functioning utility or similar organization. Documentation for bids for the twinning arrangement was prepared, but it was dropped from the project due to financial constraints and reprioritization of activities. SWA personnel were able to
5 The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) was responsible for program management. 6 These premises were sparsely distributed, and connecting them to the centralized sewerage system was not
economically viable. 7 The initial capital injection was to finance a consultancy to design and implement the septic tank maintenance and
replacement program, and the replacement of 500 septic tanks. 8 The SNA scheme was directly connected to the CBA scheme with sewers connecting to the CBA collection
system. 9 Although these facilities were financed with EU funds, the PIA consultants provided contract management and site
supervision advice.
4
benefit from two wastewater management study tours in Australia and New Zealand. Capacity development was provided for: (i) project management; (ii) contract management; (iii) utility management; (iv) financial management, including billing systems; (v) customer management; (vi) community awareness and public relations; (vii) planning for wastewater management and drainage; (viii) technical aspects of wastewater management and sanitation systems; and (ix) asset management. A community awareness program was also implemented as a part of this component. The program was designed to enhance the community’s awareness of the project as well as the effects of poor sanitation practices and flooding on their health and environment. The program included media campaigns, community education and promotional activities in key areas including: (i) the need for new infrastructure and improved hygiene practices; (ii) the environmental implications of poor sanitation; (iii) the design and application of good onsite planning principles and practices for sanitation and drainage; and (iv) safe wastewater practices. Details of the capacity building and the training are in Appendix 3, and of the community awareness program details are in Appendix 4. C. Project Costs
15. At appraisal, the project cost was estimated to be $10.0 million. The foreign exchange cost was estimated to be $3.8 million (about 38%), including about $0.5 million for service charges and interest during construction, while the total local currency cost was $6.2 million (about 62%), including taxes and duties. The ADB loan at appraisal was $8 million equivalent from ADB’s special funds resources to finance 80% of the total project cost, including civil works, capacity building, and consulting services for construction supervision. The remaining cost of $2.0 million equivalent was to be funded by the Borrower. The appraisal estimate also included physical contingencies and provisions for price escalation. The estimated cost to implement the project, however, rose significantly as a consequence of implementation delays (para. 26). The cost for the pressure sewer system increased by about 24% after completion of the final design due to: (i) an initial underestimation of costs at appraisal; (ii) the weakening of the US dollar against the currencies of bidders for major contracts (there was a 24% depreciation of the US dollar to the tala following preparation of the original cost estimate), and the weakening of the US dollar against the euro (some equipment was sourced in the EU); (iii) wage increases; and (iv) substantial increases in the price of materials and fuel costs (material costs increased up to 70%). A supplementary financing package from ADB to cover the cost overruns was agreed upon. The revised cost estimate of the project at the time of the supplementary financing in 2008 was $17.81 million equivalent. 16. The actual project completion cost was $17.91 million equivalent, about $0.1 million higher than the revised cost estimate.10 ADB financed $13.48 million equivalent or about 75% of the total project cost. The government funded the remaining local costs of $4.43 million equivalent. The cost of the floodway and drainage component increased from the revised cost of $2.61 million (excluding physical and price contingencies) to an actual cost of $3.31 million. This was due to necessary design changes (para. 33). The WWTP and the pressure sewer had a revised total cost estimate of $6.92 million (excluding physical and price contingencies) at the time of supplementary financing in 2008. It should be noted that the cost of the CBA and SNAs for the WWTP and the pressure sewers was combined in the supplementary financing because the pressure sewers apply to both the CBA and the SNAs. The actual cost at completion was $10.32 million. The primary reason for this cost increase is the increase in the price of the pressure sewers, due to the late delivery of an acceptable design by the contractor, which led to
10 Due to changes in the SDR–dollar exchange rate the value of L2026 increased from approximately $8 million
equivalent at appraisal to $8.635 million equivalent at the end of implementation.
5
lengthy negotiations and to a price variation (para. 33). At supplementary financing the cost of the WWTP, including physical and price contingencies and taxes, was $5.35 million. The cost of the pressure sewers at supplementary financing, including physical and price contingencies and taxes, was $4.37 million. This resulted in a total combined cost for the WWTP and the pressure sewers of $9.72 million in the revised estimates. The $10.32 million actual cost for the WWTP and pressure sewers included $5.02 million for the WWTP (slightly less than the revised estimate) and $5.31 million for the pressure sewers (almost $1 million above the $4.37 million revised estimate). The revised cost of the onsite sanitation facilities was calculated at $0.61 million at supplementary financing, with an actual cost of $0.20 million. The large cost reduction was due to a reduction in the number of septic tanks installed (from 500 to 100 units, due to insufficient funding). The revised cost estimate for all consulting services was $1.98 million, but the actual cost was $3.04 million, as a result of implementation delays (para. 28) and the need to extend the consultants’ contracts. 17. Appendix 5 compares the actual cost for each project component with the cost (i) at original appraisal, and (ii) at supplementary financing. For cost comparison, local currency costs incurred have been converted into US dollars at the rate prevailing during each transaction. The average rates of exchange used are given in Appendix 6. A summary of contracts financed by ADB is in Appendix 7. D. Disbursements
18. At appraisal, no disbursement schedule was included but the projected disbursements were developed on the basis of the implementation schedule and are in Appendix 8, along with the actual disbursements during project implementation. Loan 2026 was disbursed more slowly than envisaged at appraisal because of project implementation delays (para. 20). An imprest account was established by the Ministry of Finance, the executing agency (EA) on 30 August 2004 with an initial deposit of $300,000. In the first 2 years of the project only the contract amounts for the consulting services were disbursed and the rate of utilization of funds was low. In 2008 when the civil works contracts were awarded, the utilization of project funds increased by just 5%. When the supplementary loan and grant became effective, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) opened separate imprest accounts for the supplementary loan and the grant, in order to facilitate cash flow. Loan proceeds were disbursed in accordance with ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook, as amended from time to time, by direct payment procedures for contracts awarded under international competitive bidding. In order to expedite funds flow the statement of expenditures procedure was used to liquidate and replenish the imprest accounts and reimburse eligible expenditures, not exceeding $100,000 per individual payment. Disbursements from Loan 2026 were completed on 28 March 2011, for L2440 on 20 December 2010, and for G0114 on 17 March 2011. All funds were disbursed for L2026 and 2440, with the only cancellation for G0114 (for $56.61). E. Project Schedule
19. A loan for SDR5.604 million (approximately $8.0 million equivalent at the time of appraisal) was approved on 27 November 2003. The loan and project agreements were signed on 1 June 2004 and the loan became effective on 30 August 2004. The loan closing date was 30 June 2009. A supplementary financing package consisting of a loan for SDR1.710 million (approximately $2.8 million equivalent) and a grant of $2.220 million was approved on 12 September 2008, with a closing date of 31 December 2010, to meet cost overruns. ADB approved the extension of Loan 2026 on 23 September 2008 in order to align it with the closing date of the supplementary loan and grant. The revised total investment cost for implementation
6
of the project was estimated at $17.81 million equivalent. ADB financed $5.0 million equivalent (approximately 64% of the cost overrun). About 24% of this total was provided by the grant. The government was to provide $2.81 million equivalent (about 36.0% of project costs) in local currency as counterpart funding. 20. Project commencement was significantly delayed. The effective commencement date was November 2005, when the project management unit (PMU) was engaged, some 20 months after the commencement date envisaged at appraisal. The delays were attributed to a number of factors including a delay in loan signing, late recruitment of project implementation assistance consultants (para. 26), and the need to rebid all of the major contracts, because the bids received were either non-compliant or included excessive bid prices (para. 29–30). 21. The cost overruns (para. 15) resulted in insufficient project funds being available to implement all components. A reduction in the project scope was not possible because (i) all components and subcomponents were essential to achieve the project goals of improved public and environmental health, and (ii) the project’s sewerage system components (the sewerage network and the WWTP) were interdependent and could not function independently. In October 2007 the government informed ADB that fiscal constraints prevented it from financing the cost overrun using its own resources, and the government requested $5 million equivalent in supplementary financing from ADB. The government also informed ADB that it was seeking the assistance of other international development partners to help meet the cost overrun through grants.11 The actual and the appraisal implementation schedules are compared in Appendix 9 and the chronology of major implementation events is in Appendix 10. F. Implementation Arrangements
22. The implementation arrangements were as envisaged at appraisal and proved to be efficient. The Borrower was the Independent State of Samoa, and the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was the executing agency. Project direction and guidance was provided by the Project Steering Committee (PSC), which was established during loan appraisal.12 The PSC, which also served as the Joint Water Sector Steering Committee, provided guidance on this project and all other government water sector projects.13 The PMU was formed in November 2005 to provide day-to-day project management. PIA for the design, supervision, and contract administration of the project activities was provided by a consulting firm. The project had two implementing agencies (IAs): (i) the Ministry of Works, Transport, and Infrastructure (MWTI) for the drainage component; and (ii) SWA for the wastewater management, sanitation, and capacity building components.
11 The EU approved grant financing for the construction of a wastewater sludge treatment facility and for streamflow
gauging and flood modeling to assist the government in meeting the project cost overrun. The EU grants, which were to be provided as parallel financing, reduced the estimated cost overrun by approximately $2.1 million.
12 ADB. 2002. Technical Assistance to the Independent State of Samoa for Implementation of the Urban Planning and Management Strategy. Manila (TA3860-SAM) was retained as the steering committee for the project.
13 Members of the PSC included the chief executive officers from MOF, MWTI, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Ministry of Heath, Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development, Samba Umbrella Non-Governmental Organization, the chairperson of the Independent Water Schemes Association, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, the general manager of SWA, the general manager of Electric Power Corporation, and an independent chairperson.
7
G. Conditions and Covenants
23. Details of compliance with the major covenants under the loans and grant are presented in Appendix 11. The government and executing agency generally complied with all major covenants, with the exception of the financial covenant relating to the implementation of cabinet-endorsed wastewater tariffs and environmental fees. One of the conditions of the supplementary financing was that the Cabinet endorse a resolution approving a cost-recovery mechanism to cover full costs of: (i) the investment costs and the operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the septic tank sub-component through an environmental charge levied on end-users, (ii) the O&M costs associated with the wastewater subcomponent through tariffs levied on end-users, and (iii) any shortfall of funds through the government’s budgetary allocations. The approval to implement a financial recovery mechanism was granted in June 2009, and the wastewater tariff was approved by Revenue Board on 25 August 2011 and approved by cabinet on 5 October 2011.
H. Related Technical Assistance
24. A TA grant was approved together with the original loan.14 The Treasury Department was the executing agency and the Planning and Urban Management Agency (PUMA) was the IA. A contract for the TA consultancy was awarded on 15 May 2006 and provided 11 person-months of international and 13 person-months of national consultant inputs to provide institutional strengthening of PUMA, SWA, and MWTI in drainage and wastewater management. The TA had two components: (i) drainage and wastewater management planning, and (ii) urban planning and regulation. 25. A draft final report was submitted to ADB and government for review at the end of March 2007. A number of TA components had not been addressed, in particular consultation with stakeholders in regard to drafting of regulations for sewerage networks and sewage treatment, and review of the building code. The consultants undertook further stakeholder consultations and completed the TA in January 2008, by which time the TA objectives and expected outputs were fully achieved. Total disbursements for the TA were $393,151 or 98.3% of the TA grant of $400,000. The TA is rated successful. The TA completion report is in Appendix 12. I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement
1. Consultant Recruitment
26. All consultant recruitment was carried out in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants. At appraisal, provision was made for 48 person-months of international and 65 person-months of national consulting services to support SWA in project implementation and provide the necessary capacity building. The actual consultant inputs provided totaled 65 person-months of international and 32 person-months of national consulting services over the implementation period. The national consultants were not as effective as expected and a significant number of person-months were transferred from the national consultants to the international consultants (para. 32). Although ADB provided advance action for recruitment of consultants, and the executing agency initiated recruitment action as early as March 2004, there
14 ADB. 2003. Technical Assistance to the Independent State of Samoa for Institutional Strengthening for Drainage
and Wastewater Management. Manila (TA 4229-SAM, for $400,000).
8
was substantial delay in finalizing the selection process for the international consultants, who were to provide capacity building and project implementation assistance.15 27. The PMU consultants were awarded a contract in June 2005, although contract signing did not take place until November 2005.16 The contract originally expired on 30 June 2008. The request for proposals for the PIA consultants was issued on 25 August 2004 and technical proposals were received from five firms. However, the personnel evaluation sheets were not in ADB standard format and had to be resubmitted. A revised evaluation report was received by ADB on 30 March 2005 and ADB approved the evaluation on 19 May 2005. On 24 June 2005 the MOF informed ADB that the top-ranked firm in the evaluations had to withdraw due to difficulties in replacing staff that were by then involved in other projects, and requested that the second-ranked firm be selected. ADB agreed to this on 30 June 2005. The PIA consultants were recruited in February 2006 and their contracts expired on 31 December 2008. 28. During the processing of the supplementary loan and grant, it was determined that the PMU and the PIA consultants originally recruited under Loan 2026 would be needed for the extended duration of project implementation. The original contract with the PMU consultants expired on 30 June 2008. On 23 October 2008 the MOF made a request to ADB that the extension for the consultants be recruited using single source selection procedures, thereby enabling the existing PMU consultant to continue their work, and ensuring continuity of project implementation. This was approved by ADB on 4 November 2008. In January 2009 the government entered into a new 24-month contract with the PMU consultant effective 1 July 2008,17 thereby effectively extending the PMU services until 30 June 2010. The contract for PIA services was scheduled to expire on 31 December 2008 and this was also extended using single source selection procedures until 30 June 2010.
2. Procurement
29. The procurement of goods and services was carried out in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines for Procurement. It was necessary to re-bid the contracts for the three civil works components as all the bids received in May 2007 were either non-compliant or had bid prices substantially higher than the engineer’s estimates.18 30. New bids for the drainage and floodways contract were received on 3 September 2007 and for the pressure sewers and WWTP contracts on 17 September 2007. Three bids were received for the drainage and floodways contract, with a contract signed on 21 January 2008. Three bids were also received for the pressure sewer contract; ADB approved the bid evaluations on 30 October 2007 and the contract was signed on 1 April 2008. A total of five bids were received for the WWTP contract. The MOF sent the bid evaluation report to ADB on 23 January 2008, and although the lowest evaluated bidder had a number of advantages due to simple operation with minimal critical electrical and electronic components, the bid evaluation committee had a number of concerns regarding the reliability and track record of the treatment 15 Approval of advance action was published in ADB Business Opportunities on 16 September 2003. 16 Initial concerns were expressed by the MOF regarding the project manager’s recruitment (as a result of his
involvement with another project at the time) and the need for the position to be full time. These concerns were resolved following a pre-contractual negotiation meeting with representatives of the EAs and IAs in June 2005. The cabinet subsequently approved the recruitment of the consultants in September 2005.
17 The project allowed for retroactive financing for expenditures incurred 12 months before the date of the agreements, including expenditures for consulting services related to capacity building.
18 The 3 civil works contracts were (i) Contract No. MWTI-DRA001: Floodway and Drainage Improvement Works in Apia, (ii) Contract No. SWA-SAN001: Design and Construct Services for Pressure Sewerage in Apia, and (iii) Contract No. SWA-SAN002: Design, Construct and Operate Services for Wastewater Treatment Plant in Apia.
9
technology offered by the bidder. The plant offered by the next lowest bidder was found to be more sophisticated in terms of sensor equipment needed to operate the batching process, which could also be operated manually. On 22 April 2008 ADB supported the evaluation to proceed to the second-ranked bidder. The contract was signed on 13 June 2008. Bids for the construction of 100 septic tanks were invited through advertisements in the national newspaper and through ADB’s Business Opportunities website. Bidding followed international competitive bidding procedures. A total of three bids were received. The bid evaluation report, dated 16 September 2009, was approved by ADB on 22 September 2009. The contract was signed in January 2010. J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers
1. Consultants
31. The performance of the PMU consultants was considered satisfactory as they effectively coordinated project activities, monitored overall project progress, and managed project accounts, procurement, and reporting. 32. The PIA consultants performed satisfactorily, although there were some staff changes that affected the project. The team leader was changed twice, with the first change prior to contract signing, and the second at the end of 2006, when the team leader resigned for personal reasons. Two other resignations were submitted for the same period, and this impacted project progress. The original agreement with the PIA allowed for a total of 12 months of intermittent team leader input over the entire implementation period. The first year of implementation was a critical period and the team leader was mobilized for 5 months, leaving only 7 months to be spread out over the remaining project period. This intermittent input arrangement was not sufficient for the project and it was therefore agreed that the team leader should be present on a full-time basis to reduce project risks. Additional time and funding were allocated to the team leader position through a contract addendum. The team of national consultants was not as effective as initially expected. The community consultation specialist was replaced after about 18 months, and progress on community awareness campaigns improved significantly thereafter. The proposed national civil works contracts engineer was not available to undertake the planned role and his time was reallocated. Overall, the number of person-months of national consultant inputs was reduced by about 20%.
2. Contractors
33. Overall, the performance of civil works contractors was generally satisfactory. Under the supervision of the PMU and PIA consultants all facilities were constructed satisfactorily and the quality of the civil works was good. The performance of each contractor did vary, however. The implementation of the floodways and drainage contract was delayed by 3 months, as the initial drainage design provided by the contractor contained technical flaws, necessitating a redesign of the works. The subsequent construction proceeded well and the contractor was rated satisfactory. The contractor for the WWTP was also delayed by 3 months due to a combination of factors including wet weather and unsuitable foundation conditions. The contractor for the WWTP was rated highly satisfactory in all of the implementation aspects of the contract, particularly in terms of the management and technical resources provided by the contractor and the overall design of the plant. The pressure sewerage contract was delayed by about 6 months due to late delivery by the contractor of an accepted design and protracted negotiations in regard to a variation price request submitted by the contractor. A number of changes in management and direction at the international leading firm in Australia in the early months of the pressure sewerage contract slowed progress and there was less overall design, technical and
10
administrative support provided than expected. A number of design issues had to be resolved on site, with limited support. The main national contractor delayed the project as they were unable to provide sufficient resources when required by the international contractor. To address the significant gaps, a number of other national contractors had to be recruited to assist the international contractor with works. Poor workmanship on the part of the main national contractor in pipe-laying and jointing and in the fusion welding caused major delays as a result of the time taken to ensure acceptable testing of the main line. The pressure sewerage contractor is rated partially satisfactory. The contractor for the implementation of the septic tanks is rated satisfactory. K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency
34. The performance of the Borrower and the executing agency in managing the project was rated satisfactory. There were disbursement delays that could have been avoided if the MOF had sent the appropriate supporting documents to the PMU for the preparation of the withdrawal applications. Regular communication between the PMU and the MOF could have avoided these issues. The PMU did not receive a timely response from the MOF at times throughout the project and therefore communicated directly with the project officer at ADB, with a copy to the MOF. L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank
35. The project was originally administered and supervised from ADB headquarters but those functions were delegated to the South Pacific Subregional Office (SPSO) in Fiji as of 5 March 2010,19 in keeping with ADB’s Resident Mission Policy. ADB had a total of 4 project officers involved during project implementation.20 ADB conducted 1 inception mission, four review missions, a special loan administration mission, and a midterm review mission. There could have been additional review missions (only one review mission was fielded per year, except in 2010, when two review missions were undertaken). In the project performance review (PPR) of 30 April 2007 the project was rated “at risk”, in part because of the lack of review mission field days.21 The missions included visits to the project sites, and also to the MOF headquarters in Apia, where coordination meetings were held to discuss and solve problems. The PMU noted that the performance of ADB when the project was handled from ADB headquarters could have been more effective if there were regular communications between ADB staff, the PMU and the MOF. The processing of withdrawal applications sent directly to ADB headquarters had a turnaround time of 3–4 weeks. Following delegation of project administration to SPSO there was more regular contact with the MOF and IAs. The withdrawal applications were pre-screened by SPSO prior to submission to ADB headquarters, and took no more than 2 weeks to process, which improved disbursement flow and reduced the delays in contractor payments. Overall, however, the supportive role performed by ADB was recognized by the MOF, and ADB’s performance is rated satisfactory.
19 Project administration was handed over by an ADB Review Mission from ADB headquarters to the project officer at
SPSO on 16–18 February 2010. 20 Two of the project officers were based in Manila and the other two project officers were based in SPSO. 21 The project performance report of 30 April 2007 classified the project “at risk” due to (i) substantial implementation
delays; (ii) poor compliance with audited project accounts (non submission of FY2004, FY2005 and FY2006 accounts); (iii) disbursement delays; and (iv) a lack of fielded missions (the project was only reviewed for 4 days in 12 months, rather than the 10 days per 12 months required to obtain a satisfactory rating).
11
III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
A. Relevance
36. The project is rated highly relevant. Efficient and effective drainage and wastewater systems in Apia were urgently required and were among the government's highest priorities. The project supported ADB’s water policy22 and also supported the government's water sector strategy.23 The Strategy for the Development of Samoa 2002–2004 identified sanitation and wastewater management as a key area of focus particularly for urban Apia where the ecosystem of near shore waters and the reef had been damaged by effluent from existing disposal sewerage systems (footnote 2). B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome
37. The project is rated effective. The outcome as envisaged at appraisal—to improve the environment and public health of Apia through assistance in improving urban infrastructure for drainage and sanitation, as well as improving urban management capacity—has been substantially achieved. 38. Due to the absence of an effective drainage system, the frequency and intensity of severe floods had a significant environmental and economic impact on the urban centre of Apia. The floodway and drainage improvement works were substantially completed in mid-January 2010, just prior to a significant 4-day rainfall event. The 4-day rains were compared to a similar 4-day event that had occurred in 2008 at Savalalo.24 Although the rainfall event in January 2010 was more severe, and about 15% more rain fell over the same period, it resulted in no flooding in the CBA or the Fugalei market area. The project’s floodways and drainage output have mitigated the impacts of flooding in the economic center and some densely populated low-lying areas of Apia.
39. The pressure sewers servicing the CBA were completed in April 2010 and the pressure sewers servicing the SNAs, was completed in November 2010. Currently the main network collection system is working effectively and treating the effluent to the standards set by the Planning Urban Management Agency (PUMA).25 Properties no longer need to service their own treatment plants or septic tanks and effluent from these individual facilities no longer discharges into groundwater, streams or the harbor.
40. The project’s onsite septic tank replacement output was scaled back from installation of 500 household septic tanks to about 100 household tanks due to funding constraints.26 The output of this component has environmental and health benefits through its use of an improved septic tank design to reduce spillage or seepage into the groundwater system. The reduction in scope of the component, however, resulted in a reduction of the environmental benefits and poverty impact originally envisaged at appraisal. 41. The project was intended to promote private sector participation in the provision of urban services through the outsourcing of certain utility services to the private sector, and to further 22 ADB. 2003. Water for All: The Water Policy of the Asian Development Bank. Manila. 23 Government of Samoa. 2008. Water for Life, Water Sector Plan and Framework for Action 2008/9–2011/12. Apia 24 Center of the flood-prone area. 25 The PUMA, under the MNRE, adopted the South Pacific Regional Environmental Program Effluent Discharge
standards. 26 The 100 tanks equates to approximately 12% of the households in the low-lying areas of Apia and accounts for
about 800 residents.
12
promote private sector development through provision of an improved urban infrastructure and environment for businesses. Roadside drainage maintenance is outsourced to national contractors. Non-roadside drainage is currently the responsibility of the MNRE and community groups are expected to maintain the drainage. The WWTP operator is in place and is supported by a contractor and SWA. Operation of the pressure sewer system is likely to be outsourced to a national contractor and prospective contractors have been identified. SWA has committed to implementing an investment program and O&M program for the sewage collection and treatment system, which includes exploring opportunities for private sector participation, such as outsourcing O&M activities. 42. The capacity building component was implemented through specific training programs, on-the-job training and technical and managerial support. A qualitative assessment of the SWA counterparts by the PIA consultants indicated that their ability to undertake their day-to-day duties in terms of project and contract management, utility management and community engagement had improved compared with their ability before the project. Specific SWA personnel are also becoming effective in WWTP and pressure sewer system O&M. C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs
43. The financial internal rate of return (FIRR) and the economic internal rate of return (EIRR) were reevaluated. At appraisal the FIRR was calculated for the wastewater and sanitation component for (i) the CBA and SNAs; and (ii) the individual systems, incorporating the septic tank maintenance and replacement program. The supplementary loan and grant, however, only calculated the level of user charges for the two components and did not indicate a FIRR. The EIRR analysis at appraisal was calculated for the project as a whole rather than the individual components. The supplementary loan and grant, however, calculated the EIRR for the two components separately, namely, (i) drainage and floodway, and (ii) wastewater management and sanitation. The same methodology was used in the reevaluation as was used to calculate FIRRs and EIRRs by combining the methodologies that had been used in both the original appraisal and at the time of the supplementary loan and grant. Financial and economic viability was assessed by computing all incremental benefits and costs resulting from project implementation. Each reevaluated output is rated efficient. 44. The recalculated FIRR for the wastewater and sanitation component is 9.1%, with tariffs that enable full cost recovery. This compares with a weighted average cost of capital of 4.1%, indicating the project is viable, if tariffs are set for full cost recovery. Other levels of user charges to only cover OMM costs and tariffs that cover OMM and debt service have also been tested. It has not been possible to calculate the FIRR for the individual systems incorporating the septic tank maintenance and replacement program, as the program was shelved. Appendix 13 details the options for different levels of user charges, as well as the supporting assumptions. 45. The recalculated EIRRs were 14.7% for the drainage and floodway component and 18.9% for the wastewater and sanitation component, which compares favorably with the economic opportunity cost of capital of 12%.27 The recalculated EIRR for the project as a whole is 16.2%. At appraisal the EIRR for the project as a whole was 12.4%. The supplementary loan and grant calculated the EIRRs for the drainage and floodway component as 13.2%, and for the wastewater and sanitation component as 16.5%, resulting in an overall project EIRR of 14.6%.
27 According to the Independent Evaluation Department guidelines, if the estimated EIRR (E) exceeds 18% a project
is normally rated highly efficient. Highly efficient > 18%; efficient 18% ≥ E ≥ 12%; less efficient 12% > E ≥ 6%; inefficient <6%.
13
The differences between the reevaluation, appraisal, and supplementary financing EIRRs are due primarily to (i) revised economic costs derived from actual costs; (ii) higher benefits in terms of the value of damage avoided, due to a change from 2008 to 2010 price levels; (iii) changes in OMM costs; and (iv) the yearly distribution of disbursement of project costs due to delays in implementation. Appendix 14 shows the recalculated EIRRs as well as the supporting assumptions. 46. Efficiency is assessed through (i) calculation of the FIRR and EIRR, and (ii) the efficiency of the process of the investment. The project was extended from its original closing date of 30 June 2009 to 31 December 2010. Although the implementation period was longer than originally envisaged, the outcome was substantially achieved. Taking into account both the extended implementation period and the resulting FIRR and EIRRs, the project is rated efficient. D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability
47. Sustainability of the projects outputs is considered likely. All sites where infrastructure improvements have been implemented are in use and well maintained. A fundamental requirement for the sustainability of project outcomes and impacts is the introduction of well defined and appropriate wastewater tariffs in accordance with cost-recovery requirements and mechanisms. Associated with the introduction of tariffs is the need for effective revenue collection processes linked with O&M and asset management plans. Appropriate billing systems are in place, but appropriate wastewater tariffs and a regulatory structure for revenue collection are both absent.28 The O&M of the WWTP is being outsourced to the equipment installation contractor for 5 years. During this period it is expected that personnel in SWA will gain expertise in wastewater systems, and other residents of Samoa will be trained for future O&M opportunities. Similarly, a number of national contractors have gained experience in O&M of the pressure sewer during construction of the project. The intention is that these contractors will have the opportunity to bid for outsourced sewer network O&M packages. For the floodways and drainage component of the project to be sustainable, rapid resolution of the current institutional impediments surrounding existing management and maintenance of drains and streams is needed. At present, institutional responsibility for drainage and floodway maintenance is shared between the Land Transport Authority, MWTI and MNRE. E. Impact
48. Environmental impact. As envisaged at appraisal the project had no adverse environmental impacts. An initial environmental examination for the project was completed under TA (footnote 1), which confirmed the project classification as environmental category B, in accordance with ADB’s Environment Policy (2002). In accordance with Samoa’s Planning and Urban Management (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulation 2006 and ADB’s Environmental Assessment Guidelines29 the PIA consultants produced an environmental impact assessment and environmental management plans. The environmental impact assessment was approved by PUMA and the environmental management plans were incorporated into the project’s civil works contracts. Effective implementation of the environmental management plans for specific project outputs during the design and construction phases resulted in no overall negative environmental impacts.
28 As determined at the time of the project completion review mission, tariff rates are in the final stage of being
approved by the cabinet (para. 23). 29 ADB. 2003. Environmental Assessment Guidelines. Manila.
14
49. The project’s overall environmental impact was positive, through the introduction of an effective and sustainable sewage collection and treatment system and provision of adequate wastewater and drainage infrastructure. The floodway and drainage rehabilitation works provided substantial positive environmental impacts, including: (i) improved drainage infrastructure that has led to a lower flood incidence, and (ii) reduced incidence of ponded flood waters adjacent to drains. The wastewater management and sanitation upgrades provided positive environmental impacts, including: (i) improved quality of wastewater discharge from the CBA and SNA, and (ii) improved quality of wastewater being discharged to Vaiusu Bay and Apia Harbor. SWA community engagements and consultations focused on environmental and public health implications of poor sanitation and drainage practices, the benefits of the “pilot” household septic tanks in flood-prone priority areas, and the importance of improved environmental and sanitation practices.30 50. Social and resettlement impact. The beneficiaries included poor households in the low-lying and flood-prone urban zones. These households have benefitted from the provision of improved onsite sanitation facilities, resulting in improved living conditions and reduced public health risks.31 Households in Apia have also benefitted from a significant reduction in the intensity and frequency of flooding in the Fugalei area and associated physical damage to social infrastructure. The introduction of drainage and wastewater infrastructure has reduced health risks caused by septage and latrine wastes being released into the surface and groundwater system. Indirect social benefits have also been derived from the extensive environmental and public health promotion activities, which focused on the benefits of improved sanitation and drainage practices. The project also generated limited short-term employment opportunities, with particular emphasis on using female labor, through the engagement of local labor during construction of physical works. 51. At appraisal it was noted that the preliminary design indicated that some limited land acquisition involving up to three landowners may be necessary for the drainage component.32 This level is considered insignificant by ADB’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (1995) and only a short resettlement plan was required. There was a lengthy process for acquiring land access approval from land owners to commence physical works for land and properties affected by the floodway and drainage component. Access was finally granted and no land acquisition or resettlement of people took place. Despite delays, land issues were effectively dealt with through a community consultation program. Relative to the size and complexity of the project, land issues were insignificant. To the degree possible, uninhabited government and existing right-of-way lands were used. The scope of the floodway work was greatly reduced when it became apparent that under the original scope over 100 households would need to be moved.33 Interventions to address ADB’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples (1998) were not required and no indigenous peoples or ethnic minority issues arose during project implementation.
30 The construction of 100 septic tanks in priority low-lying areas of Apia is considered a pilot project. 31 This impact, however, was less than envisaged as only 100 septic tanks were installed, compared to 500 septic
tanks at appraisal, and the revolving maintenance program that would have supplied a total of 8,000 households was not implemented.
32 A total of 1.6 hectares. 33 The land requirements for the floodway component were greater than the initial appraisal estimate of 2,850 m. The
subsequent change in scope reduced the floodway to 1,600 m through a design change, in order to avoid the resettlement of 100 households.
15
IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Overall Assessment
52. The project is rated successful, based on a review of its relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability. Appendix 15 includes the quantitative assessment of project performance to determine the project rating. B. Lessons
53. A major lesson stemming from the project is the inadequate preparation at appraisal and readiness at approval, which caused the problems encountered during implementation. An urban development master plan and more importantly a detailed feasibility study to fully assess costs and alternatives was not in place prior to appraisal. As a result, the project required (i) further detailed studies during an extended initial implementation phase, and (ii) supplementary financing. Because a comprehensive feasibility study was lacking, the PIA consultants had to undertake a significant number of feasibility options analyses prior to development of the preliminary designs and bid documents, which led to delays in the project’s initial implementation phase. From the initial cost estimate of $10 million, the actual project cost increased to $17.8 million, requiring supplemental financing and resulting in further implementation delays. C. Recommendations
1. Project Related
54. Maintenance, monitoring and follow-up action. The maintenance of project facilities is critical to the long-term success of the project. During previous flooding events the drainage system was blocked with garbage and sediment because no routine maintenance was carried out. If much of project impact is to be sustained, a comprehensive maintenance program needs to be implemented. A comprehensive maintenance plan or program for the rehabilitated drainage system is vital for environmental sustainability, and ADB should monitor whether this has been undertaken. The community awareness program undertaken during the project should continue as part of a comprehensive awareness campaign. 55. Twinning arrangement. Capacity building through a twinning arrangement is important. Funding constraints prevented the twinning contract from being implemented. It is recommended that a twinning support contract be initiated as soon as possible if there is a funding for such an initiative. Although the capacity building undertaken by the project has been satisfactory, the benefits to the wastewater division of having access to technical support in the early stages of operation through a twinning arrangement can be significant.
56. Covenants. One of the major covenants was the approval of wastewater tariffs to cover appropriate levels of investments in OMM by SWA. The wastewater tariff was approved by the Revenue Board on 25 August 2011 and approved by cabinet on 5 October 2011. It is recommended to continue to monitor wastewater tariffs to ensure adequate OMM of the project assets.
16
2. General
57. Timing of project performance evaluation report. It is recommended that a project performance evaluation be undertaken in 2014 to determine if the project is still meeting its objectives.
PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Design Summary Performance Indicators/Targets Project Achievements Details and IssuesImpact High standard of environmental quality and public health in Apia
Improved living standards Water-quality indicators Water-related health statistics
Living standards improved through reduced flooding. A severe rain storm on completion of drainage works caused no flooding in project areas.
No performance indicator data available during project period to assess impact. Project delayed because of (i) need to undertake feasibility studies prior to design; (ii) major change in scope of floodways work; and (iii) rebid of all proposed design and build contracts because initial bid costs were much higher than budgeted, and as a result of various design and construction issues.
Outcome Improved drainage and delivery of wastewater management and sanitation services in Apia with involvement of the private sector
By 2008: Improved drainage, particularly in Fugalei area, as measured by aerial extent, ponding in drains, and frequency of flooding Policy, institutional and legislative and regulatory requirements in place
100% of CBA wastewater collected and treated SWA Wastewater Management and Sanitation Division established and functioning effectively Well-managed outsourcing of appropriate activities, e.g., septage collection and sewerage and treatment plant operation and maintenance by the private sector SWA management of private sector-implemented septage collection Wastewater and drainage master plans prepared
Not achieved until 2010 when works on WWTP and pressure sewers were completed. PIA consultants assisted in the preparation of the Draft Sanitation Policy. Data collected indicated that water consumption and waste flows were very high from some properties and this resulted in the decision that not all CBA properties were able to connect. Due to training during the project there has been an improvement in functioning of SWA Wastewater and Sanitation Division (Appendix 3). Not all activities outsourced (paras. 41 and 47)
Design works cost estimate far exceeded the project budget. Land requirements for intended floodways work were greater than originally envisaged, necessitating a reduction in scope. Little or no improvement in PUMA management of land and urban planning aspects. Regulations requiring properties to connect to the sewer system were enacted but not enforced. The septic tank maintenance and rehabilitation scheme was shelved as it is not in agreement with National Sanitation Policy. Roadside drainage maintenance outsourced to national contractors. Non-roadside drainage is currently the responsibility of MNRE, and community groups are expected to perform maintenance. The responsibilities are not clear and maintenance is not effective. The WWTP operator is supported by a
Appendix 1 17
18 Appendix 1
Design Summary Performance Indicators/Targets Project Achievements Details and Issues Improved environment, water quality and public health
Sustainable twinning arrangement in place
Sewage-related water quality parameters reduced by 20% in central urban area streams and stream outlets to marine watersa Reduced incidence of water-related diseasesb
Twinning was shelved due to fund availability. Water quality monitoring program established.
contractor and SWA. Operation of pressure sewer system is likely to be outsourced to a national contractor after the defects liability period. Suitable contractors have been identified. There has been insufficient time between commissioning and end of the PIA consultants contract to identify any improvements. Monitoring to be continued by SWA/PUMA. MWTI responsibilities for drainage handed over to the Land Transport Authority. It has not been possible to obtain meaningful data
Component/Outputs Output 1 Improved drainage infrastructure in the Gasegase and Asaga catchment Rehabilitation of floodway and storm drains Supporting facility for drainage works Supporting equipment for drainage system improvements Supplementary assistance to the drainage work management Drainage work improvements
Debris, silt, and sediment in floodway and storm drains cleaned up by June 2005
Rehabilitation of 2,425 meters (m) of storm drains by the end of 2006
Rehabilitation of 2,850 m floodway built by the end of 2006
Bar screens and gauging station completed by the end of 2004 Pumps and trucks equipped by the end of 2004 Flow monitoring and hydraulic model developed by the end of 2008
Drainage works maintenance program developed and in place by the end of 2005
All works not completed until 2010 1,600 m of floodway improved to specified standard. 2,900 m of existing storm drainage cleaned and improved. 680 m of new storm drainage (pipe and channel) constructed. Terms of reference for flow modeler prepared and taken over by EU. Provision of the gauging station deleted from the project scope but constructed using EU funds. Trucks not needed as dewatering facility installed. Hydraulic model of project drainage area and Mulivai River area undertaken as part of the design and build contract. Drainage maintenance split between MWTI and Land and Transport
Scope of floodways work greatly reduced when it became apparent that over 100 households would need to be moved to retain original scope.
Design Summary Performance Indicators/Targets Project Achievements Details and IssuesAuthority
Output 2 Wastewater management and sanitation system 1. Reticulated CBA scheme, wastewater management and special needs areas 2. Septage collection system for Greater Apia 3. Septage treatment system 4. Individual sanitation system improvements
CBA WWTP scheme completed and operational by the end of 2006
Sewer completed and operational by end of 2006
Septage collection system and septage treatment systems completed and operational by June 2006
Policy, institutional, legislative and regulatory requirements in place
500 onsite sanitation systems replaced or upgraded
All works completed in 2010. Sewerage system operating effectively although full biological process not yet established. Asset management plan ready to be implemented. Access to land restrictions and a failed bio-digester bid, due to funding constraints, resulted in this component being transferred to EU project. Approximately 100 new septic tanks constructed in priority areas. Households not charged for facilities. Owners responsible for septage pump out
Tariff system was approved by cabinet on 5 October 2011. A technical note was prepared by the PIA consultants to identify constraints and technical and management options and make recommendations. Scope of works shelved—institutional arrangements not in place for effective management. Significant policy and institutional reform required. Funding constraints restricted the number of on-site systems that could be constructed.
Output 3 Staff of SWA, MWTI, and PUMA trained in drainage and wastewater management and retain strong capabilities in assigned field
Training programs completed by end 2005 in the following: (i) financial management, including tariff
setting;
(ii) business planning and administration, including revolving fund;
(iii) asset management plan;
(iv) project management and contract administration;
(v) monitoring and enforcement of regulatory framework (SWA,MWTI, PUMA);
(vi) appraisal of sanitation components of
Capacity building program developed and implemented throughout entire project period.
Bidding documents were prepared and tenders received but due to lack of funds the Twinning contract was cancelled.
Appendix 1 19
20 Appendix 1
Design Summary Performance Indicators/Targets Project Achievements Details and Issuessanitation projects;
(vii) technical training in design, operation of maintenance systems (CBA and onsite systems); and
(viii) water quality system and monitoring system.
Effective long-term twinning arrangement established
Twinning arrangement cancelled.
Twinning contract cancelled.
Output 4 Community awareness and support of improved drainage, sanitation, and wastewater services and their delivery systems as well as improved individual practices in these areas
Awareness campaign implemented throughout the project.
Long-term community awareness programs established in SWA and PUMA.
Awareness programs will address: (i) environmental implications of poor
sanitation and drainage practices,
(ii) sanitation and hygiene,
(iii) onsite sanitation design,
(iv) onsite sanitation operation and maintenance,
(v) agency, household and individual responsibility, and
(vi) regulatory and administrative procedures and processes for upgrading or building new onsite sanitation systems.
Community awareness program events detailed in Appendix 4. SWA public relations section participated in all project awareness campaign planning and delivery.
Awareness campaign more effective from June 2007 when new international and national consultants engaged Households not willing to pay for new or rehabilitated septic tanks. Tariffs for wastewater not yet approved so willingness to pay was not assessed in detail. Tariffs are likely to be subsidized during early stages of operation All relevant aspects of the project and impacts addressed. Included substantial discussions on land access for pipe location, floodway improvements, connection to sewer line and construction of septic tanks. Involvement of schools was very effective. Support was also gained from the business community
Inputs Government staff. Counterpart staff participated as fully as they could within the limitation of their time for normal duties. SWA WWD engaged additional staff, which resulted in improved cooperation and coordination.
PIA consultancy and capacity building consultancy. PIA provided 65 person-months of international and 32 person-months of national consultant inputs over the extended period of 4.5 years. The national consultants were not as effective as expected and a significant portion of the budget for national consultants was used instead for international consultants.
Design Summary Performance Indicators/Targets Project Achievements Details and IssuesTwinning arrangement. The twinning arrangement (10 international person-months equivalent) was cancelled.
ADB ADF loan: $8 million
ADF supplementary loan: $2.78 million
ADF supplementary grant: $2.22 million
Government Counterpart funding: $4.81 million
ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, CBA = central business area, EU = European Union, MNRE = Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, MWTI = Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure, PIA = project implementation assistance, PUMA = Planning and Urban Management Agency, SWA = Samoa Water Authority, WWTP = wastewater treatment plant, a No recent quantitative monitoring data exists in appropriate specific monitoring locations; thus, specific targets will be reviewed and adjusted based on baseline data obtained in the first year of the project. b Determining cause and effect of a single intervention is extremely difficult, as is the disaggregation of health data to the specific project areas. Therefore, this monitoring mechanism will require the exercise of significant professional judgment that considers Ministry of Health data together with household surveys and anecdotal information. Source: Asian Development Bank
Appendix 1 21
22 Appendix 2
SUMMARY OF PROJECT OUTPUTS
1. The overall objective of the project was to improve the environment and public health in Apia by (i) improving drainage and sanitation infrastructure and capacity in urban management, (ii) reducing frequency of flooding in specific low-lying areas, (iii) improving surface and groundwater quality, and (iv) promoting private sector participation in the provision of urban services. The scope of works changed significantly during the implementation period—with much of the floodways rehabilitation works and gauging stations deleted, the scope of the onsite sanitation works and management improvements reduced, and some of the procurement and capacity building activities cancelled (such as the sludge tankers and twinning agreement)—but the overall objective was maintained. This Appendix provides summary information and general layout figures. 2. The project consisted of the following outputs: 3. Output 1: Floodways and drainage in Gasegase and Asaga Catchments—rehabilitation and new construction.
(i) Development of a detailed drainage model for the Gasegase and Mulivai catchments and identification of priority works for implementation. Work included topographical and cadastral surveys to establish correct levels in the floodplain and low-lying areas; hydraulic modelling of flood flows, hydraulic design of improvement works and detailed design of civil works rehabilitation and new structures.
(ii) Floodway improvements of approximately 1,600 m included: (a) clearance of the Gasegase River from Tropicana Bridge downstream, (b) clearance of the Asaga Stream from Vaitele Street to the junction with the Gasegase River, (c) clearance of the Fugalei Stream from Vaitele Street to the junction with the Gasegase River, and (d) clearance of the Fugalei Stream branch from Vaea Street to where it joins with the main stream.
(iii) Rehabilitation of approximately 1,000 m of existing drains—widening, bank protection, and covers (normal maintenance works not undertaken prior to the project).
(iv) Cleaning of 1,900 m of existing roadside drains and connector drains—(work that should have been carried out prior to commencement of the project by Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure maintenance teams).
(v) Construction of approximately 400 m of a drain (twin 1600 millimeter (mm) diameter pipes) ending in the outlet structure to the harbor.
(vi) Construction of closed drainage culvert—138 m (1600 mm x 1000 mm); 114 m (1600 mm x 1500 mm); and 30 m (1600mm x 2000mm).
4. Due to funding constraints the remaining drainage works identified from the hydraulic model and the design were deferred until the next stage. 5. Output 2—Upgraded wastewater management and onsite sanitation.
(i) Sanitation and general socioeconomic survey and analysis of all households in the low-lying areas of Apia (approximately 860 households).
(ii) Construction of about 100 new septic tanks with improved design at priority locations and households in the low-lying areas.
(iii) Central Business Area and Special Needs Area (hospital and markets) wastewater collection and treatment system including: (a) detailed design of a
Appendix 2 23
pressure sewer network and Sequencing Batch Reactor wastewater treatment plant; (b) construction of 5,716 m of mainline pressure sewer in Polyvinyl Chloride pipes (PVC-O) with diameters ranging from 200 mm to 100 mm; and 3,425 m of High Density Polyethylene pipes (HDPE) in 63mm and 93 mm diameter. The PVC-O was trenched and the HDPE was installed using directional drilling; (c) 77 connections to the system including 28 grease traps; (d) decommissioning of existing septic tanks; and (e) construction of a 1.4 million liter/day capacity wastewater treatment plant.
(iv) Design documentation and provision of contract management advice and assistance for the construction of improved septage facilities.
6. Funding constraints limited the number of onsite sanitation systems (new, improved septic tanks) that could be constructed. It is expected that the majority of households in the low-lying areas will be connected to the piped system in the long term. Lack of clarity in the institutional arrangements for managing septic tanks resulted in this aspect of the work being deleted. Funding constraints also resulted in the new septage facilities being funded by the European Union. 7. Output 3—Upgraded institutional skills and capacity.
(i) Capacity building in technical and management areas through identification of training needs and development of formal and informal on-the-job training programs carried out by the project implementation assistance consultant team members, contractors and suppliers.
(ii) Project implementation assistance, providing important on-the-job training in design, bid documentation, bid procedures, contract management and supervision and significant capacity building in utility management (financial management, asset management, operation and maintenance, tariff design, and corporate development).
(iii) The planned twinning arrangement for Samoa Water Authority was shelved due to funding constraints.
8. Output 4—Project community awareness and upgraded capacity to mobilize community support
(i) Community awareness programs, media campaigns and promotional activities in key areas such as (a) the need for new infrastructure and new practices, including the environmental implications of unsafe sanitation and drainage practices; (b) application of good onsite planning principles and practices for sanitation and drainage; (c) onsite sanitation design; (d) the responsibilities of the government, households and individuals regarding sanitation and drainage; and (e) safe wastewater practices.
24 Appendix 3
SUMMARY OF CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING EVENTS
1. Training and capacity building has concentrated on building the skills of counterparts and staff within the Samoa Water Authority (SWA) and particularly the Wastewater Division (WWD) to improve their capacity to manage the new wastewater facilities including: (i) WWD development; (ii) financial management, tariffs, and billing; (iii) asset management and operation and maintenance (O&M); (iv) management and administration policies and procedures; (v) reporting and geographic information systems; and (vi) contract management and supervision. The project implementation assistance (PIA) consultants also engaged in capacity building in the Ministry of Works, Transport, and Infrastructure (MWTI) but were constrained by counterpart availability. Capacity building focused on institutional responsibility for maintenance of drainage and implementation of appropriate actions. 2. Capacity building was undertaken in stages: (i) determine training and capacity building needs, (ii) develop a capacity building logframe, (iii) develop a training implementation plan, (iv) implement capacity building and training programs, and (v) secure a twinning arrangement contract for SWA (this phase of the program was shelved because of funding constraints). 3. The beneficiaries of the capacity building have included the managers and section heads in the WWD as well as SWA as a whole, in addition to technical design, O&M and laboratory staff and personnel involved in finance, administration and public relations. The WWD counterparts working closely with the PIA consultants have benefitted the most from the training program. Key training and capacity building events are summarized below. 4. The training needs assessment (involving discussions, interviews and surveys with relevant management and staff) defined training requirements in two broad areas.
(i) Training related to project implementation: (a) technical training in the design of the sewerage network, wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP), and design of an improved drainage system; (b) surveys and assessment of existing sanitation facilities; (c) preparation of procurement documents for the various sanitation
contracts; (d) project management and contract administration; and (e) construction monitoring and supervision, including contractor
performance monitoring.
(ii) Training needed to support the sustainable management and development of the proposed drainage and sanitation facilities: (a) O&M of the sewer network and WWTP; (b) financial management, to include tariff setting and a new billing system to
incorporate water and sanitation charges; (c) upgraded asset management systems linked to the existing SWA system; (d) an environmental monitoring and water sampling program, designed in
close collaboration with the Planning and Urban Management Authority; (e) laboratory techniques for water and wastewater quality analysis focusing
on strengthening of the SWA Environmental Business Unit; (f) analysis and reporting of results and data management; (g) environmental impact assessment policy and procedures; (h) utility management procedures; and
Appendix 3 25
(i) community consultation and awareness campaigns in association with SWA’s Public Relations Section.
5. The training needs assessment identified constraints that reduced the effectiveness of the training program, including the limited (i) number of training institutions and training programs available in Samoa, and (ii) availability of counterparts from implementing agencies for on-the-job training. 6. It would have been preferable to have implemented the twinning arrangement at an early stage in project development. Unfortunately, funding constraints prevented this and ultimately resulted in the program being deleted altogether. 7. Following identification of capacity building needs, a capacity building logframe was developed establishing the capacity building objectives, narrative summary of each objective, verifiable indicators, means of verification and assumptions and risks. This was followed by the formulation of a training implementation plan and monitoring and evaluation procedures. 8. Training was undertaken in a number of modes: (i) on-the-job training, mentoring and informal classroom training provided by the project consultants; (ii) workshops for specific technical and management topics provided by the project consultants; (iii) training provided by contractors and suppliers in specific systems and plant operations and maintenance; and (iv) study tours and overseas conferences. 9. All PIA consultants have participated in the training program in each of their project assignment periods. 10. In addition to training, the PIA consultants, working closely with the SWA counterparts, have developed and drafted a significant number of utility management procedures. These have included: (i) asset management planning, asset register, valuations and replacement profile; (ii) asset construction and maintenance demarcation point between SWA assets and property owner assets; (iii) planned and unplanned maintenance work order system; (iv) financial management guidelines and tariff calculation; (v) SWA Wastewater Regulations 2008; (vi) SWA Trade Waste Policy; (vii) pressure sewer installation agreement (for landowners); (viii) customer agreement for wastewater service connection; (ix) users manual for pressure sewerage system customers; (x) electrical maintenance contract; (xi) stores period contract; (xii) drainage maintenance contract; (xiii) customer complaint procedure; (xiv) review WWD use of Dafron; (xv) policy and design criteria for new customers and pressure sewer system expansion (including SWA and customer responsibilities and costs); (xvi) hospital hazardous waste disposal; (xvii) WWD structure and human resources development; (xviii) SWA equipment and training to monitor WWTP operation; septic lagoon asset management and sludge truck management; (xix) other O&M procedures; (xx) reporting format and procedures; (xxi) sewer inflow infiltration monitoring; (xxii) power consumption monitoring; and (xxiii) WWD performance indicators.
26 Appendix 3
TRAINING EVENTS
Training Event No.a
Month Organization TrainingMethod
Training Event Title Participants
Total Training
Days
Total Trainees
Trainee Person Days
G001 Jun-06 Workshop Sogi community public awareness consultation 1 50 50 T001 Jun-06 SWA Study tour Study tour 5 4 20 T002 Jul-06 Asset
Coordination &
Management of SWA &
MWTI
OJT Creation of project Geographic Information System team, design and development of database, formulation of Geographic Information System Strategic Plan.
30 3 90
G002 Aug-06 SWA Workshop Training needs assessment with counterparts to establish future training needs
4 6 24
T003 Aug-06 SWA Workshop Drainage committee presentation 1 13 13 T004 Oct-06 SWA Workshop PPMS workshop 1 27 27 T005 Nov-06 SWA Workshop Specifications seminar 1 9 9 T006 Nov-06 Vaimoso
Community Workshop Public awareness consultation 1 50 50
T007 Dec-06 SWA Workshop WWTP fundamentals 1 7 7 T008 Jan-07 SWA Workshop The risk workshop related to the input of the Wastewater Utility
Asset Management Engineer and the wet weather sampling program carried out by the team
2 15 30
M001 Jan-07 SWA Mentoring Management techniques and Operation and Maintenance mentoring being carried out with the WWD manager
1 5 5
T009 Feb-07 SWA OJT SWA, Environment Business Unit, and WWD staff worked together with environmental specialist to collect wet weather samples
1 6 6
T010 Mar-07 Environment Business Unit-SWA
OJT Water quality sampling training 7 3 21
T011 Apr-07 Ministry of Finance
workshop Discussion of MS 15 report to familiarize the government counterparts with the methodology used in the preparation of the tariffs and community service obligations. Provided skills to update the financial models at a later date.
1 7 7
T012 Apr-07 SWA workshop As above 1 5 5
Training Event No.a
Month Organization TrainingMethod
Training Event Title Participants
Total Training
Days
Total Trainees
Trainee Person Days
M002 Apr-07 SWA study tour The manager of SWA WWD was funded by WASSP to attend a pressure sewerage seminar in Melbourne
1 1 1
T013 May-07 SWA workshop Implementation of the community education and awareness campaign, highlighting the need for SWA staff to be updated on project activities
3 7 21
T014 Sep-07 SWA workshop The community liaison specialist conducted sessions with the SWA staff on project promotion and contribution into the project brochure
3 5 15
G003 Nov-07 SWA general Meeting with the APTC coordinators to discuss training for SWA staff. This is a trade training course planned for 2008. Possible course and candidates were discussed and both the organizers and SWA were reviewing the WWD requirement
1 7 7
T015 Feb-08 SWA general Assets management specialist conducted training activities relating to project management and preparations of draft Wastewater regulation.
1 12 12
T016 Apr-08 SWA general Risk management workshop 1 15 15T017 Apr-08 SWA/MOF general Interaction with the financial specialist related to data collection
and presentation of the consultant’s report to SWA and MOF 2 14 28
T018 Jun-08 SWA study tour A week-long principles and trends wastewater treatment training course in Wellington, NZ attended by two SWA WWD staff. This was funded by the WASSP
5 2 10
T019 Jul-08 SWA workshop Customer service guidelines and procedures 2 10 20G004 Jul-08 Local Schools workshop School awareness—education campaign at 12 schools during 2
days each 24 189 4,320
M003 Aug-08 SWA/PIAC workshop Hazard and Operability Plan workshop in Auckland as part of risk management for the WWTP. Visited a similar sequencing batch reactor plant to discuss plant operations and maintenance.
5 5 25
T020 Oct-08 SWA workshop Trade waste policy and procedures 1 16 16T021 Nov-08 SWA workshop Operations and maintenance of wastewater systems 1 17 17T022 Nov-08 SWA workshop Asset management workshop 1 17 17T023 Nov-08 SWA workshop Presentation on the grinder pump operation 1 9 9T024 Jan-09 PUMA workshop Presentation to PUMA on the operation of the sequencing batch
reactor WWTP by Reaman Industries 1 7 7
Appendix 3 27
28 Appendix 3
Training Event No.a
Month Organization TrainingMethod
Training Event Title Participants
Total Training
Days
Total Trainees
Trainee Person Days
T025 Feb-09 PRU-SWA workshop Trade waste policy and the customer agreement document
1 4 4
T026 Mar-09 EBU-SWA & PUMA staff
OJT Water quality monitoring training session—water sample collection techniques, sample documentation and chain of custody protocol, and sample storage and delivery requirements.
1 4 4
T027 Apr-09 to Feb 10
SWA OJT SWA staff regularly present at the wastewater treatment plant site inspecting work and regularly submitting reports on activities at the site. Staff are present during most of the concrete pours at the same time as the team leader and the various other aspects of civil construction and plant installation
60 2 120
T028 Apr-09 to June 10
SWA OJT SWA staff regularly present during sewer pipe network installation and testing and installation and commissioning of connections, inspecting work and submitting reports on activities at the site as guided by Project Implementation Assistant Consultant Team Leader
60 2 120
T029 Jul-09 SWA study tour Odour management in Australia for two representatives, funded by European Union WASSP
5 2 10
T030 Jan-Mar 2010
WWD and SWA
OJT Drilling training for WWD staff 20 2 40
T031 2010 SWA OJT Capacity of the pressure sewer system for future connections and design/decision criteria documentation
1 2 2
T032 2010 SWA OJT Sewer network operations and maintenance and use of guidelines and manuals
3 3 9
T033 2010 SWA OJT Grinder pump maintenance 7 3 21
APTC = Australia-Pacific Technical College, IOC = international official course, MOF = Ministry of Finance, MWTI = Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure, NOC = national official course, OJT = on-the-job training, PPMS = project performance management system, PUMA = Planning and Urban Management Agency, SWA = Samoa Water Authority, WASSP = Water Sector Support Program, WWTP = wastewater treatment plant , WWD =. Wastewater Division a Training Event No : T = technical, M = management , G = general. Source: Project Implementation Consultants
COMMUNITY AWARENESS PROGRAM
Activity No.
Date Activity Description Target Audience
Objective of Activity Impact / Effectiveness of Activity
1 22 Feb 2006 Newspaper article advertising the signing of the contract between GoS and GHD and explaining the project scope and objectives. Also shown on television news on 21 Feb (evening).
Apia residents Advise residents about the start of the project
Not known but many residents watched the evening news and would have seen the signing ceremony.
2 5 Apr 2007 Workshop with Sogi residents Residents in the Sogi area To explain the scope of the project in the Sogi area—the location of the WWTP, the alignment of the sewer system and the objectives of the project
All residents well aware of the project and project objectives
3 7 May 2007 Workshop with CBA residents CBA residents To explain the scope of the project in the CBA area—the location of the WWTP, the alignment of the sewer system, improvements in the drainage system and the objectives of the project
All residents well aware of the project and project objectives
4 22 May 2007 Workshop with Vaimoso residents Residents in Vaimoso Village in vicinity of Gasegase River
To advise residents in the area of the project’s floodway program including improvements to the Gasegase, Asaga and Fugalei Streams.
All residents well aware of the project and project objectives
5 23 May 2007 Radio talkback event Apia residents To explain the objectives and scope of the SSDP.
All residents well aware of the project and project objectives
6 Jun 2007–Dec2009
Various newspaper articles and stories on project activities throughout the implementation period. In addition, the SWA CEO and WWD manager involved in a number of radio and television programs
All Apia residents Continued focus on project scope and objectives and resulting environmental benefits.
Not known for sure but expected to be highly effective.
7 Jun 2007 Public meetings for landowners to explain the pressure sewer system, why it is needed and what it will mean for them.
Pressure sewer system customers To provide background information for customers about the pressure sewer system
Provided a good mechanism for initially informing people about the project, but not all information was available to answer questions at this stage. Further follow-up with individual landowners was planned and later conducted.
8 Jun–Jul 2007 Development of household survey questionnaire in June–July 2006. Survey of onsite sanitation conditions in the low- lying areas of Apia undertaken late 2006, data
About 800 households in low lying areas
To gather data for assessment of existing septic tank and household socioeconomic conditions.
Effective in determining overall status of situation and development of strategy for improvement of environment in low lying areas. Reported in
Appendix 4
29
30 Appendix 4
Activity No.
Date Activity Description Target Audience
Objective of Activity Impact / Effectiveness of Activity
entry and analysis complete Feb 2007, resurvey June–July 07.
Technical Advisory Note No. 4 (draft March 2007, final March 2008).
9 Dec 2007 Project brochure: highlighting main objectives of the project focusing mainly on the pressure sewer system
Public Providing a snapshot of the project for stakeholders (members of the community and others)
Distributed in many of the workshops consultations and school and community visits
10 Mar 2008 SSDP Community Fact File A 1-day/week newspaper fact file targeting the wider community regarding sanitation issues and practices affecting their communities and especially the environment on which some of the community members depend on for their livelihoods and other economic activity. Total duration: 4 months
Community General awareness of community regarding SSDP and problems it was setting out to address, especially the poor sanitation practices resulting in degradation of the environment and the effect of disposal affecting food and water supply sources, in urban and rural areas.
Effective in relation to coverage, however, impact would have been greater if not for budget constraints.
11 Mar 2008 Sunday newspaper feature article—the use of new technology
All Apia residents The environmental problems facing Apia and how the SSDP is a start to improving the situation.
Not known but most households read the Sunday paper.
12 Apr 2008 – Mar 2009
SSDP Schools outreach program—a number of workshops with teachers of each of the 12 schools were delivered to present overall objectives of the project for which each of the schools would then create awareness activities.
Teachers To better equip teachers of the various schools with project content and activities enabling teacher and student appreciation and understanding of SSDP, furthermore to assist with examples
By working with the teachers to provide them with information about sanitation and drainage the impact is more widely felt. They can then continue to pass this information on to all their students year after year.
13 May 2008 SSDP School visits: The team conducted school visits to all of the 12 schools. Presentations regarding effects of poor and unsafe sanitation on their environment and future; targeted higher-level primary and secondary students, except for one primary school that requested that all students (years 1–8) be included. Schools were selected from within the project area.
Schools Providing awareness among students on the importance of proper and safe sanitation practices, including how the project would contribute to a better and safe town and city environment. The long-term goal is to change the behavior of young people to further improve environmental health (currently and in the future).
Students were able to demonstrate a very good understanding of the sanitation issues in some of their stories and other activities like songs and skits for their peers and the public.
14 Sep 2008 SSDP Calendar. Each of the 12 schools set up an art and short story and poetry competition within the schools to choose a winning piece to be presented in the SSDP calendar. The calendar spans July
Schools and community Using art and print media provided by the various schools to promote the work of SSDP.
Distribution to schools, the business community, government departments, and the general public. 500 calendars in total have been handed out. When calendars are placed in
Activity No.
Date Activity Description Target Audience
Objective of Activity Impact / Effectiveness of Activity
2009–June 2010. Schools were given calendars to distribute and sell with money going into individual accounts set up at the ANZ Bank. Calendar included sponsors, ROBT Stone, Infrastructure Construction, Blue Bird Ahlal and Pacific Water Association
people’s homes or businesses there is a constant reminder of messages and they become a talking point.
15 Sep 2008–Oct 2009
Radio advertising: Using radio to communicate key messages on the impacts of poor sanitation on the community and environment and what SSDP hoped to achieve to counter some of the problems. Advertisements (in English and Samoan) were played before and after the local news slots.
Community listening to radio Public awareness on the project and promoting safe sanitation for Apia and all of Samoa.
Coverage was extensive, but additional funding would be required to run these sorts of campaigns in future to fully realize the impact.
16 Sep 2008–Oct 2009
Radio interviews. Specific interview slots were arranged with radio stations. SWAs rural water supply project also provided time slots on their radio slots for interviews with the wastewater division regarding objectives of SSDP and its impact on improving the social and economic development of all communities.
Community Public awareness on the project and promoting safe sanitation for Apia and all of Samoa.
Coverage was extensive, but additional funding would be required to run these sorts of campaigns in future to fully realize the impact.
17 Oct 2008 Mini-marathon conducted around the main CBA of the project. School teams consisted of 15 students each, with about 200 persons in attendance. The activity was run parallel with the Pacific Water Conference, held in Apia in the same week. Students prepared skits and songs (using the theme “putting Apia’s health at heart”) and performed them at allocated spots along the route. Schools also chose a marine organism they saw as being endangered as a result of unsafe sanitation practices.
Schools and public. Continue to drive home to community the importance of ensuring safe sanitation health and wealth principle.
Very successful activity. Attracted much public attention especially as the students ran through the town CBA (police escort) stopping at selected (3) spots to perform their 5 minute skits and promoting “putting Apia’s health at heart.” Appendix 4
31
32 Appendix 4
Activity No.
Date Activity Description Target Audience
Objective of Activity Impact / Effectiveness of Activity
18 Nov 2008 Public Displays: hosted by ANZ Bank for 2 months. Art, poetry and short stories contributions by students from each of the 12 schools were displayed at the main ANZ headquarters foyer where the public could view the works by the students. Further opportunities to push the presence of the project and its objectives
General public Creating partnerships with other stakeholders (in this case the banking community to host the display), stressing the importance of the project to their business and to a healthy and safe environment.
Given its location and time of the year (Christmas) many visitors and locals passed through and while attending to their business also took time to view the display and made queries on other related sanitation issues.
19 Feb 2009 T-shirts for marathon with the phrase “Putting Apia’s health at heart”. Schools were given a set number of T-shirts to sell and the money received from sales was banked in the school bank account dedicated to sanitation activities in the schools.
Schools and community A walking advertisement for the project and promoting the theme “Putting Apia’s Health at Heart”.
Close to 700 t-shirts have been distributed or sold.
20 28 Mar 2009 The SSDP marathon (7 kilometers). The route for the run followed the main sewer line route.
Business community, donor community, schools and the general public. Close to 800 persons attended the run.
Creating awareness about the sewer system project and the environmental benefits. Developing partnerships through exercise activity (jog, run, walk)—e.g., a couple of sports shops sponsored prizes for the activity.
A very positive turnout. There are indications that SWA may run this as an annual event.
21 Jul 2009–Aug 2009
Poster, TV and radio awareness program prepared and implemented by Blue Bird, contractor for the drainage and floodways improvement works
All Apia residents Awareness raising of drainage construction works to be carried out over the following weeks.
Majority of residents are now aware of the benefits of the project.
22 Jun 2009–Feb 2010
Meetings with residents on Convent Street extension—potential route of pipeline and compensation if appropriate.
Customary and private land owners and users along Convent Street ext.
To obtain agreement for the pipeline to pass through along the alignment on the proposed new road.
Eventual outcome positive
23 Apr 2009–Jan 2010
Installation agreement meetings and consultations with property owners. These were a series of meetings formal and informal to ensure that clients and landowners understood the scheme; what was required and acquire signatures to formalize partnership with SWA. Explained that this would be followed up by customer agreement consultation at later stage.
Landowners impacted by sewer system and onsite sanitation and plumbing works
Ensuring potential sewer system customers understood conditions regarding installation agreements. To ensure access to land and agree to arrangements for onsite pipe work rehabilitation and decommissioning on existing septic tanks.
Very effective in resolving some of the issues, especially regarding cost and concerns or fears on performance and dependability of the system, citing their experience with similar government projects in the past.
Activity No.
Date Activity Description Target Audience
Objective of Activity Impact / Effectiveness of Activity
24 Apr 2009–Jan 2010
Installation agreement meetings and consultations for septic tank construction in priority areas. Series of meetings to ensure that property owners and users understood the improvement scheme, what they were required to do and the impact of the scheme.
Landowners and users impacted by the septic tank re-construction scheme.
Ensuring customers understood conditions regarding installation agreements and to acquire signatures formalizing SWA and client partnerships. Obtain agreement to access the land for the works.
Very effective in resolving some of the issues, especially regarding cost and concerns or fears on performance and dependability of the system, citing their experience with similar government projects in the past.
25 Dec 2009–Jan 2010
Land acquisition discussions with impacted landowners.
Landowners impacted by sewer system and onsite sanitation works
Ensuring landowners understood conditions regarding land acquisition and compensation.
Assisted in providing vital information regarding the sewerage system during negotiations between affected parties and the government
26 Jan to Jun 2010 & ongoing
Consultation with property lessees and users on an individual basis to explain the Customer Agreement.
Property users Explain duties and responsibilities of property owners—SWA service to be provided and property user payments to be made.
Positive
27 11 Jun 2010
Official opening of the WWTP by the Prime Minister. Substantial segment about the project and specifically the treatment plant and how it operates on television and feature article in daily newspaper
All Apia residents Explanation of project and the WWTP operations
Television program screened at prime time as part of newscast watched by majority of Apia residents
28 Mid Jun–Aug 2010
Consultation with participants of onsite sanitation scheme during construction
Participants of scheme Agree location and level of septic tank and on-site plumbing works. Sign off agreement – contractor / householder / SWA
Effective – construction commissioning sheets signed off.
CBA = central business area, CEO = chief executive officer, GHD = Gutteridge Hanskins Davey, GoS = Government of Samoa, SSDP = Samoa Strategy and Development Plan, SWA = Samoa Water Authority, WWD = Wastewater Division, WWTP = wastewater treatment plant Source: Project Implementation Consultants
Appendix 4 33
34 Appendix 5
APPRAISAL, REVISED ESTIMATES, AND ACTUAL PROJECT COSTS ($ million)
Original Suppl.
Appraisal Estimate Revised Estimate Actual
Item Foreign Exchange
Local Currency Total Total Total
A. Drainage 1. Rehabilitation of Existing Drains 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.69 3.311
2. Rehabilitation of Floodways 0.00 1.40 1.40 1.92 3. Hydraulic Modeling and Gauging Stations 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 Subtotal (A) 0.30 1.90 2.20 2.61 3.31 B. Sanitation 1. Individual Systems 0.30 1.30 1.60 0.61 0.20
2. Central Business and Special Needs Areas 0.90 1.50 2.40 6.92 10.32 Subtotal (B) 1.20 2.80 4.00 7.53 10.52 C. Capacity Building and Project Implementation 1. Technical and Utility Management 0.60 0.10 0.60 0.00 0.002
2. Community Awareness 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.002
3. Twinning Arrangement 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.003
4. PIA Consultancy Services 0.40 0.10 0.60 1.50 2.40 5. PMU Consultancy Services 0.30 0.20 0.48 0.64 6. Incremental Administration 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.45 Subtotal (C) 1.20 0.70 1.90 2.14 3.49 D. Taxes and Duties 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 0.43 E. Base Costs (A+B+C+D) 2.70 5.30 8.10 14.44 17.75 F. Contingencies 1. Physical 0.30 0.50 0.70 2.17 2. Price 0.20 0.50 0.60 0.63 Subtotal (F) 0.50 1.00 1.30 2.80 G. Service Charge during Construction 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.56 0.16 Total 3.70 6.30 10.00 17.81 17.91 PIA = project implementation assistance, PMU = project management unit Note: Numbers may sum precisely because of rounding. 1 Floodway and drainage contract was one contract so the costs cannot be split to separate components. 2 These components were combined into the PIA consultancy. 3 The twinning arrangement was shelved due to funding constraints. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.
Appendix 6 35
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (1 January–31 December)
Year
ST to $1.00
2003 3.0209 2004 2.7897 2005 2.6217 2006 2.7406 2007 2.6479 2008 2.5948 2009 2.6803 2010 2.4419 2011a 2.2614
a 2011 exchange rate is based on 1 January–16 September 2011. Source: Asian Development Bank.
36 Appendix 7
SUMMARY OF CONTRACTS FUNDED BY THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
Table A7.1: Summary of Contracts Funded by the Asian Development Bank (Loan 2026) PCSS No.
Contractor/Supplier
Description
Contract Amount ($)
$ Equivalent
A. Category 01A: Civil Works-Drainage 0004 Bluebird/Ah Lal Joint Venture Construction works for
floodways and drainage ST 8,888,385.75
ST 6,130,458.94
Subtotal (A) $3,788,230.46 $2,485,733.97
B. Category 01B: Civil Works–Sanitation 0005 Infrastructure Constructions Construction works for
pressure sewer US$ 1,310,931.00
ST 5,929,063.00
A$ 4,163,883.02
2,490,799.35 3,791,626.89
0006 Robert Stonea Construction works for wastewater treatment plant
NZ$ 5,599,992.00 [= $3,702,155.85]
ST1,570,762.40 [= $573,113.68]
NZ$ 448,050.00
4,276,269.53 272,190.38 Subtotal (B) 6,767,068.88 4,063,817.27
C. Category 02A: Equipment-Drainage 0 0 Subtotal (C) 0 0
D. Category 02B: Equipment-Sanitation 0006 Robert Stonea Equipment for wastewater
treatment NZ$ 41,200.00
25,029.00 Subtotal (D) 25,029.00
E. Category 03: Allocation for Additional Special Needs Areas
- - 0 0 Subtotal (E) 0 0
F. Category 04: Design 0006 Robert Stonea Design for wastewater
treatment plant NZ$25,750.00
Subtotal (F) 15,643.12
G. Category 05: Consulting Services 0001 KEW Consult Ltd. (PMU
consultant) Consulting services for project management services
ST 879,720.00
ST 879,719.95
369,746.30 327,468.88
0003 GHD Pty. Ltd. (PIA consultants)
Consulting services for project implementation assistance
US$ 439,259.00 US$ 235,107.45
A$ 770,937.00 [= $611,584.00]
A$1,341,563.06 [= $1,030,109.29]
ST 782,158 [= $288,225.24]
ST 884,772.78 [= $321,002.59]
$1,339,069 $1,586,219.33 Subtotal (G) 1,708,815.30 1,913,688.21 Total 12,264,114.64 8,503,911.57
PIA = project implementation assistance, PCSS = procurement contract summary sheet, PMU = project management unit. a Same contract split into three categories. Source: Asian Development Bank.
Appendix 7 37
Table A7.2: Summary of Contracts Funded by the Asian Development Bank (Loan 2440) PCSS No.
Contractor/Supplier
Description
Contract Amount ($)
$ Equivalent
A. Category 01: Civil Works-Sogi Wastewater Treatment Plant
- - - 0 0 Subtotal (A) 0 0
B. Category 02A: Equipment-Sogi Wastewater Treatment Plant
0001 Robert Stone Equipment for wastewater treatment plant
NZ$ 5,599,992.00 [= $4,327,673.35] ST 1,570,762.40 [= $663,961.27]
NZ$ 3,438,448.54
Subtotal (B) 4,991,634.62 2,202,838.53 C. Category 02B: Equipment-Pressure Sewerage 0002 Infrastructure Construction - US$ 1,310,931.00
ST 5,929,063.00 [= $2,464,118.35
A$ 398,954.63
Subtotal (C) 3,775,049.35 393,800.69 Total 8,766,683.97 2,596,639.22
PCSS = procurement contract summary sheet. Source: Asian Development Bank.
Table A7.3: Summary of Contracts Funded by the Asian Development Bank (Grant 0114)
PCSS No.
Contractor/Supplier
Description
Contract Amount ($)
$ Equivalent
A. Category 01: Civil works-Septic Tank Program G041
62 Craig Construction Ltd. Construction works for
onsite sanitation ST 722,872.35
ST 62,858.47
Subtotal (A) 298,473.98 25,206.25
B. Category 02: Equipment-Sogi Wastewater Treatment Plant G025
19 Robert Stone Equipment for wastewater
treatment plant NZ$ 5,599,992.00 [= $4,427,914.24] ST 1,570,762.40 [= $680,297.07]
NZ$ 2,891,942.96
Subtotal (B) 5,108,211.31 1,858,995.18 C. Category 03: Consulting Services G025
72 KEW Consult Ltd. Consulting services for
project management services
ST 876,727.80
ST495,541.80
373,661.43 190,741.70
G03398
GHD Pty. Ltd. Consulting services for project implementation assistance
A$ 175,535.58
A$ 175,535.58
146,684.50 145,000.26 Subtotal (C) 520,345.93 335,741.96 Total 5,927,031.22 2,219,943.39
PCSS = procurement contract summary sheet. Source: Asian Development Bank.
38 Appendix 8
Table A8.1: CUMULATIVE PROJECTED AND ACTUAL DISBURSEMENTS for LOAN 2026
($ million) Year Projected Actual 2004 0.46 0.30 2005 1.53 0.30 2006 3.39 0.78 2007 5.96 1.24 2008 8.00 2.96 2009 5.30 2010 8.48 2011 8.64
Source: Asian Development Bank Loan Financial Information System.
Appendix 8 39
Table A8.2: CUMULATIVE PROJECTED AND ACTUAL DISBURSEMENTS LOAN 2044
($ million) Year Projected Actual 2008 0.99 2009 2.02 1.80 2010 2.78 2.62 2011 2.62
Source: Asian Development Bank Loan Financial Information System.
40 Appendix 8
Table A8.3: CUMULATIVE PROJECTED AND ACTUAL DISBURSEMENTS GRANT 0114
($ million) Year Projected Actual 2008 0.79 2009 1.61 1.82 2010 2.22 2.21 2011 2.22
Source: Asian Development Bank Grant Financial Information System.
Appendix9
41
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Quarter no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Component A: Drainage
Component B: Sanitation1. Individual Systems (Septic Tanks)
2. Sewerage System
Component C: Capacity Building and Project Management
Appraisal
Actual
2010 2011
a. Prelininary Design and Documentation
2008 200920072004 2005 2006Components
e. Strom Drain Improvements
a. Prelininary Design and Documentation
b. Tendering
c. Rehabilitation of septic tanks in low lying areas
b. Tendering
c. Evaluation and Award of Contract
1. Technical and Utility Management
d. Septic tank maintenance and rehabilitation scheme
a. Prelininary Design and Documentation
2. Community Awareness
3. Twinning Arrangement
e. Hydraulic Modelling
b. Tendering
5. PIA consultants
d. Floodway Improvements
e. (ii) Pressure Sewerage Network Design, Construction, Commissioning
e. (iii) On-site Sanitation (Septic Tanks) Construction
f. WWTP Operations Contract
4. PMU
c. (i) Evaluation and Award of Contract - WWTP
c. (ii) Evaluation and Award of Contract - Sewers
d. (iii) Evaluation and Award of Contract - On-site sanitation
e. (i) Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, Construction, Commissioning
ComponentShelved
Ongoing for 5 years
Financed by EU under the HYCOS Program
ComponentShelved
EU = European Union; HYCOS = Hydrological Cycle Observing System; PIA = Project Implementation Assistance; PMU = Project Management Unit; Q = Quarter; WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plant. Source: Asian Development Bank.
42 Appendix 10
CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS
Date Event 2002 29 May The Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved TA3860-SAM.a 2003
17 February–6 March Fact-finding mission fielded. 14–22 May Pre-appraisal mission fielded. 27 November ADB approved Loan 2026-SAMb in the amount of SDR5,604,000 ($8 million equivalent). 2005
2–5 May Inception mission fielded. 30 August Loan 2026-SAM became effective. 29 November Project management unit consultants appointed. 2006
13–17 February Loan review mission fielded. 21 February Project implementation assistance (PIA) consultants appointed for the design and
supervision of the project components. 2007 21 January Invitations to bid for drainage and floodways contract, pressure sewers contract, and
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) contract issued. 16 April Closing date for submission of bids for the drainage and floodways contract. 30 April Closing date for submission of bids for the pressure sewers contract, and WWTP contract. 18 June The government requested that ADB approve re-bidding of the drainage and floodways
contract, pressure sewers contract, and the WWTP contract in accordance with the recommendations of the bid evaluation committees.
21 June ADB advised the government that it had no objection to re-bidding the drainage and floodways contract, pressure sewers contract, and the WWTP contract.
28 June Invitations for news bids for the drainage and floodways contract was issued. July Invitations for new bids for the pressure sewers contract, and WWTP contract issued. 13 August Closing date for submission of bids for the drainage and floodways contract. 17 September Closing date for submission of bids for the pressure sewers contract, and WWTP contract. 17–21 September Special loan administration mission fielded. 8 October Government requested supplementary financing from ADB in the amount of $4.5 million
equivalent. 2008 21 January Drainage and floodways contract. 25 March–4 April Midterm review mission fielded. Recommendation to extend loan closing from 30 June
2009 to 31 December 2010. 1 April Pressure sewers contract awarded. May WWTP contract awarded. 13 June WWTP contract signed. July Supplementary financing appraisal mission. September Floodways and drainage detailed design submitted by the contractor declined. November Bluebird Ah LAL changed their designer and recruited Wood & Partners. 2009
January WWTP construction begins. February Infrastructure construction submitted their revised costing after detailed design. 4 March New drainage and floodway detailed design submitted. 9–13 March Loan review mission fielded. March Infrastructure construction mission to discuss further with the client their increased costs. 23 March Prime Minister and cabinet stopped the WWTP construction for 3 days.
Appendix 10 43
Date Event 3 June Bluebird Ah LAL commenced their construction of drainage and floodways. 22 June Tenders Board approved variation costs for both Infrastructure Construction and Robt
Stone. 2010 10 February Minor change in scope and reallocation of loan funds approved. 16–18 February Loan review mission fielded. 5 March Delegation of loan administration from Manila to ADB Suva office. 4 August Major change in implementation arrangements and reallocation of funds for L2026-SAM
approved. 17–24 August Loan review mission fielded. 18 October Executing agency requested a reallocation of categories in L2026, L2440 and G0114. 5 November Major change in implementation arrangements arising from reallocation of funds and
increase in local cost ceiling approved. 30 November Executing agency requested a final reallocation of funds between categories for L2026,
L2440 and G0114. 6 December Minor change in implementation arrangements arising from reallocation of funds
approved. 2011 9 May Cancellation of undisbursed grant balance and closure of loans and grant accounts. 12–16 September Project completion review mission fielded.
G = grant, L = loan. a ADB. 2002. Technical Assistance to the Independent State of Samoa for Implementation of the Planning and Urban Management Strategy. Manila (TA3860-SAM). b ADB. 2003. Report and Recommendation of the President to Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan and Technical Assistance Grant to the Independent State of Samoa for the Sanitation and Drainage Project. Manila (Loan 2026-SAM). Source: Asian Development Bank.
44 Appendix 11
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH MAJOR LOAN COVENANTS (Loan 2026-SAM)
Covenant Reference in Loan
Agreement Status of
Compliance Particular Covenants The Borrower shall cause MWTI and SWA to carry out the Project with due diligence and efficiency and in conformity with sound administrative, financial, social, engineering, environmental and public utility practices.
Article IV, Section 4.01 (a)
Complied with.
In the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities, the Borrower shall perform, or cause to be performed, all obligations set forth in Schedule 6 to this Loan Agreement.
Article IV, Section 4.01 (b)
Complied with.
The Borrower shall make available, promptly as needed, the funds, facilities, services, land and other resources which are required, in addition to the proceeds of the Loan, for the carrying out of the Project.
Article IV, Section 4.02 Complied with.
In the carrying out of the Project, the Borrower shall cause competent and qualified consultants and contractors, acceptable to the Borrower and the Bank, to be employed to an extent and upon terms and conditions satisfactory to the Borrower and the Bank.
Article IV, Section 4.03 (a)
Complied with.
The Borrower shall cause the Project to be carried out in accordance with plans, design standards, specifications, work schedules and construction methods acceptable to the Borrower and the Bank. The Borrower shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to the Bank, promptly after their preparation, such plans design standards, specifications and work schedules, and any material modifications subsequently made therein, in such detail as the Bank shall reasonably request.
Article IV, Section 4.03 (b)
Complied with.
The Borrower shall ensure that the activities of its departments and agencies with respect to the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities are conducted and coordinated in accordance with sound administrative policies and procedures.
Article IV, Section 4.04 Complied with.
The Borrower shall make arrangements satisfactory to the Bank for insurance of the Project facilities to such extent and against such risks and in such amounts as shall be consistent with sound practice.
Article IV, Section 4.05 (a)
Complied with.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Borrower undertakes to insure, or cause to be insured, the goods to be imported for the Project and to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan against hazards incident to the acquisition, transportation and delivery thereof to the place of use or installation, and for such insurance any indemnity shall be payable in a currency freely usable to replace or repair such goods.
Article IV, Section 4.05 (b)
Complied with.
The Borrower shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, records and accounts adequate to identify the goods and services and other items of expenditure financed out of the proceeds of the Loan, to disclose the use thereof in the Project, to record the progress of the Project (including the cost thereof) and to reflect, in accordance with consistently maintained sound accounting principles, the operations and financial condition of the agencies of the Borrower responsible for the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities, or any part thereof.
Article IV, Section 4.06 (a)
Complied with.
Appendix 11 45
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
The Borrower shall (i) maintain, or cause to be maintained, separate accounts for the Project; (ii) have such accounts and related financial statements audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing standards consistently applied, by independent auditors whose qualifications, experience and terms of reference are acceptable to the Bank; (iii) furnish to the Bank, as soon as available but in any event not later than 9 months after the end of each related fiscal year, certified copies of such audited accounts and financial statements and the report of the auditors relating thereto (including the auditors’ opinion on the use of the Loan proceeds and compliance with the covenants of this Loan Agreement as well as on the use of the procedures for imprest account / statement of expenditures), all in the English language; and (iv) furnish to the Bank such other information concerning such accounts and financial statements and the audit thereof as the Bank shall from time to time reasonably request.
Article IV, Section 4.06 (b)
Complied with.
The Borrower shall enable the Bank, upon the Bank’s request, to discuss the Borrower’s financial statements for the Project and its financial affairs related to the Project from time to time with the Borrower’s auditors, and shall authorize and require any representative of such auditors to participate in any such discussions requested by the Bank, provided that any such discussion shall be conducted only in the presence of an authorized officer of the Borrower unless the Borrower shall otherwise agree.
Article IV, Section 4.06 (c)
Complied with.
The Borrower shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to the Bank all such reports and information as the Bank shall reasonably request concerning (i) the Loan, and the expenditure of the proceeds and maintenance of the service thereof; (ii) the goods and services and other items of expenditure financed out of the proceeds of the Loan; (iii) the Project; (iv) the administration, operations and financial condition of SWA and MWTI; (v) financial economic conditions in the territory of the Borrower and the international balance-of-payments position of the Borrower; and (vi) any other matters relating to the purposes of the Loan.
Article IV, Section 4.07 (a)
Complied with.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Borrower shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to the Bank quarterly reports on the carrying out of the Project and on the operation and management of the Project facilities. Such reports shall be submitted in such form and in such detail and within such a period as the Bank shall reasonably request, and shall indicate, among other things, proposed to be taken to remedy these problems, and proposed program of activities and expected progress during the following quarter.
Article IV, Section 4.07 (b)
Complied with.
Promptly after physical completion of the Project, but in any event not later than 3 months thereafter or such later date as may be agreed for this purpose between the Borrower and the Bank, the Borrower shall prepare and furnish to the Bank a report, in such form and in such detail as the Bank shall reasonably request, on the execution and initial operation of the Project, including its cost, the performance by the Borrower of its obligations under this Loan Agreement and the accomplishment of the purpose of the Loan.
Article IV, Section 4.07 (c)
Complied with.
The Borrower shall enable the Bank’s representatives to inspect the Project, the goods financed out of the proceeds of the Loan, and any relevant records and documents.
Article IV, Section 4.08 Complied with.
46 Appendix 11
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
The Borrower shall ensure that the Project facilities are operated, maintained and repaired in accordance with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental, and maintenance and operational practices.
Article IV, Section 4.09 Complied with.
The Borrower shall take all action which shall be necessary on its part to enable SWA to perform its obligations under the Project Agreement, and shall not take or permit any action which would interfere with the performance of such obligations.
Article IV, Section 4.10 Complied with.
The Borrower shall exercise its rights under the Subsidiary Loan Agreement in such a manner as to protect the interests of the Borrower and the Bank and to accomplish the purposes of the Loan.
Article IV, Section 4.11 (a)
Complied with.
No rights or obligations under the Subsidiary Loan Agreement shall be assigned, amended, or waived without the prior concurrence of the Bank.
Article IV, Section 4.11 (b)
Complied with.
It is the mutual intention of the Borrower and the Bank that no other external debt owed a creditor other than the Bank shall have any priority over the Loan by way of a lien on the assets of the Borrower. To that end, the Borrower undertakes (i) that, except as the Bank may otherwise agree, if any lien shall be created on any assets of the Borrower as security for any external debt, such lien will ipso facto equally and ratably secure the payment of the principal of, and interest charge and any other charge on, the Loan; and (ii) that the Borrower, in creating or permitting the creation of any such lien, will make express provision to that effect.
Article IV, Section 4.12 (a)
Complied with.
The provisions of paragraph (a) of this Section shall not apply to (i) any lien created on property, at the time of chase thereof, solely as security for payment of the purchase price of such property; or (ii) any lien arising in the ordinary course of banking transactions and securing a debt maturing not more than one year after its date.
Article IV, Section 4.12 (b)
Complied with.
The term “assets of the Borrower” as used in paragraph (a) of this Section includes assets of any agency of the Borrower, including the assets of the Central Bank of Samoa and any other institution performing the functions of a central bank for the Borrower.
Article IV, Section 4.12 (c)
Complied with.
Project Executing Agency In its capacity as Project Executing Agency, MOF shall have overall responsibility for implementing the Project
Schedule 6, para.1 Complied with.
Project Steering Committee The Project Steering Committee (PSC) shall supervise overall project implementation. The PSC shall be chaired by the chief executive officer of MOF and shall be co-chaired by the managing director of SWA and the CEOs of MWTI and MNRE and shall include the following members: the CEOs of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development, and the general manager of the Electric Power Corporation.
Schedule 6, para. 2 Complied with.
Project Implementing Agencies PMU. MOF shall be responsible for carrying out Part C(iv). Project Management Unit
(a) A PMU shall be headed by a full time project manager/ Schedule 6, para.4 Delayed
Appendix 11 47
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
procurement specialist acceptable to the Bank and shall be assisted by coordinators from each of the Project Implementing Agencies and PUMA. The PMU shall be assisted by the project implementation consultants engaged under the Project working through the Project Implementing Agencies (b) The Borrower shall ensure that, by 30 July 2004, the Project Manager will be appointed and such position will be retained until the completion of the Project construction activities.
compliance.
Organization of SWA The Borrower shall ensure that by 31 August 2004, (a) a dedicated division with adequate staffing will be established within SWA to carry out wastewater management and sanitation services; and (b) the corporate plan of SWA will be revised to reflect this role. The Borrower shall ensure that throughout the Project implementation, no material organization changes to (either financial, operational, or structural), nor material asset transfers to or from, SWA will be made without prior approval of the Bank, if such changes would affect the ability of the Borrower or SWA to perform their respective obligations under the Project Agreement and the Subsidiary Loan Agreement.
Schedule 6, para. 5 Schedule 6, para. 6
Complied with. Complied with.
Wastewater Management The Borrower shall ensure that: (i) by 30 June 2005, the existing building and planning standards will be revised with consideration of the recommendations provided under the TA
Schedule 6, para. 7 (i) Delayed compliance.
(ii) by 31 December 2005, the cabinet will develop and adopt an appropriate act or acts concerning wastewater management that will (a) clearly define institutional roles for wastewater management and sanitation; (b) establish requirements and procedures for development of regulations, guidelines and standards for wastewater management covering, inter alia, industrial and trade waste discharges to the wastewater system (including pre-treatment standards), the environment, WWTP effluent standards, and ambient water quality standards; (c) require connection to a centralized system where one exists; and (e) provide for independent monitoring of utility service providers;
Schedule 6, para. 7 (ii) Delayed compliance.
(iii) the regulations, guidelines and standards mentioned in subparagraph (ii) above will be developed by 31 December 2006, and implemented by 30 September 2007.
Schedule 6, para. 7 (iii) Delayed compliance.
Operation and Maintenance Drainage System
The Borrower shall ensure that, by 31 July 2005, MWTI will implement a comprehensive drainage O&M program through contracting of the private sector, participation of community groups, and involvement of appropriate stakeholders.
Schedule 6, para. 8 Complied with. Now under LTA and not MWTI
Counterpart Funds, User Charges and CSOs
The Borrower shall ensure that the counterpart financing necessary for the Project is provided and disbursed in a timely manner to enable completion of Project activities, and that additional counterpart funding will be provided for any shortfall in funds or cost overruns.
Schedule 6, para. 9 Complied with.
48 Appendix 11
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
The Borrower shall ensure that: (a) By 31 December 2005, an appropriate wastewater tariff and
environmental fee will be endorsed by a cabinet directive and implemented upon commissioning of the Project facilities such that (i) the wastewater tariff and environmental fee cover at minimum the cost of O&M and management; and (ii) no entity, whether any government agency, institution or enterprise, regardless of ownership, will be granted an exemption from the wastewater tariff established pursuant to the above, or granted a preferential rate, or excused for delays in payments without penalties
(b) The impact of any user charges on poor is reviewed and appropriate measures introduced to protect the basic living standards of the poor.
Schedule 6, para. 10 Partly complied with. Tariffs were approved by the Revenue Board, on 25 August 2011 and cabinet approved on 5 October 2011.
The Borrower shall ensure that (i) the provision of CSOs of SWA for both water and wastewater services and government funding for such CSOs are annually approved in accordance with procedures established under the Public Bodies Act, and (ii) sufficient budget funds for CSOs are allocated and disbursed in a timely manner to finance the difference between the established tariff and full cost recovery (that covers O&M, management, debt service, and a rate of return to be agreed upon between MOF and SWA).
Schedule 6, para. 11 Complied with.
Environment
The Borrower shall ensure that: (i) implementation of the Project will be carried out in accordance with all existing environmental laws, regulations, and standards of the Borrower and the Bank’s guidelines and procedures, in particular, ADB’s Environmental Assessment Guidelines, 2003
Schedule 6, para. 12 (a) Complied with.
(ii) all environmental monitoring and mitigating measures identified in the IEE and associated environmental management plan (EMP) will be fully implemented and such monitoring and mitigation measures will be incorporated into design, bidding documents, and contracts;
Schedule 6, para. 12 (b) Complied with.
(iii) Monitoring and recording of the EMP implementation will be carried out under the guidance and supervision of PUMA and the monitoring information will be included in the Project progress reports to be submitted to the Bank.
Schedule 6, para 12 (c) Complied with.
Land Acquisition and Resettlement
The Borrower shall ensure that: (i) all land and rights-of-way required for the Project will be made
available in a timely manner, i.e. before the beginning of civil works on any affected property;
(ii) the provisions of the short Resettlement Plan (RP) including compensation and entitlements for affected persons (APs), will be implemented in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations of the Borrower, and ADB’s Handbook on Resettlement, A Guide to Good Practice;
(iii) sufficient counterpart funds for land acquisition and resettlement activities specified in the RP and any obligations in excess of the RP budget estimate, will be provided in a timely manner;
(iv) all APs will be at least as well off as they would have been in the absence of the Project;
(v) adequate staff and resources will be committed to supervision and internal monitoring of the implementation of the RP; and the RP will be updated as necessary to reflect any significant material changes of the Project scope, and such changes will
Schedule 6, para. 13 Complied with.
Appendix 11 49
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
be subject to approval of the Bank. The Borrower shall, by 30 June 2006, develop a land access and land acquisition plan for future drainage, wastewater, and sanitation works. The plan will (a) identify priority areas and processes for access and acquisition, and (b) provide for reservation of sufficient land at the WWTP site for future expansion and a reasonable buffer zone in accordance with relevant laws of the Borrower.
Schedule 6, para. 14
Delayed compliance.
Project Performance and Management System (PPMS) The Borrower shall ensure that within 6 months from the effective date, SWA and PMU will refine the PPMS framework, confirm achievable goals, refine monitoring and recording arrangements, and establish systems and procedures.
Schedule 6, para. 15 Delayed compliance.
Mid-Term Review ADB and the Borrower shall under a midterm review approximately 28 months after the effective date. The review shall include a detailed evaluation of the scope, implementation arrangements, achievement of scheduled targets and progress on the gender for policy reform and capacity building measures. A detailed review of the wastewater tariffs shall also be undertaken and feedback from the PPMS activities shall be analyzed.
Schedule 6, para. 16 Delayed compliance.
50 Appendix 11
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH MAJOR LOAN COVENANTS (L2440-SAM AND G0114)
Covenant Reference in Loan
Agreement Status of
Compliance Particular Covenants Subject to the provisions of this Financing Agreement, all of the provisions of Article IV of the initial Loan Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Financing Agreement by reference and shall have the same force and effect as if they were fully set forth herein.
FA, Article IV, Section 4.01
Complied with.
In the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities, the Beneficiary shall perform, or cause to be performed, all obligations set forth in Schedule 5 to this Financing Agreement and the Schedule to the Project Agreement.
FA, Article IV, Section 4.02
Complied with.
The Beneficiary shall enable ADB’s representatives to inspect the Project, the goods financed out of the proceeds of the Loan and the Grant, and any relevant records and documents.
FA, Article IV, Section 4.03
Complied with.
The Beneficiary shall take all action which shall be necessary on its part to enable SWA to perform its obligations under the Project Agreement, including the establishment and maintenance of tariffs as stipulated in Schedule 5 of this Financing Agreement, and shall not take or permit any action which would interfere with the performance of such obligations.
FA, Article IV, Section 4.04
Not complied with. Wastewater tariff was approved by cabinet on 5 October 2011.
The Beneficiary shall exercise its rights under the Subsidiary Loan Agreement in such a manner as to protect the interests of the Beneficiary and ADB and to accomplish the purpose of the Loan and the Grant.
FA, Article IV, Section 4.05 (a)
Complied with.
No rights or obligations under the Subsidiary Loan Agreement shall be assigned, amended, or waived without the prior concurrence of ADB.
FA, Article IV, Section 4.05 (b)
Complied with.
Project Executing Agency In its capacity as Project Executing Agency, MOF shall have overall responsibility for implementing the Project.
FA, Schedule 5, para. 1 Complied with.
Project Steering Committee The PSC already established by the Beneficiary pursuant to the initial Loan Agreement shall continue to supervise implementation of the Project. Members of the PSC shall be the chief executive officers of the MOF, MAF, MWCSD, MWTI, MNRE, and MOH, the General Manager of the Electrical Power Corporation and of SWA, a representative of SUNGO and the project management unit project managers of the WSPP.
FA, Schedule 5, para. 2 Complied with.
Project Implementing Agencies MWTI shall continue to be the Project Implementing Agency for Part A of the Project. SWA shall be the Project Implementing Agency for Part B and Parts C(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Project. Each Project Implementing Agency shall nominate a coordinator to assist the PMU. MOF shall be responsible for carrying out Part C(iv).
FA, Schedule 5, para.3 Complied with.
Project Management Unit The PMU shall be responsible for coordinating and managing Project activities and monitoring overall Project progress. The PMU shall be assisted by coordinators from each of the Project Implementing Agencies and from PUMA. The PMU shall provide
FA, Schedule 5, para.4 Complied with.
Appendix 11 51
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
accounting and administrative services. The PMU shall also be assisted by the project implementation assistance consultants engaged under the Project working through the Project Implementing Agencies. The coordinators shall report to the PSC through the Project Manager. Sewerage Tariffs and Maintenance Charges The Beneficiary shall ensure that, for each Fiscal Year starting 1 July 2009 until the Closing Date, SWA prepares, environmental charges and tariff reviews with respect to the septic tank subcomponent (Subcomponent B(i)) and the sewerage system subcomponent (Subcomponent B(ii)) sufficient to comply with the Cost Recovery Mechanism.
FA, Schedule 5, para.5 Not complied with. Tariffs were approved by cabineton 5 October 2011.
The Beneficiary shall ensure that SWA design and implements (a) an investment program and an operations and maintenance works program for the septic tanks subcomponent (Subcomponent B(i)); and (b) an operations and maintenance works program for the wastewater subcomponent (Subcomponent B(ii)), each in accordance with the Cost Recovery Mechanism approved by the cabinet for the relevant Fiscal Year.
FA, Schedule 5, para.6 Partly complied with. Maintenance program for septic tanks shelved as not in alignment with National Sanitation Policy.
The Beneficiary shall ensure that the impact of any user tariffs and environmental charges on the poor is reviewed before such changes are levied and appropriate measures, to be designed in consultation with ADB introduced to protect the basic living standards of the poor. The Beneficiary shall further ensure that (a) provision of community service obligations by SWA for both water and wastewater services and Government funding for such community service obligations are a annually approved in accordance with procedures established under the Public Bodies Act: and, (b) sufficient budget funds for community service obligations are allocated and disbursed in a timely manner.
FA, Schedule 5, para.7 Partially complied with. Tariffs approved by cabinet on 5 October 2011. Government will assist with a community service obligation.
Private Sector Participation The Beneficiary shall ensure that SWA actively explores opportunities to outsource operations and maintenance activities to the private sector in accordance with the procurement standards and procedures of the Government’s Tender Board.
FA, Schedule 5, para.8 Complied with.
Land Acquisition and Resettlement The Beneficiary shall ensure that the LARP is monitored and updated in compliance with (a) the relevant laws and regulations of the Beneficiary, and (b) ADB’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (1995), it being agreed by the Beneficiary that, in case of any discrepancy between the Beneficiary’s laws and regulations, and ADB’s policy, the ADB policy requirements shall apply.
FA, Schedule 5, para.9 Complied with.
Labor, Health and Safety Laws The Beneficiary shall ensure that all consultant’s and works contracts under the Project incorporate provisions and sufficient budget to require that all consultants and contractors: (a) comply with all applicable labor laws of the Beneficiary and related international treaty obligations and do not employ child labor; (b) do not provide differential wages or benefits to men and women for work of equal value; (c) comply with all applicable health, and safety laws and regulations, including access to basic water and sanitation facilities for men and women on the work sites as well as access on the work sites to separate toilet facilities for men and women; (d) provide day care service for the children of women
FA, Schedule 5, para.10 Complied with.
52 Appendix 11
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
employed in connection with the Project, if so requested; and (e) carry out HIV/AIDS prevention and awareness campaigns at the workers’ campsites and/or residences and social halls (in the case of non-local workers), and include community heads and women leaders, with such campaigns being held in coordination with the Beneficiary’s existing programs and other initiatives. Environment The Beneficiary shall ensure that (a) all Project facilities are designed, constructed, operated, maintained and monitored in compliance with the Beneficiary’s applicable environmental laws and regulations, and ADB’s Environment Policy (2002), it being agreed by the Beneficiary that, in case of any discrepancy between the Beneficiary’s laws and regulations, and ADB’s Environment Policy, the ADB policy requirements shall apply; and (b) the IEE is updated and submitted to ADB for clearance, and corresponding approval from the relevant Beneficiary authorities is obtained should there be changes in the Project design that would cause significant environmental impacts that are not included in the scope of the current IEE.
FA, Schedule 5, para. 11
Complied with.
In accordance with the EMP, the Beneficiary, through the PMU, shall cause (a) the contractors engaged under the works contracts to comply strictly with all environmental impact mitigation and monitoring requirements set out in the EMP and the contract documents, and (b) the consultants engaged for construction supervision to (i) closely monitor compliance of the contractors with the environmental impact mitigation and monitoring requirements and reporting requirements, and (ii) provide the PMU with the necessary assistance to improve its oversight of components (A)(iv)-(v) and (B)(i)(c) which will be carried out through EU financing.
FA, Schedule 5, para. 12
Complied with.
The Beneficiary shall ensure that the consultants, contractors and staff recruited for the EU-financed component coordinate closely with those recruited under this Financing Agreement
FA, Schedule 5, para.13 Complied with.
Gender and Employment The Beneficiary shall take all reasonable and necessary steps to encourage women living in Apia to participate in the implementation of the Project, including but not limited to, advertising job opportunities in women community centers, making public radio announcements informing women where to apply for a job and publishing newspaper advertisements stressing that women are encouraged to apply. The Beneficiary shall ensure that the PMU, as well as contractors and consultants employed for the Project do not discriminate against female applicants and shall expressly encourage them to employ women for both skilled and unskilled labor needs. In any instance where compensation for land acquired for the Project is paid, the Beneficiary shall ensure that such compensation is paid into a bank account opened and kept in the joint name of the husband and wife, where relevant.
FA, Schedule 5, para.14 Complied with.
Governance The PMU shall ensure that Project staff (including the PMU staff, contractors and consultants) are fully knowledgeable of and comply with the Beneficiary’s and ADB’s procedures, including, but not limited to, procedures for (i) implementation, (ii) procurement, (iii) use of consultant, (iv) disbursement, (v) reporting, (vi) monitoring, and (viii) prevention of fraud and corruption.
FA, Schedule 5, para.15 Complied with.
Appendix 11 53
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
Anti-Corruption The Beneficiary shall, and shall cause SWA to, comply with ADB’s Anticorruption Policy (1998). The Beneficiary and SWA agree: (a) that ADB reserves the right to investigate, directly or through its agents, and alleged corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practices relating to the Project; and (b) to cooperate fully with any such investigation and extend all necessary assistance, including providing access to all relevant information and records, for the satisfactory completion of any such investigation. SWA shall also: (a) conduct periodic inspections on the contractors’ activities relating to fund withdrawals and settlements; and (b) ensure that all contracts financed by ADB in connection with the Project include provisions specifying the right of ADB to audit and examine the records and accounts of all contractors, suppliers, consultants and other service providers of the Project.
FA, Schedule 5, para.16 Complied with.
Physical Component Maintenance Policy Within six months prior to the Project completion date, the Beneficiary and SWA, through the PMU, shall have confirmed maintenance plans for the physical components constructed under the Project, including budget and implementation arrangements, and submit them to ADB for review and concurrence.
FA, Schedule 5, para. 17
Not complied with.
EU Financing The Beneficiary shall ensure that the Project Safeguard Documents are applied to the entire Project, including the EU-financed portions of the Project (as identified in Schedule 1). The Beneficiary shall further ensure that all EU representatives, agents, staff, consultants and contractors are aware and familiar with the Project Safeguard Documents. The Beneficiary shall keep ADB informed on a quarterly basis on the progress in implementing the Project Safeguard Documents of the Project, including with respect to components (A)(iv)-(v) and (B)(i)(c), which will be carried out through EU Financing.
FA, Schedule 5, para. 18
Complied with.
SWA Management The Beneficiary shall ensure that a dedicated division with adequate staffing remains in place within SWA to carry out wastewater management and sanitation services throughout Project implementation
FA, Schedule 5, para. 19
Complied with.
Twinning Arrangement The Beneficiary shall identify a well-functioning wastewater utility (or similar organization) and enter into a twinning arrangement acceptable to ADB with such utility whereby the latter will assist the Beneficiary and SWA in developing the managerial, technical, and financial capabilities required for efficient management of a commercially oriented wastewater treatment utility.
FA, Schedule 5, para.20 Not complied with
Particular Covenants SWA shall carry out the Project with due diligence and efficiency, and in conformity with sound administrative, financial, engineering, and environmental practices. In the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities, SWA shall perform all obligations set forth in the Financing Agreement to the extent that they are applicable to SWA.
PA, Section 2.01 (a), (b) Complied with.
SWA shall make available, promptly as needed, the funds, facilities, services equipment, land and other resources which are required, in addition to the proceeds of the Loan and the Grant, for
PA, Section 2.02 Complied with.
54 Appendix 11
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
the carrying of the Project. In the carrying out of the Project, SWA shall employ competent and qualified consultants and contractors, acceptable to ADB, to an extent and upon terms and conditions satisfactory to ADB. Except as ADB may otherwise agree, all goods and services to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan and the Grant shall be procured in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 and Schedule 5 to the Financing Agreement. ADB may refuse to finance a contract where goods or services have not been procured under procedures substantially in accordance with those agreed between the Beneficiary and ADB or where the terms and conditions of the contract are not satisfactory to ADB.
PA, Section 2.03 (a), (b) Complied with.
SWA shall carry out the Project in accordance with plans, design standards, specifications, work schedules and construction methods acceptable to ADB. SWA shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to ADB, promptly after their preparation, such plans, design standards, specifications and work schedules, and any material modifications subsequently made therein, in such detail as ADB shall reasonably request.
PA, Section 2.04 Complied with.
SWA shall take out and maintain with responsible insurers, or make other arrangements satisfactory to ADB for insurance of the Project facilities to such extent and against such risks and in such amounts as shall be consistent with sound practice. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, SWA undertakes to insure, or cause to be insured, the goods to be imported for the Project and to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan or the Grant against hazards incident to the acquisition, transportation and delivery thereof to the place of use or installation, and for such insurance any indemnity shall be payable in a currency freely usable to replace or repair such goods.
PA, Section 2.05 (a), (b) Complied with.
SWA shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, records and accounts adequate to identify the goods and services and other items of expenditure financed out of the proceeds of the Loan or the Grant, to disclose the use thereof in the Project, to record the progress of the Project and to reflect, in accordance with consistently maintained sound accounting principles, its operations and financial condition.
PA, Section 2.06 Complied with.
ADB and SWA shall cooperate fully to ensure that the purpose of the Loan and the Grant will be accomplished. SWA shall promptly inform ADB of any condition which interferes with, or threatens to interfere with, the progress of the Project, the performance of its obligations under this Project Agreement or the Subsidiary Loan Agreement, or the accomplishment of the purposes of the Loan and the Grant. ADB and SWA shall from time to time, at the request of either party, exchange views through their representatives with regard to any matters relating to the Project, SWA and the Loan and the Grant.
PA, Section 2.07 (a), (b), (c)
Complied with.
Appendix 11 55
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
SWA shall furnish to ADB all such reports and information as ADB shall reasonably request concerning (i) the Loan and the Grant and the expenditure of the proceeds thereof; (ii) the goods and services and other items of expenditure financed out of such proceeds; (iii) the Project; (iv) the administration, operations and financial condition of SWA; and (v) any other matters relating to the purposes of the Loan and the Grant. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, SWA shall furnish to ADB quarterly reports on the execution of the Project and on the operation and management of the Project facilities. Such reports shall be submitted in such form and in such detail and within such a period as ADB shall reasonably request, and shall indicate, among other things, progress made and problems encountered during the quarter under review, steps taken or proposed to be taken to remedy these problems, and proposed program of activities and expected progress during the following quarter. Promptly after physical completion of the Project, but in any event not later than three (3) months thereafter or such later date as ADB may agree for this purpose, SWA shall prepare and furnish to ADB a report, in such form and in such detail as ADB shall reasonably request, on the execution and initial operation of the Project, including its cost, the performance by SWA of its obligations under this Project Agreement and the accomplishment of the purposes of the Loan and the Grant.
PA, Section 2.08 para.(a), (b), (c)
Complied with.
SWA shall (i) maintain separate accounts for the Project and for its overall operations, including separate accounts for the Loan and the Grant; (ii) have such accounts and related financial statements (balance sheet, statement of income and expenses, and related statements) audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing standards consistently applied, by independent auditors whose qualifications, experience and terms of reference are acceptable to ADB; and (iii) furnish to ADB, promptly after their preparation but in any event not later than six (6) months after the close of the Fiscal Year to which they relate, certified copies of such audited accounts and financial statements and the report of the auditors relating thereto (including the auditors’ opinion on the use of the Loan and the Grant proceeds and compliance with the financial covenants of the Financing Agreement as well as on the use of the procedures for imprest accounts and statement of expenditures), all in the English language. SWA shall furnish to ADB such further information concerning such accounts and financial statements and the audit thereof as ADB shall from time to time reasonably request. SWA shall enable ADB, upon ADB’s request, to discuss SWA’s financial statements and its financial affairs from time to time with the auditors appointed by SWA pursuant to Section 2.09(a) hereabove, and shall authorize and require any representative of such auditors to participate in any such discussions requested by ADB, provided that any such discussion shall be conducted only in the presence of an authorized officer of SWA unless SWA shall otherwise agree.
PA, Section 2.09 para. (a), (b)
Complied with.
SWA shall enable ADB’s representatives to inspect the Project, the goods financed out of the proceeds of the Loan or the Grant, all other plants, sites, works, properties and equipment of the SWA, and any relevant records and documents.
PA, Section 2.10 Complied with.
SWA shall, promptly as required, take all action within its powers to maintain its corporate existence, to carry on its operations, and to
PA, Section 2.11 (a), (b), (c)
Complied with.
56 Appendix 11
Covenant Reference in Loan Agreement
Status of Compliance
acquire, maintain and renew all rights, properties, powers, privileges and franchises which are necessary in the carrying out of the Project or in the conduct of its business. SWA shall at all times conduct its business in accordance with sound administrative, financial and environmental practices, and under the supervision of competent and experienced management and personnel. SWA shall at times operate and maintain its plants, equipment and other property, and from time to time, promptly as needed, make all necessary repairs and renewals thereof, all in accordance with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental and maintenance and operational practices.
Except as ADB may otherwise agree, SWA shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any of its assets which shall be required for the efficient carrying on of its operations or the disposal of which may prejudice its ability to perform satisfactorily any of its obligations under this Project Agreement.
PA, Section 2.12 Complied with.
Except as ADB may otherwise agree, SWA shall apply the proceeds of the Loan and the Grant to the financing of expenditures of the Project in accordance with the provisions of the Financing Agreement and this Project Agreement, and shall ensure that all goods and services financed out of such proceeds are used exclusively in the carrying out of the Project.
PA, Section 2.13 Complied with.
Except as ADB may otherwise agree, SWA shall duly perform all its obligations under the Subsidiary Loan Agreement, and shall not take, or concur in, any action which would have the effect of assigning, amending, abrogating or waiving any rights or obligations of the parties under the Subsidiary Loan Agreement.
PA, Section 2.14 Complied with.
SWA shall promptly notify ADB of any proposal to amend, suspend or repeal any provision of its Charter and shall afford ADB an adequate opportunity to comment on such proposals prior to taking any action thereon.
PA, Section 2.15 Complied with.
Appendix 12 57
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPLETION REPORT
Division: PAUS
TA No., Country and Name Amount Approved: $400,000
TA 4229-SAM: Institutional Strengthening for Drainage and Wastewater Management
Revised Amount: $400,000
Executing Agency Treasury Department
Source of Funding Japan Special Fund
Amount Undisbursed: $6,848.90
Amount Utilized: $393,151.10
TA Approval Date:
TA Signing Date:
Fielding of First Consultant:
TA Completion Date Original: 31 March 2005
Actual: 15 April 2008
27 November 2003
16 February 2004
18 May 2006 Account Closing Date Original: 31 March 2005
Actual: 30 April 2008
Description. The 2001 census data indicated that 88% of Samoa’s population had access to safe sanitation, and World Bank data for 2002 indicated that 95% of Samoa’s urban population had improved sanitation facilities. However, these statistics misrepresent the public health implications of the sanitation status of many living in the urban areas. In urban Apia, for example, about 75% of households have septic systems, but many are too small, rarely cleaned, and sometimes directly linked to the nearest drainage channel, polluting groundwater, surface streams, and the harbor. In the central business area and special needs areas (those with special wastewater concerns) such as hospitals and major school compounds, less than 10% of wastewater is adequately treated. The hospital has a poorly operating treatment plant, as do most commercial centers and government complexes. Others have inadequate septic systems. The situation is exacerbated by the historical lack of urban management, including the absence of drainage or wastewater management plans and the absence of effective town planning. Individuals have elevated their plot heights, reclaimed land in the mangrove area, and blocked drainage channels. The effect is a nonfunctioning drainage system. Flooding after heavy rain is intensified, and foul water flooding poses a health risk due to septage and latrine wastes being released to the surface environment. The Health Sector Strategic Plan specifically identified environmental health issues, including the lack of a public sewerage system and drainage problems, as affecting public health.
In response to a request from the Government of Samoa in February 2003, ADB approved a loan for the Sanitation and Drainage Project (SSDP).1 The loan for SDR5.604 million ($8 million equivalent) was approved on 27 November 2003. The request followed implementation of a technical assistance (TA) project for urban planning and management that identified infrastructure investments to improve the environmental quality of Apia.2 The project was expected to be the first phase of a longer-term urban drainage and wastewater improvement strategy. The loan and project agreements were signed on 1 June 2004 and the loan became effective on 30 August 2004. During the processing, the Government requested a technical assistance (TA) to strengthen (i) drainage and wastewater management planning and (ii) urban planning and regulation. The TA, attached to the SSDP, was considered necessary to support SSDP investments to improve the sustainability of drainage and sanitation services in Samoa.
Expected Impact, Outcome and Outputs. The expected impact of the TA was to promote improved environmental quality and public health for Apia. The expected outcome was improved delivery of drainage and sanitation services in Apia. The expected TA outputs included: (i) drainage and wastewater management plans for Apia; (ii) revised building standards for on-site sanitation systems; (iii) enabling legislation and regulations for improved wastewater management and sanitation; (iv) increased drainage and sanitation planning and management capacity within the Planning and Urban Management Agency (PUMA), the Samoa Water Authority (SWA), and the Ministry of Works, Transport, and Infrastructure (MWTI); (v) effective systems to support the implementation of regulations for the Government’s Planning and Urban Management (PUM) Act; and (vi) improved community awareness and understanding of spatial planning and development processes in Samoa. Delivery of Inputs and Conduct of Activities. The TA activities were conducted through 11 person-months of international and 13 person-months of national consultancy inputs provided by a pool of experts through a consulting firm. The TA Agreement was signed on 16 February 2004 and Consultants fielded on 18 May 2006. To ensure that the implementation of the TA and the SSDP coincided, ADB delayed the recruitment of the TA consultants until the
1 ADB. 2003. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan and
Technical Assistance Grant to the Independent State of Samoa for the Sanitation and Drainage Project. Manila (Loan 2026-SAM (SF)).
2 ADB. 2002. Technical Assistance to the Independent State of Samoa for the Implementation of Urban Planning and Management Strategy. Manila (TA 3860-SAM).
58 Appendix 12
Government had recruited the project manager and project implementation consultants for SSDP (April 2006). The recruitment of the SSDP project manager and project implementation consultants was delayed as a consequence of the late signing of the SSDP loan agreement which resulted from (i) availability of ADF resources; (ii) required revisions to the loan agreement; and (iii) late submission of the SWA Board Resolution.
The implementation of the TA was initially guided and directed by a Project Steering Committee (PSC) consisting of chief executive officers of the Ministry of Finance, MWTI, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development, and the general managers of SWA and the Electric Power Corporation. The responsibility for oversight and guidance for the TA was transferred to the Joint Water Sector Steering Committee (JWSSC) in 2006. The JWSSC was established to guide and oversee all water sector projects in Samoa. Members of the JWSSC comprised the members of the PSC (listed above), representatives from civil society organizations and from the Chamber of Commerce. The PSC and JWSSC provided effective guidance and oversight during the TA implementation.
The EA and the implementing agencies (PUMA, SWA, and MWTI) demonstrated strong ownership of the TA, through hosting workshops and consultation meetings, providing office space for the consultants and providing feedback on consultants’ reports. ADB conducted review missions (in conjunction with review missions for SSDP) in November 2006 and September 2007. Deficiencies in several TA outputs were highlighted to ADB during the September 2007 review mission. Corrective actions were subsequently initiated by ADB and the deficiencies rectified. The performance of the EA, IAs, and ADB is rated as satisfactory.
Outputs delivered by the TA were: (i) drainage management and wastewater management plans; (ii) a draft sustainable management plan for Apia, developed in accordance with the provisions of the PUM Act, containing development standards, land use and development guidance specific to drainage, flooding and wastewater issues; (iii) capacity development in drainage and sanitation planning in PUMA, MWTI and SWA; (iv) legislative and policy review of all laws relating to drainage and wastewater management in Samoa; (v) the Sewerage Regulations, (vi) updated Drainage and Road Reserve Regulations; (vii) the Liquid Trade Waste & Industrial Wastewater Acceptance Policy; (viii) capacity developed in PUMA for land use and development planning including the preparation of planning guidelines and the development of a land use geographical information system database; (ix) revisions to the Building Code updating the standards for on-site wastewater treatment and disposal and introducing provisions for connections to sewerage systems; and (x) raised awareness within communities in the greater Apia area of provisions and development consent requirement of the PUM Act. The consultant’s reports were generally received on time and the quality of the consultant’s work was satisfactory. The consultant’s terms of reference were suitable to the intended outputs. The performance of the consultants is rated as satisfactory.
Evaluation of Outputs and Achievement of Outcome The TA outputs have contributed to improved planning and delivery of drainage and wastewater services in Samoa. The drainage and wastewater management plans prepared under the TA were essential for the formulation of the Apia Integrated Water Supply, Sanitation and Drainage Master Plan which has been endorsed by the Government and is being implemented. The Sewerage Regulations and revisions to the Drainage and Road Reserve Regulations and the Building Code have been approved by the Government and are guiding the planning and delivery of drainage and sanitation services. The capacity within PUMA, MWTI and SWA to plan and deliver drainage and sanitation infrastructure and services has improved, particularly in SWA which is successfully managing Samoa’s first sewerage system. Overall Assessment and Rating The TA is rated successful. The TA delivered the planned outputs and achieved the outcome envisaged for the TA. Major Lessons. A major lesson was that the success of the TA was due, in part, to the flexibility shown by ADB in (i) delaying the commencement of the TA until the implementation of SSDP had commenced, and (ii) permitting changes to the Government’s TA oversight arrangements. Without this flexibility, the coordination of TA, SSDP and other water sector activities would not have occurred and the outcomes of the TA would have been less successful. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions. ADB has played an important role in the development of Samoa’s water and sanitation sector. Future requests from the Government for technical assistance to further develop and strengthen the delivery of sanitation and drainage services should be seriously considered. Prepared by: Stephen Blaik Designation: Senior Urban Development Specialist In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
Appendix 13 59
COST RECOVERY AND USER CHARGES
A. Introduction
1. At appraisal cost recovery from user charges was examined for the wastewater components, including the sewerage system and septic tank maintenance and replacement program. Full cost recovery was the goal, but considering the economic and social aspects of utility provision, as well as affordability of customer charges, the government will subsidize part of the user charges with a community service obligation (CSO),1 and ensure that charges are at least set at a minimum to recover operations and maintenance (O&M) and management costs of the services provided. Similarly, at the time of supplementary financing user charges were also estimated based on the new costs of the facility and agreements reached between the Government of Samoa, Samoa Water Authority (SWA), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to establish mechanisms to ensure appropriate cost recovery for these project components. The level of user charges at appraisal and at the supplementary financing stage differed due to the estimated increase in costs for these components. Tariffs have been calculated at project completion using the final actual costs for the WWTP and pressure sewerage components and data supplied by SWA. However, it is not possible to calculate the septic tank maintenance and replacement program tariffs as only 100 septic tanks have been installed, and more importantly the revolving fund that was envisaged was not established because it did not align with the government’s National Sanitation Policy. The appraisal cost estimates differed widely from the actual costs, and therefore the focus here is on the analysis undertaken at the supplementary financing stage, in order to compare tariff estimates. The financial model used at original appraisal is not available. However, the financial model used for the supplementary financing is available; it has been updated with revised data based on actual costs, and used in the present analysis. B. Sewerage System
2. Direct cost recovery from beneficiaries will be achieved through a tariff for those connected to the sewerage system. SWA’s responsibilities include the billing and collection of the wastewater tariff. To ensure that these charges remain sufficient to meet the agreed cost-recovery objectives, SWA will prepare annual reviews of the charges and submit them for cabinet consideration. 3. The sewerage system will provide for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage generated in Apia’s CBA, as well as several priority special needs areas, including the National Hospital, Malifa School, and Fugalei Market. The system will provide average treatment capacity of 1,000 cubic meters (m3)/day and serve approximately 125 business and government premises. 4. Cost recovery. Direct cost recovery is to be undertaken through the application of a wastewater tariff for those connected to the sewerage system. The tariff will be set on the basis of water consumption for each beneficiary. At a minimum, the wastewater tariff will be sufficient to cover the cost of OMM. The government will fund any gap between actual tariffs and the amount required to achieve full cost recovery through a CSO. Given these wider objectives, the ability to fully recover costs from user charges is generally limited, at least over the shorter term.
1 CSOs are Government-mandated services provided by public utilities intended to achieve broader economic,
environmental, and social objectives.
60 Appendix 13
5. Key assumptions. Financial projections were prepared for the sewerage system to estimate tariff and CSO funding requirements. The key assumptions underlying these projections are:
(i) Project life. The project component will commence operations in fiscal year (FY) 2010 with an economic useful life of 30 years. For the tariff calculation, it is assumed that the WWTP will be operating at 100% capacity with customers connected to the sewer using water at an average of 1,250 m3/day.
(ii) Wastewater treatment plant operations and maintenance costs. These are estimated for each year over the project life by individual cost item: labor, electricity, chemicals, sludge transport and disposal, spare parts, and other maintenance. Data obtained from SWA give the O&M costs for FY2010 as ST1.573 million. Over the life of the facility, a gradual increase in costs is projected due to greater maintenance requirements.
(iii) Pressure sewer operations and maintenance costs. Estimated for each year by individual cost item: labor, electricity, pump maintenance, and sewer maintenance. The cost of electricity required for the operation of the pumps will be borne directly by each premises served by the system. Therefore, this cost is excluded from SWA’s operating costs for the purposes of tariff calculation. Total O&M costs obtained from SWA for the pressure sewer borne by SWA in FY2010 are estimated at ST1.135 million in constant prices. For the pressure sewer, maintenance costs will gradually increase over the project life.
(iv) Management costs. Based on estimates obtained from SWA for its Wastewater Management Division—which will be responsible for both the sewerage system, and the septic tank maintenance and replacement program—just over half the estimated total annual management cost (equivalent to about ST236,000 in constant 2010 prices) is allocated to the wastewater system.
(v) Capital replacement costs. The major requirement is replacement of the pressure sewer pumps, which have an estimated life of 20 years. Based on this, an annual provision is made equivalent to 5% of the total pump replacement cost.
(vi) Debt service. Debt service includes principal and interest, and is based on the terms of the subsidiary loan agreement between SWA and the government. The term of the loan is 32 years, including a 5-year grace period, and an interest rate of 5%.
(vii) Full cost recovery. Consistent with existing project legal agreements, full cost recovery is defined as the coverage of O&M and management costs; debt service; and a rate of return agreed to between SWA and the Ministry of Finance. It is assumed that the annual rate of return on revalued fixed assets is 3%.
(viii) Wastewater tariff. The tariff requirements are estimated for each year over the useful life of the project based on three alternative cost-recovery objectives: (a) cover O&M and management expenses; (b) cover O&M and management expenses plus debt service; and (c) achieve full cost recovery. The collection rate—the proportion of tariff revenues billed that SWA actually collects—is assumed to be 90% initially, with gradual improvement to 95% over the life of the project.
(ix) Community service obligation funding. The government provides the difference between the cost recovery achieved by tariffs and that required for full cost recovery to SWA through CSO funding.
Appendix 13 61
(x) Price basis. Costs and revenues are converted from constant to current prices on the basis of the projected domestic inflation rate, which was 3.6% per year during FY2008–FY2011, and is then assumed to gradually decline to 3.2% per year by FY2015.
6. Options and analysis. There are a number of options that have been considered in the development of an appropriate tariff. The options here are the same as those examined in the appraisal and the supplementary financing analyses. A total of three options have been examined, depending on the type of costs that the government wants to recover through tariffs collected from served customers. The options examined are:
(i) Option 1. Recovery of operation, maintenance and management (OMM) costs only. This option would mean the tariff charged to and collected from the customers served would be equal to the costs of operating, maintaining and managing the system, while the funds that will finance the debt service for the capital works of the system plus an agreed rate of return (3% of capital investment) would be budgeted and disbursed by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to SWA in the form of a CSO.
(ii) Option 2. Recovery of OMM plus debt service. This option would mean that the tariff charged to and collected from the customers served would equal the costs of operating, maintaining and managing the system plus the debt service for the capital works of the system, while the amount equivalent to the agreed rate of return would be budgeted and disbursed by MOF to SWA in the form of a CSO.
(iii) Option 3. Recovery of full costs plus return on investment. This option would mean that the tariff charged to and collected from the customers served would be equal to the costs of operating, maintaining and managing the system, plus the debt service for the capital works of the system, and the amount equal to the agreed rate of return. There would be no CSO in this option, because the tariff recovers all costs.
7. A comparison of tariffs calculated at supplementary financing and completion are shown in Table A13.1. The resulting differences in tariffs are due to both the differences in the actual capital costs and the O&M costs. At supplementary financing the O&M costs for WWTP were estimated at ST930,000. Data obtained from the SWA at the time of project completion indicated O&M costs of ST1.573 million per year. Similarly the O&M costs for the pressure sewerage system were estimated at supplementary financing as ST95,000. Data obtained at project completion from SWA indicated O&M costs of ST1.135 million. These higher costs have resulted in tariff rates at project completion being higher than those calculated in the supplementary financing analysis. Projected tariffs and CSO funding requirements for the financial years 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 for each of the three cost-recovery options are shown in Table A13.2. The financial internal rate of return was estimated at 9.1% for the full cost recovery, compared to a weighted average cost of capital of 4.1%.
62 Appendix 13
Table A13.1: Tariff Comparison of Supplementary Financing and Project Completion
Cost Recovery Option Supplementary Financing
Project Completion
A Tariff Set at OMM 1. Tariff (ST/m3) 3.6 9.4 2. CSO Contribution (ST ‘000) 2,400 3,139
B Tariff Set at OMM + Debt Service 1. Tariff (ST/m3) 7.7 12.4 2. CSO Contribution (ST ‘000) 720 1,770
C Tariff Set at Full Cost Recoverya 1. Tariff (ST/m3) 9.80 14.9 2. CSO Contribution (ST ‘000) 0 0
FY = fiscal year; ST = Samoa Tala; m3 = cubic meter; OMM = operation, maintenance, and management; CSO = community service obligation. a Full cost-recovery tariff defined as covering OMM, debt service, and 3% return on revalued fixed assets. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.
Table A13.2: Estimated Tariffs and Community Service Obligation Contributions
Cost Recovery Option FY2010 FY2012 FY2014 FY2016
A Tariff Set at OMM 1. Tariff (ST/m3) 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 2. CSO Contribution (ST ‘000) 3,139 3,592 4,045 4,589
B Tariff Set at OMM + Debt Service 1. Tariff (ST/m3) 12.4 12.7 12.9 12.9 2. CSO Contribution (ST ‘000) 1,770 2,196 2,621 3,165
C Tariff Set at Full Cost Recoverya 1. Tariff (ST/m3) 14.9 15.2 15.5 15.5 2. CSO Contribution (ST ‘000) 0 0 0 0
FY = fiscal year; ST = Samoa Tala; m3 = cubic meter; OMM = operations, maintenance, and management; CSO = community service obligation. a Full cost-recovery tariff defined as covering OMM, debt service, and 3% return on revalued fixed assets. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.
Appendix 14 63
ECONOMIC REEVALUATION
A. Introduction
1. The methodology and assumptions used in the economic reevaluation were the same as those used in the original appraisal, and in the economic evaluation that was undertaken at the time of supplementary financing, modified where necessary and based on updated information. The economic reevaluation was consistent with the evaluation done at appraisal, in that it considered the economic costs and benefits over a 30-year period, including the investment period. As at appraisal, no salvage value was assumed. All benefits and costs in the analyses are expressed in 2010 constant prices and are expressed using the domestic price numeraire. As at appraisal the economic reevaluation has calculated the economic internal rate of return (EIRR) for the two components separately, namely: (i) the drainage component, and (ii) the wastewater and sanitation component. B. Economic Costs
2. The economic construction costs and incremental operations and maintenance (O&M) costs were derived from the financial costs. Construction costs include the cost of civil works and consulting services. Supervision costs that were shared between each of the civil works contracts were apportioned on a prorated basis in proportion to their respective shares of the total costs of civil works under each output. Economic costs were valued using the domestic price numeraire expressed in Tala. Tradable components have been adjusted to economic prices using a shadow exchange rate factor (SERF)1 and nontraded components are valued at domestic market prices. Both foreign and national skilled labor is treated as a tradable good due to the ease and frequency with which Samoans obtain work in the international labor market. Taxes and duties have been excluded from all costs. No other conversion factors or economic adjustments have been applied. Incremental O&M costs have been taken into account and added to capital costs to obtain the total economic cost of each subprojects for each year. C. Economic Reevaluation of Each Component
1. Drainage and Floodway Component
3. In the absence of investments in a drainage and floodway system, current conditions of flooding would continue. The benefits of the drainage system are evaluated in terms of avoided economic costs associated with damage to structures, infrastructure, and goods in central Apia that would continue to be incurred as a result of flooding. There are no detailed records on the costs incurred resulting from historical flooding, although severe floods were reported in 1939, 1975, 2001, and 2003, with minor localized flooding occurring much more frequently. Consequently, the analysis has proceeded in the same way as at appraisal, i.e. the avoided costs have been derived from data presented in two recent studies on the damage of flooding in Apia prepared by the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC).2
1 The SERF is estimated at 1.05. 2 (i) Yeo, Stephen. 2001. A Review of Flooding in Apia, Samoa. SOPAC Technical Report 338. Apia, and (ii)
Woodruff, Allison. 2008. Economic Analysis of Flood Risk Reduction Measures for the Lower Vaisigano Catchment Area. EU-SOPAC Technical Report 69g. Apia.
64 Appendix 14
4. The first study relied on insurance records and personal interviews with recent flood victims to assess overall damage incurred by the April 2001 flood. The second study focused only on Apia’s Lower Vaisigano catchment area, but provides more details on flood damage in that zone. The study uses the flood stage damage curve to estimate total direct damage costs to household, commercial, health, and social establishments, as well as public infrastructure over a broad range of possible flood events.3 As at appraisal the calculation of benefits for the drainage component combines the damage data from the 2001 study with damage data and flood stage damage curves from the 2008 study, extrapolated to the project area.4 5. The damage costs were estimated in financial terms for each flood event (footnote 3). These costs were annualized based on probability of the event occurring in a given year. Damage costs are based on annual costs of severe and serious flooding events. Damage associated with frequent minor flooding events (1 in a-year floods, or more frequent events) are excluded from the benefit calculation. The average annual damage costs are estimated at ST2.49 million at 2010 prices. The average annual damage avoided by the drainage component is conservatively estimated by assuming that only half the damage costs associated with 1:20-year and larger events would be mitigated. The full damage costs associated with the 1:5 year and 1:2-year events are assumed to be fully mitigated by the investment. The total avoided damage cost is estimated at ST2.14 million at 2010 prices. The avoided costs are converted into economic costs by excluding taxes and duties and applying the calculated SERF to tradable goods. 6. The health and other benefits associated with improved standards of living and commercial activities resulting from a cleaner environment were not quantified for the economic analysis. While the health benefits (including reduced incidences of typhoid, infant diarrhea, dengue, and leptospirosis) and environmental benefits are significant and identified as key impacts of the drainage component, they are difficult to quantify and assign specifically to improved drainage.
2. Wastewater Management and Sanitation Component
7. The wastewater management and sanitation component complements the drainage component by providing (i) a centralized operating sewerage system servicing approximately 125 commercial and government premises (at appraisal it was estimated that 150 would be served) in the CBA in Apia, and (ii) a decentralized septic tank maintenance and replacement program. It has only been possible to undertake an economic reevaluation of the centralized operating sewerage system. The septic tank maintenance and replacement program was to provide services to premises for which connection to the centralized sewerage system was not economically viable. At appraisal the program was to initially service about 500 customers and be expanded over time through a revolving fund to service approximately 8,000 customers. However only 100 septic tanks were installed, due to limited funds; in addition, the revolving fund was dropped as it did not align with the government’s National Sanitation Policy. It has thus not been possible to undertake an economic analysis for the decentralized septic tank maintenance and replacement program.
3 1:5, 1:20, 1:50, and 1:100-year floods. 4 The damage cost of the 2001 flood was applied as a 1:100 year event. Damage data from the 2008 study was
extrapolated to the project area for the remaining events using the same ratio (2.88) between the local damage costs reported in the 2008 study and overall damage recorded in the 2001 study and updated to current price levels.
Appendix 14 65
8. The economic analysis for the centralized sewerage system compares the with-project investment scenario to an alternative onsite individual investment scenario. Both scenarios are assumed to provide similar environmental and health benefits.5 The total O&M costs are derived from the financial model for the wastewater treatment plant and the pressure sewer system, and include management costs (Appendix 13). 9. The alternative to the sewerage system is assumed to be a continuation of onsite treatment systems. The alternative assumes two types of individual systems depending on water demand and associated volume of wastewater generated by three customer groups, categorized by size. Small-use customers, defined as those that could be served by a single septic tank, would be serviced by a septic tank with an investment cost of ST12,750 and an annual maintenance cost of ST510. These septic tanks require six pump-outs per year. 6 Medium-and large-use customers will require small package plants with an investment cost of ST306,000 and annual O&M costs of ST35,000, inclusive of pump-outs, at the 2010 price level. The investment costs and O&M costs are scaled for the estimated volume of wastewater as shown in Table A14.1.
Table A14.1: Estimated Costs and Capacity of Individual Systems Customer Volume of Wastewatera Capital Cost (ST’000) Annual O&M (ST’000)
m3/User/day Total m3/day Per m3/dayb Total Per m3/dayb Total Large 90.6 634 31.8 20,173 2.50 1,584 Medium 8.6 240 31.8 7,644 2.50 600 Small 1.3 125 9.8 1,224 1.56 196 Total 7.6 1,000 29.0 28,471 2.38 2,379
m3 = cubic meter, O&M = operations and maintenance a Recorded total wastewater demand scaled to wastewater treatment plant capacity of 1,000 m3 per day. b Cost per m3 daily wastewater volume
Source: Samoa Water Authority and Asian Development Bank estimates. D. Results of the Economic Analysis
10. At appraisal the EIRR, calculated for the project as a whole and not by individual component, was 12.4%. When the supplementary financing was undertaken the EIRR was calculated separately for each component, as follows: 13.2% for the drainage and floodway component, and 16.5% for the wastewater and pressure sewers component. The economic reevaluation for the drainage and floodway component (Table A14.2) had an estimated EIRR of 13.7%; the economic revaluation for the wastewater and pressure sewers component (Table A14.3) has an estimated EIRR of 18.9%. If the EIRRs calculated for the supplementary financing analysis are combined, the overall project EIRR would be 14.6%. The separate EIRRs calculated for the reevaluation have been combined in the same manner, resulting in an overall project EIRR for the project as a whole at economic reevaluation of 16.2%, higher than both the appraisal estimate and the supplementary financing estimate EIRR for the project as a whole. The difference in the EIRRs calculated by the project completion review mission and those at appraisal and supplementary financing are due to (i) revised economic costs derived from actual costs, (ii) higher benefits in terms of the value of damage avoided due to a change from 2008 price levels to 2010 price levels, (iii) changes in OMM costs, and (iv) the yearly distribution of disbursement of project costs due to delays in implementation.
5 Because environmental and health benefits are assumed to be identical under both investment scenarios, they cancel out. However, this assumption may not apply in practice.
6 Pump-out frequency is based on survey data of project beneficiaries obtained from SWA.
66 Appendix 14
Table A14.2: Drainage Component: Economic Internal Rate of Return (ST ‘000)
Economic Costs
Year
Economic Benefits (Damage Avoided)
Capital Costs
O&M Total Costs
Net Economic
Benefit FY 2006 275 275 (275) FY 2007 299 299 (299) FY 2008 1,709 1,709 (1,709) FY 2009 4,499 4,499 (4,499) FY 2010 1,706 1,706 (1,706) FY 2011 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2012 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2013 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2014 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2015 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2016 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2017 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2018 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2019 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2020 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2021 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2022 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2023 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2024 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2025 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2026 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2027 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2028 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2029 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2030 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2031 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2032 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2033 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2034 1,695 170 170 1,525 FY 2035 1,695 170 170 1,525
Economic Internal Rate of Return 14.7% () = negative, FY = fiscal year, O&M = operations and maintenance Source: Asian Development Bank estimates
Appendix 14 67
Table A14.3: Wastewater Management Component: Economic Internal Rate of Return (ST ‘000)
With Project Investment Scenario Without Project Investment Scenario
Year Capital Total Capital Total Difference Costs O&M Costs Costs O&M Costs
FY 2006 642 642 (642) FY 2007 699 699 (699) FY 2008 3,112 3,112 (3,112) FY 2009 10,636 10,636 11,442 11,442 807 FY 2010 10,485 10,485 11,442 928 12,371 1,886 FY 2011 1,078 1,078 1,857 1,857 779 FY 2012 1,079 1,079 1,857 1,857 778 FY 2013 1,081 1,081 1,857 1,857 776 FY 2014 1,083 1,083 1,857 1,857 774 FY 2015 1,085 1,085 1,857 1,857 772 FY 2016 1,086 1,086 1,857 1,857 771 FY 2017 1,088 1,088 1,857 1,857 769 FY 2018 1,089 1,089 1,857 1,857 767 FY 2019 1,091 1,091 1,857 1,857 766 FY 2020 1,093 1,093 1,857 1,857 764 FY 2021 1,094 1,094 1,857 1,857 763 FY 2022 1,096 1,096 1,857 1,857 761 FY 2023 1,097 1,097 1,857 1,857 759 FY 2024 1,099 1,099 1,857 1,857 758 FY 2025 1,100 1,100 1,857 1,857 756 FY 2026 1,102 1,102 1,857 1,857 755 FY 2027 1,103 1,103 1,857 1,857 754 FY 2028 1,104 1,104 1,857 1,857 753 FY 2029 1,105 1,105 1,857 1,857 752 FY 2030 1,106 1,106 1,857 1,857 750 FY 2031 1,108 1,108 1,857 1,857 749 FY 2032 1,109 1,109 1,857 1,857 748 FY 2033 1,110 1,110 1,857 1,857 747 FY 2034 1,111 1,111 1,857 1,857 746 FY 2035 1,112 1,112 1,857 1,857 744
Economic Internal Rate of Return 18.9% () = negative, FY = fiscal year, O&M = operation and maintenance Source: Asian Development Bank estimates
68 Appendix 15
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF OVERALL PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Table A14.1: Overall Rating Criteria
Assessment
Rating (0–3)
Weight (%)
Weighted Rating
Relevancea Highly relevant 3 20 0.60 Effectivenessb Effective 2 30 0.60 Efficiencyc Efficient 2 30 0.60 Sustainabilityd Likely 2 20 0.40
Overall Rating
Successful
2.20
a Project objectives and outputs were relevant to the strategic objectives of the government and the Asian Development Bank.
b Project achieved its outcome. c Project achieved objectives in an efficient manner. d Project benefits and development impacts are sustainable. Source: Asian Development Bank.
Table A14.2: Rating System Rating Value
Relevance
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Sustainability
3 Highly relevant Highly effective Highly efficient Most likely 2 Relevant Effective Efficient Likely 1 Partly relevant Less effective Less efficient Less likely 0 Irrelevant Ineffective Inefficient Unlikely
Note: Ratings ≥ 2.7 = highly successful; ratings <2.7 or ≥ 1.6 = successful; ratings < 1.6 ≥ 0.8 = partly successful, and ratings < 0.8 = unsuccessful. Source: Asian Development Bank.