Completion Report

Project Number: 40031-023 Loan Number: 2366 July 2017

India: Rajasthan Urban Sector Development

Investment Program (Tranche 1) This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB’s Public Communication Policy 2011.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit – Indian rupees (₹)

At Appraisal At Project Completion

7 May 2007 31 December 2014 ₹1.00 = $0.0245 $0.0158 $1.00 = ₹40.86 ₹63.33

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank CAPP – community action and participation program DMF – design and monitoring framework DSC – design and construction supervision consultants EIRR – economic internal rate of return FIRR – financial internal rate of return GIS – geographical information system GOR – Government of Rajasthan IEC – information, education, and communication IFIAP – institutional and financial improvement action plan IPIU – investment program implementation unit IPMC – investment program management consultant IPMU – investment program management unit IPPMS – investment program performance and management system MDG – Millennium Development Goals MFF – multitranche financing facility NRW – non-revenue water O&M – operation and maintenance PCR – project completion report PHED – Public Health Engineering Department PPP – public–private partnership RAVN – Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam ROB – rail over bridge RUIDP – Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Investment Program RUSDIP – Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Project SOE – statement of expenditure STP – sewage treatment plant SWM – solid waste management TAC – technical assistance cluster UFW – unaccounted-for-water ULB – urban local body WTP – water treatment plant

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

km – kilometer lpcd – liters per capita per day m – meter mld – million liters per day

NOTES

(i) The fiscal year (FY) of the Government of India ends on 31 March. FY before a calendar year denotes the year in which the fiscal year ends, e.g., FY2017 ends on 31 March 2017.

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

Vice-President W. Zhang, Operations 1 Director General H. Kim, South Asia Department (SARD) Director K. Yokoyama, India Resident Mission, SARD Team leader P. Srivastava, Senior Project Officer, SARD Team member B. Kulshreshtha, Executive Assistant, SARD

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

CONTENTS Page

BASIC DATA i

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 2

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 2

B. Project Outputs 3

C. Project Costs 5

D. Disbursements 5

E. Project Schedule 5

F. Implementation Arrangements 6

G. Conditions and Covenants 6

H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 6

I. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 7

J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 7

K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 8

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 8

A. Relevance 8

B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 9

C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 11

D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 11

E. Impact 12

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13

A. Overall Assessment 13

B. Lessons 13

C. Recommendations 14

APPENDIXES

1. Design and Monitoring Framework and Achievements 16 2. Allocation, Reallocation and Actual Disbursement of ADB Financing by Category 23 3. Breakup of Foreign Exchange Cost and Local Currency Cost by Component 24 4. Contract Awards and Disbursements 25 5. Summary of Contract Details 26 6. Implementation Schedule: Appraisal–Actual 29 7. Project Implementation Arrangements 30 8. Status of Major Loan Covenants 31 9. Economic and Financial Analysis 37 10. Action Plan for Outstanding Issues 42

BASIC DATA

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

India

2366

Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (Tranche 1)

India

Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan

$60 million

1638

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)

27 April 2007

7 May 2007

27 September 2007

28 September 2007

8 November 2007

17 January 2008

16 April 2008

28 February 2008

0

30 June 2013

22 May 2015

2

London interbank offered rate (LIBOR)-based (floating) + 0.060%

25 Years

5 Years

ii

8. Disbursements

a. Dates

Initial Disbursement

31 July 2008

Final Disbursement

22 May 2015

Time Interval

82 months

Effective Date

28 February 2008

Original Closing Date

30 June 2013

Time Interval

64 months

b. Amount ($ million)

Category Original Allocation

Last Revised

Allocationa

Amount Canceled

Net Amount

Available

Amount Disbursed

Undisbursed Balanceb

01 Civil Works 33.80 47.34 (13.54) 47.34 43.34 4.00

01A Civil Works 32.10 46.50 (14.40) 46.50 42.53 3.97

01B Equipment 1.50 0.84 0.66 0.84 0.81 0.03

01C Consulting Services 0.20 - 0.20 - - -

02 Capacity Development and Investment Program Management

17.30 6.66 10.64 6.66 6.68 (0.02)

02A Consulting Services 13.20 5.82 7.38 5.82 5.77 0.05

02B Training 1.00 - 1.00 - - -

02C Incremental Assistance 3.20 0.84 2.36 0.84 0.91 (0.07)

03 Unallocated 8.90 - 8.90 - - -

03A Physical Contingencies 3.30 - 3.30 - - -

03B Price Contingencies 5.60 - 5.60 - - -

Total 60.00 54.00 6.00 54.00 50.02 3.98

a Last revised allocation considers the reallocations undertaken in March 2008, September 2008, July 2012, and partial cancellations in March 2014 and June 2014. b The undisbursed balance of $3.98 million was cancelled on 22 May 2015.

9. Local Costs (Financed)

- Amount ($) 50,020,988.03

- Percent of Local Costs 81.25%

- Percent of Total Cost 78.73% C. Project Data

1. Project Cost ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign Exchange Cost 10.00 1.97

Local Currency Cost 65.00 61.57

Total 75.00 63.54

iii

2. Financing Plan ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Implementation Costs

Borrower Financed 1.80 11.55

ADB Financed 60.00 50.02

Other External Financing 0.00 0.00

Total 61.80 61.57

Interest During Construction Costs

Borrower Financed 13.20 1.97

ADB Financed 0.00 0.00

Other External Financing 0.00 0.00

Total 75.00 63.54

3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ million)

Component Appraisal Estimate

Actual

Part A Urban Infrastructure Improvements

Water Supply 20.60 24.66

Wastewater Management 4.50 16.05

Solid Waste Management 3.20 1.47

Urban Drainage 1.40 0.88

Urban Transport and Roads 3.90 3.55

Resettlement and Land 0.60 4.05

Sub Total 34.20 50.66

Part B Capacity Development and Investment Program Management

Implementation Assistance 12.10 5.30

Incremental Administration 4.40 1.07

Capacity/ Institutional Development 1.00 0.00

CAPP/IEC 0.90 0.43

Investment Program Performance Monitoring System 0.20 0.04

Part C Contingencies

Physical 3.20 0.00

Price 5.80 0.00

Part D Financing Charges during Implementation 8.50 1.97

Taxes and Duties 4.70 4.07

Total 75.00 63.54

iv

4. Project Schedule

Item Appraisal Estimate

Actual

Date of Contract with Consultants

Design and Supervision Consultants I 17 Dec 2007

Design and Supervision Consultants II 17 Dec 2007

Design and Supervision Consultants III 17 Dec 2007

Investment Program Management Consultancy 1 Oct 2007 17 Dec 2007

Consultant for Community Action and Participation Program 1 Jan 2008 17 Jul 2008

Investment Program Performance Monitoring Consultant 1 Jul 2008 18 Aug 2008 and 11 Mar 2016

Completion of Engineering Designs 30 Jun 2008 15 Apr 2008

Civil Works Contract 30 Apr 2008

Date of Award 21 Jun 2008

Completion of Work 31 Mar 2017

Equipment and Supplies 13 Jan 2011

Date of Award 24 May 2008

Completion of Work 15 May 2013

Completion of Equipment Installation 15 Feb 2016

Start of Operations 30 April 2016

Completion of Equipment Installation 31 Jan 2007

Start of Operations

Completion of Tests and Commissioning 30 Apr 2016

Beginning of Start-Up 30 Apr 2016

5. Project Performance Report Ratings

Implementation Period

Ratings

Development Objectives Implementation

Progress

From 28 February to 31 December 2008 NA NA

From 1 January to 31 December 2009 NA NA

From 1 January to 31 December 2010 NA NA

From 1 January to 31 June 2011 NA NA

From 1 July to 31 December 2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory

From 1 January to 31 December 2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory

From 1 January to 31 December 2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory

From 1 January to 31 December 2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory

v

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

Name of Mission Date No. of

Persons No. of

Person-Days Specialization of Members

Loan Inception 25 Mar–27 Mar 2008 3 9 a, b, c

Loan Review 1 27 May–4 Jun 2008 7 49 b, d, e, f, g, h, i

Loan Review 2 3 Nov–11 Nov 2009 3 24 b, c, j

Loan Review 3 9 Jul–15 Jul 2010 2 2 k, c

Loan Review 4 10 Aug–13 Aug 2010 1 1 k

Loan Review 5 16 Aug–20 Aug 2011 2 2 l, m

Midterm Review 22 Mar–30 Mar 2012 4 23 l, n, o, p

Disbursement Review 3 Sep–7 Sep 2012 2 10 q, r

Safeguards Review 4 Sep–7 Sept 2012 2 5 h, s

State Level Review 25 Oct 2012 1 1 l

Special Project Administration 30 Jan 2013 2 2 l, n

Loan Review 6 16 Sep–26 Sep 2013 2 10 l, n

Special Project Administration 4 Jun–6 Jun 2014 2 6 l, n

a = Social Development Specialist, b = Urban Development Specialist, c = Assistant Project Analyst, d = Safeguards Specialist, e = Water Supply Specialist (Consultant), f = Senior Municipal Engineer (Consultant), g = Finance Management Specialist (Consultant), h = Environment Specialist (Consultant), i = Resettlement Specialist (Consultant), j = Climate Change Specialist, k = Project Implementation Officer, l = Senior Project Officer (Urban), m = Associate Project Analyst, n = Associate Project Officer, o = Senior Safeguards Officer, p = Senior Environment Officer, q = Financial Control Officer, r = Associate Financial Control Analyst, s = Senior Safeguards Specialist.

Source: ADB.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. The Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (RUSDIP) was designed to improve the urban environment and promote ongoing reforms for sustainable, efficient, and responsive urban service delivery. RUSDIP covered 15 urban local bodies (ULBs) in Rajasthan with potential for economic growth and tourism. RUSDIP, supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), included physical improvements in water supply, wastewater management, solid waste management (SWM), urban drainage, urban transport and roads, social infrastructure, and capacity development to enable the ULBs to implement the ongoing institutional, financial, and service delivery reforms. 2. The envisaged impact of RUSDIP was to increase economic growth, reduce poverty, and sustain improvements in the urban environment and quality of life in the investment program ULBs. The planned outcomes of RUSDIP were increased access to sustainable urban infrastructure and services for 1.6 million people in the investment program ULBs, and improved capacity of, and sustainable management of urban services by the investment program ULBs. 3. ADB approved RUSDIP as a multitranche financing facility (MFF) on 31 October 2007 at an estimated cost of $390 million, with a loan component of $273 million, and a Government of Rajasthan (GOR) contribution of $117 million. 1 The first loan of $60 million (Loan 2366-IND, Project 1) under the MFF was approved on 8 November 2007, signed on 17 January 2008, and declared effective on 28 February 2008. This Project Completion Report (PCR) is for project 1 that aimed to develop essential municipal infrastructure and services in three project ULBs namely, Alwar, Jaisalmer, and Jhalawar–Jhalarapatan. The original loan closing date of 30 June 2013 was extended by 18 months and project 1 physically completed on 31 December 2014. 4. The Investment Program, including project 1, is comprised of the following:2

(i) Part A: Urban infrastructure improvements. This component aimed to improve (a) water supply, (b) sewerage and drainage, (c) solid waste collection, processing, treatment and disposal, (d) road rehabilitation and road safety, (e) social infrastructure including slum improvements and other municipal facilities, and (f) infrastructure support for cultural heritage, such as access roads and sanitation facilities.

(ii) Part B: Capacity development and implementation support. This component involved (a) capacity building and institutional development to make the state system more responsive, empower local government and improve financial performance, and improve urban services for citizens, and (b) management and implementation support.

5. At appraisal, the Investment Program’s outcomes were defined, based on which the benefit and impact targets of project 1 were derived. Project 1 was expected to benefit the three project ULBs with (i) improved access to treated, piped water supply of at least 100 liters per capita per day (lpcd) to 90% of the urban population (0.45 million people), (ii) total and appropriate sanitation to 0.51 million people with sewerage facilities, including sewage treatment plants (STPs), and reduced wastewater discharge to water bodies, (iii) capacity to collect

1 ADB. 2007. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche Financing

Facility to India for the Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program. Manila. 2 The cultural heritage component was not included under project 1 and was taken up under subsequent tranches.

Capacity-building activities were undertaken through consultants and not as a separate component under project 1.

2

municipal solid waste and dispose in sanitary landfill facilities, (iv) reduced risk of flooding with drainage outfalls and provision of roadside drains for core areas, (v) improved traffic flow and reduced travel times between zones, (vi) improved access to urban services to 30% more (hitherto unserved) poor living in identified slums, and (vii) improved institutional capacity, including ownership.

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 6. The project was relevant to the government’s and ADB’s sector strategies at appraisal and remains relevant at completion. The project was aligned with the country strategy and program, 2003 for India, and supported the 2004 country strategy and program update, which highlighted interventions to address inter-regional disparities, recognized Rajasthan as a state with among the lowest human poverty indices, and recognized infrastructure as one of the vehicles to achieve its goals.3 The project was also aligned with ADB’s Water for All Policy 2001.4 At appraisal, it was consistent with India’s Tenth Five-Year Plan, 2002–2007. In the urban sector, the plan’s emphasis was on improved water supply, including augmentation to reach the prescribed norms, higher degree of reliability, assurance of water quality, a high standard of operation and maintenance (O&M), accountability to customers, and levy and recovery of user charges, which were the main thrusts of the urban water supply intervention of project 1.5 It was also consistent with GOR’s approach and strategy for the 10th plan, which aimed at achieving national average levels with respect to all critical indicators of quality of life through reduction in poverty and regional disparities, provision of basic minimum services, and a focus on infrastructure development.6 7. At appraisal, while the design was appropriate to achieve the expected outcomes, it could have also considered incorporating 24x7 water supply and measures for non-revenue water (NRW) reduction. The MFF modality was a relevant and effective approach as it addressed the state’s medium- and long-term requirements and provided financial assistance based on project readiness. The MFF facilitated a long-term partnership between ADB and GOR and provided investment opportunities in 15 program ULBs, improving sector policies and strengthening institutional capacities, with the objective of achieving socio-economic development. 8. The project design under ADB’s $1.5 million component technical assistance was sound and supported GOR in capacity development, and ensuring high level of project readiness that aided accelerated initial implementation. The activities included (i) preparation of infrastructure base maps for all program ULBs, (ii) necessary surveys, data collection, and studies to complete the detailed design of identified subprojects in project 1 ULBs, (iii) assistance in the preparation of bid documents for these subprojects, and (iv) support to the investment program management unit (IPMU) in updating safeguard documents for sample subprojects. The component technical assistance was part of a $15.0 million technical assistance cluster (TAC), fully funded by the Government of the United Kingdom. 7 The TAC delivered its intended outcomes, namely,

3 ADB. 2003. Country Strategy and Program. India. 2003-2006. Manila; and ADB. 2003. Country Strategy and Program

Update. India. 2004–2006. Manila. 4 ADB. 2001. Water for All: The Water Policy of the Asian Development Bank. Manila. 5 Government of India, Planning Commission. 2002. Tenth Five-Year Plan, 2002–07. New Delhi. 6 Government of Rajasthan, Planning Department. 2002. Tenth Five-Year Plan, 2002–07. Jaipur. 7 ADB. 2006. Technical Assistance Cluster to India for Project Processing and Capacity Development. Manila.

(TA 4814-IND, approved on 30 June 2006).

3

improving project implementation readiness, strengthening local capacity and ownership, and enhancing the efficiency of implementation. The overall rating of TAC was successful.8 9. Learnings from the first ADB loan in Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (RUIDP) and other ADB projects in India were applied and areas of focus delineated; availability of all required land ensured before project commencement; investment program implementation units (IPIUs) established in project 1 ULBs, and project consultants mobilized before loan signing. 9 Subprojects were prioritized through a rigorous process of evaluation of their comparative technical, financial, and economic feasibility and social and environmental impacts. All subprojects identified and appraised during the processing of tranche 1 were implemented. Major and minor scope changes significantly enhanced allocation for urban infrastructure improvements, allowing for additional infrastructure works to be taken up, leading to increased coverage of urban infrastructure services, thus enhancing the project’s relevance (para. 33). The training activities were decided to be taken up under subsequent tranches reflecting the actual training program implementation schedule. 10. During loan processing, the design and monitoring framework (DMF) for the facility was prepared, and outcomes and outputs for the facility were defined. A separate DMF for project 1 was not prepared. For the three project 1 ULBs, the performance indicators and output targets were derived from the Activities and Milestones section of the DMF for the facility; while those for impact and outcomes were derived in proportion to the 15 program ULBs. The details of the achievements and contribution to ADBs result framework under project 1 are in Appendix 1. B. Project Outputs 11. Achievements of project 1 outputs are summarized below: 10

1. Part A: Urban Infrastructure Improvements 12. Water supply. Output targets of (i) source augmentation in Alwar and Jaisalmer, (ii) rehabilitation of two water treatment plants (WTPs), two intake works, and two clear water reservoirs at Jhalawar and Jhalarapatan, (iii) four stand-alone chlorinators at Alwar, (iv) construction of district water quality testing laboratory in Jhalawar, and (v) construction of storage reservoirs, laying of rising mains, and expansion of distribution systems in all project 1 ULBs, were largely met or surpassed. Pumping machinery at 59 tube wells and 19 pump houses were rehabilitated, and 69 submersible pumps and feeder panels at 107 tube wells were provided at Alwar. Two pump houses with pumping machinery in Jaisalmer, and two centrifugal pumps at intake works in Jhalawar–Jhalarapatan were provided. Instead of a clear water reservoir in Jaisalmer as originally planned, 7.7 km of rising main was provided based on design considerations. Installation of 154 bulk flow meters and 48 electromagnetic flow meters, against a target of 74 and 10, respectively, and 32,456 of the targeted 34,000 household water meters were undertaken in the project 1 ULBs to reduce unaccounted-for-water (UFW). Storage capacity for 15 days at Mohangarh Headworks was developed for the desert city of Jaisalmer to address

8 ADB. India Resident Mission. 2009. TA 4814-IND: Project Processing and Capacity Development. Technical

Assistance Completion Report. New Delhi. 9 ADB.1998. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to India for

the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project. Manila. 10 Project 1 contribution to ADB result framework are (i) households with new or improved water supply (number) in the

three project 1 towns = 96,232; (ii) wastewater treatment capacity added or improved (m3 per day) = 30,000; (iii) water supply pipes installed or upgraded (length of network in km) = 330; and (iv) land improved through drainage and/or flood management (ha) in Jaisalmer = 16.

4

water security concerns. Water supply service levels were increased from about 60–90 lpcd to 100–35 lpcd, while the duration increased from 0.75–1.0 hour every 2–3 days to more than 1 hour daily, with significant improvement in pressure and quality of water supplied. 13. Sewerage. Project 1 targets of two STPs with cumulative capacity of 30 million liters per day (mld), associated outfalls, trunk mains and laterals in Alwar and Jaisalmer, were achieved. As household connections were to be implemented by the ULBs as per GOR policy, it was not included in the design and, therefore, the corresponding 30% target could not be achieved. However, GOR has now mandated the ULBs to execute its recent policy of 100% sewerage connections and made budgetary provisions for the same. The impact of this complementary work-in-progress will be evident 2–3 years after provision of household connections. 14. Solid waste management. Against project 1 target to develop engineered municipal sanitary landfills of 261.5 tons per day cumulative capacity, 201.3 tons per day capacity was developed, although composting plants could not be constructed. GOR mandated Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam (RAVN) to construct composting plants across the state, which did not materialize. GOR is now exploring public–private partnership (PPP) options for SWM including (i) primary collection to final disposal, (ii) secondary collection to final disposal (e.g. @₹90/- per ton at Udaipur), and (iii) only treatment and disposal (e.g. @₹151/- per ton at Alwar). The target for the solid waste management and handling equipment and vehicles component was met. 15. Urban drainage. Comprehensive drainage master plans were prepared for project 1 ULBs as planned; and 5.7 km of the planned 12.8 km drains were constructed in Jaisalmer to facilitate storm-water runoff into natural channels. 16. Urban roads and transport. Preparation of comprehensive traffic master plans in project 1 ULBs, and construction of 0.85 km two-lane road over bridge to decongest the Itarana railway level crossing in Alwar were achieved, as planned. 17. Social infrastructure. The slum population of 66,705 (as of 2016) in project 1 ULBs benefitted from basic urban infrastructure and amenities developed under the project. 18. Support infrastructure for cultural heritage. This component was not part of project 1 output at appraisal. Heritage conservation planning and development of support infrastructure around monuments was taken up under subsequent tranches.

2. Part B: Capacity Development and Implementation Support 19. Capacity development. The performance indicators of project 1, (i) preparation of infrastructure base maps and geographical information system (GIS) based maps for project 1 ULBs and (ii) introduction of a double-entry accounting system, computerization of financial management systems, and improvement of asset management systems, were achieved, except in Alwar where valuation of municipal assets is underway to implement the double entry accounting system. The components for governance and institutional management training were taken up under subsequent tranches. 20. Implementation support. Assets and O&M responsibilities of sewerage systems have been handed over to project 1 ULBs, and community action and participation program (CAPP) and information, education, and communication (IEC) programs have been implemented. Implementation of sustainable user charges for water supply, including improved volumetric water charges, has been successful, while sewerage and SWM charges are yet to be levied. Training of

5

ULB and departmental staff in O&M of municipal services, financial management, and regulation enforcement is ongoing. C. Project Costs 21. The estimated project cost at loan appraisal was $75.00 million, with an ADB loan component of $60.00 million and GOR’s contribution of $15.00 million. At completion, the actual project cost reduced to $63.54 million, without curtailment of project outcomes or outputs, with ADB loan amount of $50.02 million and GOR’s contribution of $13.52 million. Financing charges decreased by $6.53 million due to lower interest rates, consequently reducing GOR’s contribution. An amount of $6.00 million was cancelled and $3.98 million remained unutilized at loan closing.11 GOR fully financed the incomplete civil works after loan closing. The ratio of ADB loan to GOR contribution changed from 80:20 at appraisal to 79:21 at completion. Appendix 2 provides details of the original allocation, reallocation, and actual disbursement of ADB financing by category. Appendix 3 compares the project costs at appraisal with actual costs. D. Disbursements 22. Loan proceeds were disbursed per ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook (January 2007, as amended from time to time). As specified in the loan agreement, the loan financed 100% of the goods and civil works expenditures, excluding taxes and duties. At project completion, disbursements amounted to $50.02 million, out of the total loan amount of $60.00 million, or 83.36%. The statement of expenditure (SOE) procedure was used to reimburse eligible expenditures not exceeding $100,000 equivalent per individual payment, which could have been enhanced considering the capacity of the IPMU. Retroactive financing up to 20% of the loan amount was approved to facilitate project implementation. Loan disbursements were on track from the first disbursement of 31 July 2008, and reached 20% and 60% of the original loan amount by 2009 and 2010, respectively. This included an imprest advance of $6.00 million, which GOR availed in 2010. However, due to overall project implementation delays and sharp depreciation of the Indian rupee in the second quarter of 2011, the disbursements fell short of the target in the subsequent year. Following GOR’s decision to make payments through treasury procedure due to delays in receipt of funds in the imprest advance facility, the imprest was liquidated against claims between the third quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2014. Appendix 4 provides a breakdown of quarterly contract award and disbursements. E. Project Schedule 23. The original loan closing date of 30 June 2013 was initially extended by one year, followed by another 6 months, to optimize loan utilization and enable completion of the additional subprojects in Alwar and Jaisalmer. The project was physically completed on 31 December 2014 and the loan account closed on 22 May 2015. There were no significant delays, which reflects the state’s preparedness at appraisal, with requisite land identified for STPs, landfills and other facilities, permission obtained from the railways for implementation of the rail-over-bridge (ROB), and preparation of detailed project reports, as well as its capacity for implementation and inter-departmental coordination, which led to smooth execution of utility shifting and timely issuance of necessary permissions and clearances. While most works were completed by loan closure, two water supply works and three wastewater works were still not complete due to contractors’ poor performance. Preparation of this PCR was deferred until substantial completion of these works in

11 Partial loan cancellations of $5.00 million and $1.00 million were effected on 11 March 2014 and 17 June 2014,

respectively, while the unutilized amount of $3.98 million was cancelled at loan closure on 22 May 2015.

6

April 2017. Appendix 5 provides details of contracts executed under the project and the timeframe for their implementation is in Appendix 6. F. Implementation Arrangements 24. The project’s implementation arrangements (Appendix 7) proved appropriate to achieve the envisaged outputs. The arrangements comprised the Local Self Government Department, GOR as the executing agency, a state-level and inter-ministerial empowered committee, a works finalization committee chaired by the principal secretary for urban governance, the IPMU as the implementing agency for RUSDIP headed by project director, IPIUs in each project town, and city level committees, which also functioned as grievance redress committees, chaired by district collectors. The IPMU and IPIUs were assisted by an investment program management consultant (IPMC) and three design and supervision consultants (DSCs) in preparing design documents, managing the tendering of contracts, and supervising construction works. For training and monitoring, there was a CAPP and investment program performance and management system (IPPMS) consultant. G. Conditions and Covenants 25. Most of the loan covenants (40 out of 42) were complied with. The government provided counterpart funds in a timely manner to support successful project implementation. Separate financial accounts for the project were maintained and audited annually by statutory auditors. The project achieved partial compliance of the covenant related to implementation of the institutional and financial improvement action plan (IFIAP). While enhancement of water, sewerage tariff and infrastructure development tax or urban development tax under IFIAP was achieved, sewerage and solid waste charges are yet to be levied. The covenant related to distribution network improvement works and UFW reduction program could not be achieved under the project.12 The double-entry accounting system was introduced in the three project 1 ULBs and is operational, except in Alwar, where valuation of municipal assets is underway to implement the system. Appendix 8 provides the status of compliance with loan covenants. H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 26. Consultants were recruited in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants (February 2007, as amended from time to time). The IPMU followed the quality- and cost-based selection procedure to appoint IPMC and three DSCs. The 15 program ULBs were divided into three groups of five program ULBs, based on their geographical location, and a group allotted to each DSC. The IPMU was familiar with ADB procedures and recruitment of consultants was accomplished prior to loan signing, contributing to project implementation readiness. 27. The procurement of civil works and goods conformed to ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (February 2007, as amended from time to time). In April 2008, a minor change in the procurement plan was approved, providing greater autonomy to expedite implementation of project 1. 13

12 Water supply was not conceived as a 24x7 supply with district metering areas. Project interventions were limited to

rehabilitation of old leaking pipelines and laying of new pipelines in selected areas of the three project 1 ULBs. Hence, the covenant related to the unaccounted-for-water (UFW) reduction program was unrealistic. Presently, water supply schemes with 100% metered house connections have been sanctioned under Government of India’s AMRUT scheme, and UFW reduction program is proposed to be achieved by 2018.

13 ADB. 2008. Loan 2366-IND. RUSDIP, First Loan–Minor Change in Procurement Plan. New Delhi. With the approved change, prior review by ADB was required only for the first national competitive bid document for works/goods/turnkey contracts, and their first technical and financial evaluation of proposals, for each subsector.

7

Standard bid documents were prepared for procurement of civil works and goods using standard specifications, national codes, practices and guidelines, which were used in the entire investment program. A contract numbering system was also developed. This led to standardization of all works and a quality control system, which was also applied in subsequent ADB-financed projects in Rajasthan. In October 2012, GOR’s e-portal was assessed and approved by ADB for contracts procured following national competitive bidding and shopping methods under the investment program. Procurement activities from contract packaging, bid evaluation, to the award of contracts were executed smoothly and were amongst IPMU’s core strengths and can be further strengthened by end to end e-procurement and contract management systems. I. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 28. The overall performance of the consultants is rated generally satisfactory. The performance of IPMC and DSCs was satisfactory. The IPMC provided technical support to the IPMU in resolution of contractual issues, safeguard monitoring, and progress report preparation. The performance of DSCs was initially hampered by slow internal mobilization and frequent replacement of team members, leading to some delays in planning, design, and implementation of the project. Close monitoring of DSCs and removal of a few DSCs’ personnel by the IPMU, led to optimal utilization of DSCs’ services and improved delivery of outputs by DSCs. The performance of IPPMS consulting firm engaged to prepare baseline, midterm, and end line project performance monitoring reports, was less than satisfactory. The contract of the firm that prepared the baseline report had to be terminated despite efforts to resolve the issue of undue delay in mobilization of the team for preparing the midterm report. 29. Overall, the performance of contractors is rated satisfactory. Initially, the contractors were unfamiliar with the requirements for quality, methodology, cash flow, management of grievances in an urban environment, and coordination with various other service providers and utility departments. The combination of poor decision-making during execution and poor resource mobilization by contractors had resulted in almost all water supply and sewerage contracts being extended by one to three years beyond the original contract period. Barring five contracts, all contractors completed their work before loan closure (para. 23). The contractors generally implemented the mitigating measures prescribed in the environmental management plan, although health and safety measures could have been improved. Performance of the suppliers is rated satisfactory. J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 30. The overall performance of the borrower and the executing agency is rated satisfactory. The borrower, represented by the Government of India’s Department of Economic Affairs, provided timely guidance and decisions to GOR on the project and undertook regular tripartite review meetings with ADB, GOR, and the IPMU, which helped identify bottlenecks, resolve issues, and monitor progress. GOR provided strong support to the IPMU, including timely counterpart funding and adequate human resources throughout the project period. The IPMU established project implementation procedures for planning and implementation early in the project cycle. It also established effective monitoring and implementing mechanisms through IPIUs in each project town, headed by executive engineers. This helped in inter-agency coordination, monitoring, and progress reporting from the field, and strengthened information flow to ADB and the project towns. The IPMU exhibited strong leadership with the placement of senior-level officers from the state government in its management, which helped in change management, critical for reforms implementation. The IPMU spent considerable time and effort on managing arbitration and other legal issues in the absence of techno-legal personnel. Reconciliation of loan

8

accounts during the PCR mission revealed certain inaccuracies in accounting leading to submission of excess claims as also non-submission of eligible claims (para. 51 and Appendix 9, para. 6). However, the IPMU was effective in managing the overlapping policy, regulatory, technical, and administrative aspects of project implementation, including safeguard compliance. K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 31. The performance of ADB is rated satisfactory. ADB undertook regular review missions, disbursement review mission and a midterm review to assess progress and advise on the resolution of outstanding issues. Monitoring, capacity building, and guidance by ADB throughout the project cycle helped define processes, address issues through time-bound actions and targets, and expedite project implementation. The IPMU found ADB’s support and advice effective in the resolution of project management issues. ADB also provided training and supported exposure visits of IPMU and IPIU personnel to other ADB supported projects in India and abroad. ADB monitoring ensured adherence to due processes and transparency in procurement, disbursements and safeguards, while upholding integrity and ethical standards.

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE A. Relevance 32. The project is relevant to the government’s development objectives and ADB’s country and sector strategies both at appraisal and completion (para. 6). Though the project predated ADB’s Strategy 2020, it remains relevant to the strategy, with its focus on infrastructure-led growth, poverty reduction, environment protection, and institutional strengthening.14 The project is aligned with ADB’s Water Operational Plan, 2011–2020.15 At completion, the project remains relevant to ADB’s policy focus on India in areas of inclusive growth, infrastructure, and environmental sustainability.16 It is still aligned with the government’s successive five-year plans and GOR’s 12th plan, which prioritized supply of potable water to its urban population, waste management, heritage conservation, and urban poverty alleviation. 17 It responded to the requirements of meeting the country’s gross domestic product growth target of 8%–9% per annum under the 11th and 12th plans, which focused on improved infrastructure, governance, and environment.18 It is in line with the state’s priorities for poverty reduction through improved access to potable water and sanitation, good governance, and private enterprise participation. 33. In September 2008, ADB approved a reallocation of $18.50 million to urban infrastructure improvements, representing 24.7% of the total project cost of $75.00 million, thereby resulting in a major change in scope.19 The change was largely due to price escalation and did not affect the outcome, outputs, scope, benefit, procurement, or other implementation arrangements of project 1. As the training activities were decided to be taken up under subsequent tranches, the cost of the capacity-building component decreased from $17.30 million to $6.70 million. In

14 ADB. 2008. Strategy 2020: The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank, 2008–2020.

Manila. 15 ADB. 2011. Water Operational Plan, 2011–2020. Manila. 16 ADB. 2013. Country Partnership Strategy: India, 2013–2017. Manila; ADB. 2013. Country Operations Business Plan:

India, 2013–2015. Manila. 17 Government of Rajasthan, Planning Department. 2012. Twelfth Five-Year Plan, 2012–17. Jaipur. 18 Government of India. Planning Commission. 2007. Eleventh Five-Year Plan, 2007–2012. New Delhi; and

Government of India. Planning Commission. 2012. Twelfth Five-Year Plan, 2012–2017. New Delhi. http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html

19 ADB. 2008. Loan 2366-IND. Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (RUSDIP), Project 1–Amendments to the Loan Agreement. New Delhi.

9

March 2011, ADB approved a minor change in scope by increasing coverage of two sewerage subprojects in Alwar and Jaisalmer to utilize the large sums allocated under contingencies and loan savings due to (i) appreciation of the US dollar and (ii) a lower-than-estimated contract award price for the packages awarded later. These changes increased the share of the infrastructure improvement component by 28% from $33.80 million at appraisal to $43.34 million at completion.20 Post the midterm review, ADB approved a reallocation of loan funds and a minor change in scope in July 2012.21 These changes were timely and in response to prevailing project realities, which optimized the use of loan funds (Appendix 2), and enhanced the project’s relevance. B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 34. Overall, the project is rated effective in achieving its outcome targets. The outcome indicators and targets in DMF, except those related to SWM, were achieved, while the targets related to provision of treated, piped water were largely surpassed. The improvements to water supply enhanced the quality of life in project 1 ULBs. Sewerage systems were developed in Alwar and Jaisalmer and 30 mld sewage treatment capacity was created reducing untreated wastewater discharge to water bodies. The urban drainage component executed in Jaisalmer led to flood protection of low-lying areas. Construction of ROB in Alwar eliminated vehicle idling time, increased mobility, reduced average travel cost and traffic congestion, and reported reduction in accidents at the railway level crossing. In effect, water supply exceeded outcome targets at completion, while drainage and urban transport interventions met the targets, and outcome targets of SWM were not achieved. Under the wastewater management component, targets for treatment capacities were met, while household connection targets were partly met. Improvements in institutional capacities and financial asset management systems were achieved. Thus, the project is considered effective, as targets for over 80% of project 1 investments were achieved and only the SWM component, which accounted for 2.9% investments, was ineffective. 35. Upon completion, urban infrastructure and services in project 1 ULBs substantially improved, benefiting 0.52 million people (94.9% of the population) with safe drinking water and 0.1 million people (24.7% of the population in Alwar and Jaisalmer) with wastewater management facilities, contributing to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).22 The water supply component resulted in asset creation, improved pumping efficiency, UFW reduction and lower O&M costs, and provided all households in project areas with regular and reliable service. Water supply improvements significantly benefited the residents (para. 45). The wastewater management component resulted in asset creation, systemic improvements, and improved environmental sanitation. As many as 66,705 people in identified slums were benefited with improved infrastructure and services. The ROB constructed in Alwar benefited all road users, including the poor, with time and cost savings.23 Outcome targets for SWM were not achieved as landfills remain non-functional. The decision to have compost plants executed by Rajasthan Awas

20 ADB. 2011. Loan 2366-IND. RUSDIP, Project 1–Minor Change in Scope and Reallocation of Loan Funds–

Amendment to Loan Agreement. New Delhi. 21 The reallocation of funds resulted in increased allocation under urban infrastructure development, reductions in

capacity development and investment program management and equipment, and cancellation of allocation under consulting services for resettlement and land acquisition (Appendix 2). The services of consulting firms or non-governmental organization for resettlement and land acquisition were no longer required as these were effectively handled by the investment program management unit (IPMU), with the support of investment program management consultants (IPMC) and community action and participation program (CAPP) consultants.

22 UN Habitat. 2000. Millennium Development Goals. Nairobi. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were eight international development goals for 2015. MDG goal 7, target 10 aimed to halve the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2015.

23 Evidenced from focus group discussions with road users and communities by the project completion review mission.

10

Vikas Nigam (RAVN)24 led to incomplete and ineffective facilities, as RAVN did not deliver on its mandate.25 The project led to on-the-job learning for IPMU and IPIU staff, consultants, and contractors. 36. The project successfully introduced good practices, which enhanced its effectiveness in achieving the outcome targets. These included (i) use of trenchless technologies with pulling method, enabling use of high density polyethylene pipes without buckling, (ii) adherence to health and safety measures such as lowering a probe to measure dangerous gases in manholes to establish safe conditions, and (iii) mandatory use of gas masks by manhole workers. 37. Resettlement and environmental safeguards. Safeguard-related covenants were complied, with no outstanding social safeguard issues. Land acquisition was not involved in project 1 and all subprojects were assessed as Category B or C for social safeguards. Initially, ADB approved four short resettlement plans (SRPs). The SRPs for wastewater subproject in Alwar and water supply subproject in Jhalawar were effectively implemented in compliance with ADB’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (1995) and government policy.26 The external monitoring report confirmed that the income status of affected persons was not adversely affected post implementation. The SRPs for water supply and wastewater subprojects in Jaisalmer were not required to be implemented as the water supply pipeline had already been laid by the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) and a short stretch of sewer line was dropped from the scope, and due diligence reports documenting avoidance of these impacts were prepared. The indigenous people categorization of the project was B. As indigenous people were not affected, re-categorization to Category C would have been appropriate. 38. Environmental assessments were undertaken and reports prepared for all subprojects under project 1, and approved by ADB. Two sewerage and sanitation subprojects were classified as Category B for environmental safeguards as per ADB’s Environmental Policy (2002). The objectives of the environmental management plans were achieved. Requisite Forest Department clearances were obtained. Requisite consent-to-establish and consent-to-operate were obtained, except for the consent-to-operate for Jaisalmer solid waste landfill site, which could not be obtained as the proposed location was within 10 km radius of an Indian Air Force establishment. The solid waste landfill site was later dropped. The project contributed significantly to the improvement of the urban environment of the project 1 ULBs and the region. 39. Safeguard compliance management were rated effective under appropriate institutional arrangements.27 The environmental and social monitoring reports were prepared and regularly disclosed during project implementation. Regular public consultations were carried out to disseminate project benefits, identify issues, and address problems encountered by the public during construction. Grievance redress committees were established in each project 1 ULBs.

24 Directorate of Local Bodies. Government of Rajasthan. 2006. Order No. TFC/DLB/06-07/8263 of 21.07.2006. Jaipur. 25 The Government of Rajasthan (GOR) is presently exploring public–private-partnership options in solid waste

management for all ULBs in the state under a central government scheme. The three project 1 ULBs have contracted out composting of municipal solid waste. Alwar has initiated a waste-to-energy project, wherein the contractor will buy solid waste at ₹151/ton, while Jaisalmer has commenced collection of municipal solid waste through contractors.

26 Livelihood assistance and shifting assistance were paid to 10 affected persons of the Alwar wastewater subproject. Two affected persons of Jhalawar water supply subprojects were paid livelihood assistance. All affected persons have returned to their original locations. None of the affected persons were vulnerable.

27 Adequate social and environmental safeguards monitoring and management was ensured by project officers of executive engineer rank at the IPMU, supported by safeguard experts of IPMC. The executive engineer, and the assistant engineer or junior engineer, at the IPMU level, supported by the social and environmental experts of the concerned design and supervision consultant, were responsible for safeguards in the project ULBs (footnote 21). All contractors engaged environment officers during construction.

11

C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 40. Overall, the project is rated efficient. The economic internal rate of return (EIRR) of all components, except urban transport and SWM, were assessed for efficiency. The EIRR at completion for the water supply component, which comprised about 48.5% of the project 1 cost, is assessed to be 37.8%, 20.3% and 22.3% against appraisal estimates of 28.0%, 16.5% and 19.5%, in Alwar, Jaisalmer, and Jhalawar, respectively. For the wastewater management and drainage component, EIRR at completion is assessed to be 25.0% and 13.9% against appraisal estimates of 25.4% and 129.7%, in Alwar and Jaisalmer, respectively. The EIRR for the urban transportation component was not estimated at appraisal and at completion, as the benefits are difficult to quantify. EIRR at completion has also not been assessed for the SWM component as its treatment and disposal facilities are nonfunctional. Nonetheless, these subprojects enhanced overall quality of life in project 1 ULBs by improving access to urban infrastructure and municipal services. The EIRR for the subprojects is above the hurdle rate of 12% and economic opportunity cost of capital of 12% despite the two-year delay in implementation. The loan extensions were approved to accommodate two additional sewerage subprojects in 2013 to utilize loan savings caused by dollar appreciation, and to enable completion of contracts delayed due to contractors’ poor performance (para 23). Details are provided in Appendix 9. D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 41. Overall, the project is rated as likely sustainable. The financial internal rate of return (FIRR) of the revenue-generating water supply component and financial sustainability of the project 1 ULBs and PHED, were assessed. Based on the GOR notification mandating an automatic annual 10% increase in the water tariff, the water supply interventions are likely sustainable with a combined FIRR of 2.93% and operating ratio below 1.0, indicating recovery of O&M costs with proposed tariff after 3 to 5 years of operations.28 For Jaisalmer’s water supply, FIRR at completion is assessed to be negative against the 16.1% appraisal estimate, as capital expenditure was substantial compared to the revenue from water charges, because the population of ULB is very small. Nevertheless, the intervention in Jaisalmer was a genuine need in the desert town and proved transformative. The weighted average cost of capital at completion came down appreciably to 1.63%, compared with 2.97% at appraisal. FIRR for the project 1 ULBs are provided in Appendix 9. 42. The degree of sustainability is likely to vary between outputs based on the institutional and financial capacities of the asset-owning agencies. Barring sewerage networks in Jaisalmer, all assets created under project 1 have been handed over to the respective line agencies. Sufficient financial and human resources are available for O&M of water supply and urban transport assets with their line agencies like PHED and Urban Improvement Trusts. Financial sustainability of PHED is adequate to meet the O&M costs of water supply assets from revenue generated, due to water tariff revision, subject to PHED maintaining collection efficiency (footnote 28). O&M of environmental sanitation assets is currently a concern, as is evident in the inadequate maintenance of STPs at Alwar and Jaisalmer, due to non-payment of O&M fees to contractors. The financial sustainability of project 1 ULBs at present collection levels is insufficient to meet the O&M costs of environmental sanitation assets. However, the untied transfers based on the recommendations of the 14th Central Finance Commission29 and State Finance Commission30 would assist the ULBs to meet the O&M costs of sewerage and SWM assets. Moreover, sewerage

28 Government of Rajasthan, 2015. Notification No. F/FA&CAO/RWSSMB/Mission/2014-15, 5 Nov 2015. Jaipur. 29 http://www.panchayat.gov.in/documents/10198/349332/Guidelines.pdf 30 http://sfc.rajasthan.gov.in/includes/interim_report_eng.pdf

12

assets will have the potential to generate additional revenue once the revised tariffs are levied (para. 51). ULBs could also create a corpus by bringing more properties under the urban development tax. E. Impact 43. The development impacts of the project are rated satisfactory. 44. Economic and social impacts. The per capita net district domestic product increased by 111%, 81%, and 50% in Alwar, Jaisalmer, and Jhalawar, respectively, between 2007–2008 and 2011–2012.31 There has been a substantial increase in the population with improved access to urban infrastructure and municipal services in the project 1 ULBs, with (i) 17.5% more population served with improved water supply, (ii) 24.7% of the total population (hitherto unserved) covered by sewerage systems in Alwar and Jaisalmer, and (iii) 100% population of Alwar benefited by improved urban transport infrastructure. Tourist inflows have increased by 15%, 14%, 39%, and 17%, in Alwar, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar, and Jhalarapatan, respectively, between 2008 and 2016. The percentage of population living below the poverty line declined in Alwar (by 0.6%), Jaisalmer (by 1.0%), and Jhalawar–Jhalapatan (by 2.6%). About 11.6% more of the population living below the poverty line in project 1 ULBs gained access to improved urban infrastructure services. Incidence of water-borne diseases was reported by 16% fewer households in project 1 ULBs in 2016–2017 from 2008. 45. Though economic growth and reduction in the poverty indices of project 1 ULBs cannot be fully attributed to the project, the project contributed to significant improvement in the quality of life indices, access to economic opportunities, considerable benefits to the poor in terms of improved service coverage, and helped achieve MDGs related to safe drinking water and sanitation access (para. 35). The water supply component benefitted the residents in terms of health, time, cost savings (water tanker and healthcare costs), and socio-economic benefits, as the irregular and uncertain supply prior to project implementation improved to reliable, safe, and daily water supply, post implementation. Water security concerns were addressed in the desert town of Jaisalmer, with creation of raw water storage facilities for a 15-day reserve period, and reduction of time to access potable water from over two hours to less than 15 minutes has had transformative impact, particularly on the poor and women. The drainage component in Jaisalmer minimized losses to households, mainly the poor living in low-lying areas, by reducing the incidences and duration of water logging. The urban transport component improved connectivity and livelihood opportunities. 46. Institutional impacts. The IPMU developed significant institutional capacities since implementation of the first ADB loan for RUIDP (1647-IND) and the three tranches of this MFF to plan and formulate projects, handle procurement, manage contracts, safeguards, and project implementation. It has consolidated its position in the state as the preeminent organization in managing large-scale externally aided and government-funded projects, while also enhancing capacity of the IPMU and other government departments. However, the capacities of ULBs remain weak due to lack of human resources and adequate revenue streams, which need to be addressed. Subsequent ADB loans (3182-IND and 3183-IND) to GOR were developed as a combination of policy-based lending and project loan, respectively, providing greater flexibility to the IPMU to identify infrastructure gaps and capacity building needs, develop and design

31 Government of Rajasthan, Department of Planning, Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Estimates of District

Domestic Product of Rajasthan, 2004–05 to 2011–12. Jaipur.

13

subprojects, and to undertake sustainable urban sector reforms at the state level.32 In compliance with one of the reforms under the policy-based lending, the IPMU is now a part of the state-level nodal agency for implementing urban infrastructure projects.33

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Overall Assessment 47. Overall, the project is rated successful based on its assessed relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability. The project was relevant to the government’s overall development objectives and ADB’s policies at appraisal, and continues to remain so upon completion. The project’s strength was its objective of universal coverage for water supply and wastewater services. The project is rated effective, as planned outcome and output targets of project 1 investments were substantially achieved. The project is rated efficient in achieving its outcomes and outputs, as EIRR for all interventions, except SWM, is above the hurdle rate of 12% and the economic opportunity cost of capital of 12%. The project achieved significant development impacts in the project 1 ULBs through improved living conditions for all, including the poor, sustained improvements in the urban environment, and increased access to economic opportunities. Initiatives implemented under the project and the impetus it provided to GOR to complement it with other works, such as provision of household connections, provide a comprehensive work-in-progress approach that will continue to deliver and augment project impacts. The project is rated likely sustainable. Project investments in water supply, comprising the bulk of investments and urban transport and roads are likely sustainable, while investments in wastewater management, and drainage are less than likely sustainable, and those in SWM, unlikely sustainable. GOR needs to immediately address O&M issues to improve sustainability of project assets. Compliance with loan covenants was satisfactory. Robust institutional arrangements and sound processes contributed to the overall success of the project. The IPMU’s success is attributable to its leadership, provision of senior-level government staff in management positions, and the availability of requisite human resources to implement the project. High ownership levels and consistent commitment to the project throughout the implementation period by GOR as demonstrated by timely decisions, close monitoring, and completion of spillover works using government funds, was a key factor to the project’s success. B. Lessons 48. The following important lessons emerge from the project:

(i) Enhancing project preparedness, e.g. through preparation of detailed designs, finalization of land required, and coordination for utility shifting, etc. prior to contract award, helps deliver projects in timely, responsive, and efficient manner.

(ii) DMF indicators, including those on poverty reduction, must be formulated based on data availability that directly correlates to project interventions. Inclusion of city level per capita income is impractical, as such data are not generated.

32 ADB. 2014. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loans and Technical

Assistance Grant and Administration of Grant to India for Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Program. Manila. 33 GOR has set up the Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water, Sewerage, and Infrastructure Corporation (RUDSICO),

amalgamating the IPMU, the Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam, and the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Finance and Development Corporation. RUDSICO’s human resource development policy and organizational structure is finalized.

14

(iii) While the design was appropriate, it could have also considered new developments and best practices in the urban sector, such as 24x7 water supply and NRW reduction measures, at the time of appraisal.34

(iv) To ensure timely realization of benefits of wastewater management systems, property connections should have been a part of the scope of works.35

(v) Reforms such as double-entry accounting systems should have been implemented by ULBs, rather than consultants, for ensuring better internalization by ULBs and continued application beyond the project period.

(vi) Implementation of asset transfer plans that were agreed between the IPMU and line agencies or ULBs, with detailed procedures for revenue sharing and transfer of skills, human resources, and debt-equity are critical for sustainability of assets.

(vii) The loan covenants should be formulated in line with the planned project interventions with realistic time frames (para. 25 and footnote 12).

(viii) The contract period needs to be realistic. Reducing the implementation period during bidding can be counterproductive, as liquidated damages get built into the bid price.

(ix) Mere embedding five years of O&M into contracts, even with performance guarantees, is inadequate to ensure sustainable outcomes. ULBs’ capacity to manage O&M contracts and dedicated revenue streams are also imperative.

(x) The SOE threshold of $100,000 equivalent per individual payment should consider the institutional capacity and the size and nature of contracts.

(xi) Having a dedicated cadre in the IPMU, rather than staff deputed from other government departments, would have ensured continuity in implementation (footnote 33). The IPMU also needs a legal cell for handling techno-legal cases.

C. Recommendations

1. Project Related 49. Future monitoring. Sustainability of environmental sanitation assets managed by ULBs would require monitoring of (i) transfer of sewerage charges collected by PHED to ULBs, (ii) levy of solid waste collection charges by ULBs, (iii) operationalization of PPP arrangements initiated in SWM sector; and (iv) improvement of collection efficiency of urban development tax. 50. Covenants. The covenants relating to IFIAP and UFW reduction program require additional time for compliance and should be maintained in their existing form. It is recommended that these covenants be held in abeyance pending further actions by GOR and monitored under subsequent ADB loans (3182-IND and 3183-IND) in the state. 51. Further action or follow-up. Actions requiring follow-up include (i) institutionalizing and implementing the asset transfer plans for project assets created, (ii) levy and collection of user charges for sewerage and SWM, and (iii) refund of excess claims under the project through a suitable mechanism (Appendix 10). 52. Timing of the project performance evaluation report (PPER). The PPER should be prepared in 2019, by which time the subprojects would have been operational for over two years.

34 An unintended consequence was the adoption of illegal methods by residents to draw water, subverting the

equitability of supply mechanism, and impacting service delivery. This important lesson was incorporated in the subsequent project, Loan 3182-IND and 3183-IND (footnote 36).

35 GOR has mandated 100% coverage of sewerage connections and has made necessary budgetary provisions. ULBs have been advised to select contractors to execute the order.

15

2. General

53. PCR recommends the following for future project appraisal and for the facility:

(i) Individual DMFs need to be prepared for each project of a MFF for comprehensive assessment of project achievements. DMF indicators must directly correlate to project interventions, based on available data, and be concise to facilitate monitoring and evaluation, without being time-consuming.

(ii) Subproject design should incorporate the latest developments in the sector. Water supply projects should be designed for 24/7 supply and NRW reduction.

(iii) Property connections in water supply and sewerage subprojects should be included in the project to ensure connectivity and realization of benefits.36

(iv) Hybrid payment structure involving deliverable-based payments for designs, reports and documents, and input-based payments for supervision will improve accountability and effectiveness of consultants’ performance.

(v) Implementation of the asset transfer plan should commence concurrently with project appraisal, so that ULBs’ capacities are developed before the handover of assets for ensuring sustainability.

(vi) Robust procurement and contract management should be established by extending e-procurement beyond e-submission, establishing a database for contract performance and e-registration of contractors.

(vii) The SOE threshold may be set based on the institutional capacity of the IPMU to manage funds.

(viii) Allocation of large sums under contingencies should be rationalized. 54. PCR recommends the following for project implementation:

(i) Covenants related to governance and institutional capacity building such as double entry accounting should be supported with a long-term implementation plan and dedicated resources beyond the project period. This would ensure that reforms are internalized and processes continue beyond the project period.

(ii) ULBs should be supported to develop and implement their own roadmaps for reform implementation and asset management plans, to ensure ownership and sustainability. Adequate O&M systems and dedicated technical staff in ULBs are required for ensuring sustainability.

(iii) The IPMUs should be strengthened with a techno-legal cell to handle contract arbitration.

36 This is incorporated into the subsequent ADB loan to Rajasthan (footnote 34), where property connections are

included in the scope of the contracts.

16 Appendix 1

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND ACHIEVEMENTS

Design Summary

Performance Indicators or Targets

Performance Indicators or Targets for three ULBs

under Project 11

Project Achievements for three ULBs under Project 1

Impact By the end of 2017 By the end of 2014

Increased economic growth and reduced poverty, and sustained improvement in the urban environment and quality of life in the initially identified urban local bodies (ULBs) in Rajasthan (the Investment Program ULBs)

• 10% increase in per capita real income in Investment Program ULBs

• 10% increase in per capita real income in project 1 ULBs

• Per capita net district domestic product in Alwar, Jaisalmer, and Jhalawar increased by 111%, 81%, and 50%, respectively, from 2007–2008 to 2011–2012.2

• 20% more of the population in the Investment Program ULBs reached by urban infrastructure services

• 20% more of the population in the project 1 ULBs reached by urban infrastructure services

• 17.5% more population served by improved water supply in the project 1 ULBs. 24.7% of the total population (hitherto unserved) covered by wastewater disposal services in Alwar and Jaisalmer, and 100% population of Alwar benefited by improved urban transport infrastructure.3

• 10% more tourists in the Investment Program ULBs

• 10% more tourists in the project 1 ULBs

• Tourists have increased by 15%, 14%, 39%, and 17% in Alwar, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar, and Jhalarapatan, respectively, between 2008 and 2016.4

• 20% less sanitation-related diseases in Investment Program ULBs

• 20% less sanitation-related diseases in project 1 ULBs

• About 16% fewer households in project 1 ULBs reported incidences of water-borne diseases in 2016–2017, as compared to 2008.5

• 30% more of the population living below the poverty line (BPL) with access to improved urban infrastructure services in Investment Program ULBs

• 30% more of the population living below the poverty line (BPL) with access to improved urban infrastructure services in project 1 ULBs

• Overall, 11.6% more of the BPL population in project 1 ULBs gained access to improved urban infrastructure services.6

• Constant or declining percentage of population living below the poverty line in Investment Program ULBs

• Constant or declining percentage of population living below the poverty line in project 1 ULBs

• Declining percentage of BPL population in Alwar (by 0.6%), Jaisalmer (by 1.0%) and Jhalawar–Jhalapatan (by 2.6%).7

1 Alwar, Jaisalmer, and Jhalawar-Jhalarapatan were the three Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) under project 1. A separate

design and monitoring framework (DMF) was not prepared for project 1, but outputs were defined under the Activities and Milestones section of the DMF for the facility.

2 Per capita real income data is not available at the ULB level, and hence district-wise per capita real income (Net District Domestic Product at Constant Prices) data for Rajasthan, which is available only till 2011–2012 has been used. Source: Government of Rajasthan, Department of Planning, Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Estimates of District Domestic Product of Rajasthan, 2004-05 to 2011–12. Jaipur. This is corroborated by the 206% increase in the per capita real income at State level between 2007–2008 and 2015–2016. Source: Government of Rajasthan, Department of Planning, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Economic Review 2015-16. Jaipur.

3 Percentages are reported for towns where specific components were taken up. 4 Source: IPMU. 5 Source: Investment Program Performance and Monitoring System (IPPMS) Consultants. End-term Evaluation Report

for Tranche–I Cities. January 2017. 6 Source: IPMU. 7 Source: IPMU.

Appendix 1 17

Design Summary

Performance Indicators or Targets

Performance Indicators or Targets for three ULBs

under Project 11

Project Achievements for three ULBs under Project 1

Outcome By the end of 2014: By the end of 2014:

Increased access to sustainable urban infrastructure and services for 1.6 million people in the Investment Program ULBs by the end of the Investment Program (2014)

Water supply: Water supply:

• 1.4 million people in the Investment Program ULBs (90% of the population) provided with treated piped water supply of at least 100 liters per capita per day (lpcd)

• 0.49 million people in project 1 ULBs (90% of the population) provided with treated piped water supply of at least 100 liters per capita per day (lpcd)

• Achieved. 0.52 million people (94.9% population of project 1 ULBs) provided with treated piped water supply; with an average supply of 113 lpcd.

Wastewater management: Wastewater management:

• 1.6 million people in the Investment Program ULBs provided with total and appropriate sanitation

• 0.54 million people in the project 1 ULBs provided with total and appropriate sanitation

• Partly achieved. 0.1 million people (24.7% of town population) in Alwar and Jaisalmer provided with improved sewerage services.

Improved capacity of, and sustainable management of urban services by, the Investment Program ULBs by the end of the Investment Program (2014)

• All ULBs with a population density of 150 households/ hectare and water supply of 135 lpcd provided with sewerage facilities including STPs

• All project 1 ULBs with a population density of 150 households/ hectare and water supply of 135 lpcd provided with sewerage facilities including STPs

• Achieved. The project 1 ULBs are yet to achieve a population density of 150 households/ hectare. However, sewerage facilities have been provided in two of the project 1 ULBs (Alwar and Jaisalmer).

• Less wastewater discharged to water bodies

• Less wastewater discharged to water bodies

• Achieved. 30 mld treatment capacity created for a 25-year design period. Current flow is about 5–6 mld.

Solid waste management: Solid waste management:

• All Investment Program ULBs with access to appropriate sanitary landfill facilities, and ULBs with capacity and facilities to collect municipal waste

• All project 1 ULBs with access to appropriate sanitary landfill facilities, and ULBs with capacity and facilities to collect municipal waste

• Not achieved. Sanitary landfills provided in project 1 ULBs but not functional. Decision to develop compost plants by Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam led to ineffective facilities.

Urban drainage: Urban drainage:

• Drainage outfalls provided in all Investment Program ULBs to reduce risks of flooding

• Drainage outfalls provided in all project 1 ULBs to reduce risks of flooding

• Achieved. Flooding reduced in Jaisalmer, the only project 1 ULB where urban drainage works were undertaken.

• All core areas of the Investment Program ULBs provided with roadside drains

• Roads not taken up in project 1 ULBs.

• Not applicable.

Urban transport and roads: Urban transport and roads:

• Improved traffic flow within the Investment Program ULBs and travel times between zones maintained at present levels or reduced in all the Investment Program ULBs

• Improved traffic flow within the project 1 ULBs and travel times between zones maintained at present levels or reduced in all the project 1 ULBs

Achieved. Less than two minutes to cross the railway crossing as compared to earlier 5–15 minutes. Zero vehicle idling time for railway and road traffic has increased mobility, reduced average travel costs, and eliminated traffic congestion at the Itarna railway crossing in Alwar.

18 Appendix 1

Design Summary

Performance Indicators or Targets

Performance Indicators or Targets for three ULBs

under Project 11

Project Achievements for three ULBs under Project 1

Social infrastructure: Social infrastructure:

• About 0.21 million people living in notified slums of Investment Program ULBs provided with improved basic urban services and living conditions8

• About 0.06 million people living in notified slums of project 1 ULBs provided with improved basic urban services and living conditions

• Achieved. About 66,705 people in identified slums in project 1 ULBs benefited with improved basic urban services and living conditions.

Improved institutional capacity

Improved institutional capacity

• Investment Program ULBs meet O&M costs of all urban services and have sound financial management practices

• Project 1 ULBs meet O&M costs of all urban services and have sound financial management practices

• Achieved. Project 1 ULBs meet O&M costs of all urban services from internal revenue streams and State’s budget. Project 1 ULBs are implementing reforms and preparing structured budgets.

• Investment Program ULBs have adequate revenues from their own sources such as local taxes and levies to meet all of their own expenses

• Project 1 ULBs have adequate revenues from their own sources such as local taxes and levies to meet all of their own expenses

• Partly achieved. Current fiscal policies allow project 1 ULBs to meet revenue expenses, but have not been fully implemented. Allocations from the state budget continue to augment local taxes and levies to meet project 1 ULBs’ expenses.

• Investment Program ULBs own urban assets and responsibilities for urban services, per the 74th Amendment to the Constitution of India

• Project 1 ULBs own urban assets and responsibilities for urban services, per the 74th Amendment to the Constitution of India

• Achieved. Project assets have been handed over to project 1 ULBs/ respective line agencies upon completion.

• Investment Program ULBs have adequately trained and skilled human resources to run and maintain urban facilities and services

• Project 1 ULBs have adequately trained and skilled human resources to run and maintain urban facilities and services

• Achieved. Contractors mandated to develop operation manuals and train municipal and departmental staff in O&M of plants. Training and capacity-building activities undertaken in subsequent tranches.

Outputsa Water supply Water supply

Implemented Investment Program for water supply

• System rehabilitation and UFW reduction program implemented in all Investment Program ULBs, including replacement of excessively leaking carrier mains; repair and replacement of distribution mains; repair and replacement of leaking house connections older than 10 years;

• Build new water supply ring main (17.5 km), 10 storage reservoirs, 17 stand-alone chlorination facilities / plants in Alwar by 2012

• Rehabilitate or replace about 47 km of water distribution pipelines in Alwar by 2011

• Achieved. New water supply ring main of 28.15 km laid; 11 storage reservoirs constructed and 4 standalone chlorinators installed in Alwar.

• Achieved. 95 km water distribution pipeline rehabilitated or replaced in Alwar.

8 Performance indicator of “0.21 million poor people living in notified slums” corrected to “0.21 million people living in

notified slums” to make it compatible with the performance indicator for Implemented Investment Program for Social Infrastructure, in the next section of this appendix on the design and monitoring framework.

Appendix 1 19

Design Summary

Performance Indicators or Targets

Performance Indicators or Targets for three ULBs

under Project 11

Project Achievements for three ULBs under Project 1

installation or replacement of consumer water meters in all existing connections; refurbishment or replacement of old pumping machinery; installation of bulk meters at all supply points; rehabilitation of water treatment plants; augmentation of storage capacities; and provision of chlorination facilities

• Complete new intake and supply augmentation facilities, including 58 km of transmission mains, 1 clear water reservoir, 10 storage reservoirs and power supply line for Jaisalmer by 2011

• Achieved. New intake and supply augmentation, including 57.1 km of transmission mains, 3 storage reservoir and power supply line completed in Jaisalmer. As planned, the clear water reservoir was replaced with 7.7 km of rising main, based on design considerations.

• Construct dry-well intakes (2), clear water reservoirs (2), overhead storage tanks (10) and rising mains (24.5 km) and rehabilitate water treatment plants in Jhalawar, and Jhalarapatan by 2011

• Partly achieved. 2 intake works and 2 clear water reservoirs rehabilitated, 9 storage reservoirs constructed, 14.8 km of rising mains laid and 2 water treatment plants at Jhalawar and Jhalarapatan rehabilitated.

• Install about 74 bulk flow meters, 10 ultrasonic flow meters and 34,000 household water meters installed in Alwar, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar, and Jhalarapatan by 2011

• Achieved. 154 bulk flow meters and 48 electromagnetic flow meters (in Alwar) and 32,456 household water meters installed in the project 1 ULBs.

• Rehabilitate pumping machineries and tube wells in Alwar, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar, and Jhalarapatan by 2011

• Achieved. Rehabilitation of pumping machinery at 59 tube wells and 19 pump houses, provision of 69 submersible pumps and provision of feeder panels at 107 tube wells undertaken at Alwar. In Jaisalmer, 2 pump houses constructed and pumping machinery installed. In Jhalawar–Jhalarapatan, 2 centrifugal pumps installed at intake works.

• Source augmentation and new treatment plants in Alwar, Jaisalmer, Baran–Chabra, Barmer, Rajsamand, Dhaulpur, Karauli, Churu, Nagaur, Sawai Madhopur, and Sikar

• Source augmentation and new treatment plants in Alwar and Jaisalmer

• Achieved. Source augmented and water treatment plants rehabilitated in project 1 ULBs. For water security, 15 days storage capacity at Mohangarh headworks created for the desert city of Jaisalmer.

• New distribution pipelines installed to increase piped water supply coverage to 90% of households in Investment Program ULBs

• New distribution pipelines installed to increase piped water supply coverage to 90% of households in project 1 ULBs

• Achieved. 228.1 km of distribution pipelines installed to increase piped water supply to more than 90% households in project 1 ULBs.

• District water quality testing laboratory in Jhalawar

• District water quality testing laboratory in Jhalawar

• Achieved. Established and managed by PHED.

20 Appendix 1

Design Summary

Performance Indicators or Targets

Performance Indicators or Targets for three ULBs

under Project 11

Project Achievements for three ULBs under Project 1

Implemented Investment Program for wastewater management

Sewerage and sanitation Sewerage and sanitation

• Sewerage system—outfall, trunk sewers, and tertiary networks and household connection in priority areas as identified—and sewage treatment plants (STPs) constructed in Alwar (STP capacity 20 mld), Jaisalmer (10 mld), Baran (12 mld), Chabra (4 mld), Bharatpur (20 mld), Bundi (10 mld), Chittorgarh (10 mld), Dhaulpur (10 mld), Karauli (8 mld), Churu (15 mld), Nagaur (10 mld), Sawai Madhopur (13 mld), and Sikar (16 mld)

• Complete STPs (20 mld in Alwar and 10 mld in Jaisalmer), and associated outfalls, trunk mains, laterals, and household connection (minimum of 30% of households) by 2012

• Achieved. 30 mld treatment capacity achieved with 20 mld and 10 mld STPs at Alwar and Jaisalmer, respectively.

• Partly achieved. 17.5 km of outfall, 20.8 km of trunk sewers and 53.8 km of laterals and 1,410 household connections completed in Alwar. 7.7 km of outfall, 2.3 km of trunk sewers and 44.0 km of laterals and 880 household connections completed in Jaisalmer.

Implemented Investment Program for Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management Solid waste management

• Household waste containers in all Investment Program ULBs

• Household waste containers provided in all project 1 ULBs

• Achieved. Household waste containers provided in all project 1 ULBs.

• Collection and transportation containers, equipment, and vehicles for municipal solid waste in all Investment Program ULBs

• Procure solid waste equipment and vehicles for Alwar, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar and Jhalarapatan by 2009

• Achieved. Solid waste equipment and vehicles procured in project 1 ULBs (85 rickshaw trolleys, 156 hand carts, 750-liter twin bins, 9 auto rickshaws, 5 truck mounted refuse compactors, 300 garbage collection containers, 5 trucks with hydraulic lift; and 4 loader backhoe machines).

• Engineered municipal sanitary landfills and composting plants constructed according to Government of India’s Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2000, in all Investment Program ULBs

• Construct four sanitary landfills (and composting plants)—ultimately 163 tons/day in Alwar, 55 tons/day in Jaisalmer, 25 tons/day in Jhalawar, and 18.5 tons/day in Jhalarapatan—by 2012

• Partly achieved. Sanitary landfills developed of 150 tons/day in Alwar, 35.7 tons/day in Jaisalmer, and 15.63 tons/day in Jhalawar.

Implemented Investment Program for urban drainage

Urban drainage Urban drainage

• Comprehensive drainage master plan for all Investment Program ULBs

• Comprehensive drainage master plan for all project 1 ULBs

• Achieved. Comprehensive drainage master plan for project 1 ULBs prepared.

• Roadside drains and trunk outfalls to carry storm-water runoff into natural channels, and adequate tools and resources to maintain the drains according to master plans

• Complete 12.8 km of outfall drains in Jaisalmer by 2010

• Partly achieved. 5.7 km of drains constructed in Jaisalmer to facilitate runoff of storm-water into natural channels.

Appendix 1 21

Design Summary

Performance Indicators or Targets

Performance Indicators or Targets for three ULBs

under Project 11

Project Achievements for three ULBs under Project 1

Implemented Investment Program for urban roads and transport

Urban transport and roads Urban transport and roads

• Comprehensive traffic management plans prepared for all Investment Program ULBs

• Comprehensive traffic management plans prepared for project 1 ULBs

• Achieved. Comprehensive traffic master plan for project 1 ULBs prepared.

• Identified major entry and exit roads resurfaced in Investment Program ULBs to decongest city or town centers

• No roads work envisaged in project 1 ULBs.

• Not applicable.

• Identified transport infrastructure—roads over bridges or under bridges in Alwar, Baran and Chabra, Bharatpur, Bundi, Chittorgarh, Churu, Nagaur, Sawai Madhopur, and Sikar—completed in Investment Program ULBs

• Complete road over bridges in Alwar by 2010

• Achieved. 2-lane road over bridge of 0.85 km constructed in Alwar.

Implemented Investment Program for social infrastructure

• Major entry and exit roads, basic urban infrastructure, and amenities (e.g., water and sanitation, roads, streetlights, drainage, community hall, rainwater harvesting structures) developed for 0.21 million people living in identified slums in Investment Program ULBs

• Basic urban infrastructure, and amenities (e.g., water and sanitation, roads, streetlights, drainage, community hall, rainwater harvesting structures) developed for 0.06 million people living in identified slums in project 1 ULBs

• Achieved. 66,705 people in identified slums in project 1 ULBs benefitted from basic urban infrastructure and amenities developed. Government order issued to provide basic municipal services to all the people living in slum areas, irrespective of land ownership.

Implemented Investment Program for support infrastructure for cultural heritage

• Heritage conservation plans prepared for identified sites and monuments in Investment Program ULBs

• Not envisaged under project 1

• Not applicable.

• Identified supporting infrastructure around monuments and facilities for tourists developed in Investment Program ULBs

• Not envisaged under project 1

• Not applicable.

Implemented Investment Program for capacity development

• Infrastructure base maps completed for all Investment Program ULBs

• Infrastructure base maps completed for all project 1 ULBs

• Achieved. Prepared for all ULBs under project 1.

• Identified governance and institutional management training provided to Investment Program ULB officials

• Identified governance and institutional management training provided to Investment Program ULB officials

• Not achieved. Training and capacity-building activities were undertaken in subsequent tranches.

• Double-entry accounting system introduced, financial management systems computerized, and asset management systems improved in Investment Program ULBs

• Double-entry accounting system introduced, financial management systems computerized, and asset management systems improved in project 1 ULBs

• Achieved. Double-entry accounting system introduced; financial management systems computerized, and asset management systems improved in project 1 ULBs, except in Alwar where valuation of municipal assets is underway to

22 Appendix 1

Design Summary

Performance Indicators or Targets

Performance Indicators or Targets for three ULBs

under Project 11

Project Achievements for three ULBs under Project 1

implement the double-entry accounting system.

Investment Program implemented and well managed

• Handover of assets and responsibilities of sewerage systems (from PHED to the Investment Program ULBs) completed

• Handover of assets and responsibilities of sewerage systems (from PHED to the project 1 ULBs) completed

• Achieved. Project 1 assets, including sewerage, handed over to line agency/ ULBs.

• Sustainable user charge structure, including improved volumetric water charges, sewerage charges, and solid waste management charges, implemented

• Sustainable user charge structure, including improved volumetric water charges, sewerage charges, and solid waste management charges, implemented

• Achieved. Tariff implemented by concerned agencies.

• GIS installed in priority areas • GIS installed in priority areas

• Achieved. GIS based maps prepared for project 1 ULBs.

• Municipal and departmental staff trained in operation and maintenance of services, financial management, and regulation enforcement

• Municipal and departmental staff trained in operation and maintenance of services, financial management, and regulation enforcement

• Achieved. Contractors mandated to develop operation manuals and train municipal and departmental staff in operation and maintenance of plants besides operating and maintaining the plants for five years.

• PPP opportunities studied and tried in selected subprojects in Investment Program ULBs

• PPP opportunities studied and tried in selected subprojects in project 1 ULBs

• Achieved. PPP opportunities explored for solid waste management in 186 ULBs in Rajasthan.9

• CAPP and IEC programs implemented in Investment Program ULBs

• Initiate CAPP and IEC by April 2008

• Achieved. These were initiated by July 2008 and implemented in Investment Program ULBs.

BPL = below poverty line; CAPP = community action participation program; GIS = geographic information system; IEC = information, education, and communication; km = kilometer; mld = million liters per day; O&M = operation and maintenance; PHED = Public Health and Engineering Department; PPP = public-private partnership; STP = sewage treatment plant; UFW = unaccounted-for water; ULB = urban local body. a Project 1 contribution to ADB result framework are (i) households with new or improved water supply (number) in the three project 1 towns = 96,232; (ii) wastewater treatment capacity added or improved (m3 per day) = 30,000; (iii) water supply pipes installed or upgraded (length of network in km) = 330; and (iv) land improved through drainage and/or flood management (ha) in Jaisalmer = 16.

Source: Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan.

9 Options explored included (i) primary collection to final disposal, (ii) secondary collection to final disposal e.g. @₹90/-

per ton at Udaipur, and (iii) only treatment and disposal e.g. @₹151/- per ton at Alwar.

Appendix 2 23

ALLOCATION, REALLOCATION AND ACTUAL DISBURSEMENT OF ADB FINANCING BY CATEGORY ($ million)

Cat Code Category ADB Financing

Original Allocation

Revised Allocation (17 Mar 08)

Revised Allocation (25 Sep 08)

Revised Allocation (13 Jul 12)

Revised Allocation (11 Mar 14)

Revised Allocation (17 Jun 14)

Net Amount

Available Amount

Disbursed Undisbursed

Balance

01 Civil works 76% 33.80 33.80 52.30 53.34 48.34 47.34 47.34 43.34 4.00

01A Civil works 100% of expenditure 32.10 32.10 50.60 52.50 47.50 46.50 46.50 42.53 3.97

01B Equipment and materials

100% of expenditure 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.81 0.03

01C Consulting services 100% of expenditure

0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

02 Capacity development and program assistance

100% of expenditure 17.30 17.40 6.70 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.68 (0.02)

02A Consulting services

100% of expenditure 13.20 13.20 5.40 5.82 5.82 5.82 5.82 5.77 0.05

02B Training 100% of expenditure 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

02C Incremental recurrent cost

40% of expenditure claimeda

3.20 3.20 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.91 (0.07)

03 Unallocated 8.90 8.80 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

03A Physical contingencies

3.30 3.20 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

03B Price contingencies

5.60 5.60 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 55.00 54.00 54.00 50.02 3.98

a Loan agreement stating 71%, was amended to 40% effective 24 November 2008 following major change of scope.

Source: ADB Loan Financial Information System.

24 Appendix 3

BREAKUP OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE COST AND LOCAL CURRENCY COST BY COMPONENT ($ million)

Item

Appraisal Reviseda Actual

Cost Foreign Local Cost Foreign Local Cost Foreign Local

A. Base Cost by Component

Component A: Urban Infrastructure Improvements

Civil Works 32.1 0.0 32.1 50.6 0 50.6 45.8 0.0 45.8

Equipment 1.5 1.3 0.2 1.5 1.3 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.8

Consultant 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Land 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 4.1 0.0 4.1

Subtotal (A) 34.2 1.3 32.9 52.7 1.3 51.4 50.7 0.0 50.7

Component B: Capacity Development and Investment Program Management

Consultant 13.2 0.0 13.2 5.4 0 5.4 5.8 0.0 5.8

Training 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Incremental Recurrent Cost 4.4 0.0 4.4 2.0 0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

Subtotal (B) 18.6 0.0 18.6 7.9 0 7.9 6.8 0.0 6.8

B. Contingencies

Physical 3.3 0.1 3.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Price 5.7 0.1 5.6 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal–Contingencies 9.0 0.2 8.8 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

C. Financing Charges 8.5 8.5 0.0 8.5 8.5 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0

D. Taxes and Duties 4.7 0.0 4.7 4.7 0 4.7 4.1 0.0 4.1

Total 75.0 10.0 65.0 75.0 10.0 65.0 63.5 1.9 61.6

a Amendment to loan agreement, effective 24 November 2008. Source: ADB.

Appendix 4 25

CONTRACT AWARDS AND DISBURSEMENTS ($ million)

Year

Contract Awards Disbursements

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

2008 Projection 0.00 11.00 2.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00

Actual 0.00 5.30 1.08 13.83 20.22 0.00 0.00 0.43 1.84 2.27

2009 Projection 2.00 2.00 1.00 20.00 25.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 3.00 9.50

Actual 2.29 0.00 19.76 3.54 25.59 0.79 0.42 2.84 5.57 9.62

2010 Projection 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.20 12.50

Actual 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.75 0.67 7.82 6.64 9.45 24.58

2011 Projection 0.00 0.00 5.48 0.00 5.48 4.50 4.20 3.70 2.40 14.80

Actual 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 4.07 1.85 1.78 2.47 10.17

2012 Projection 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.30 2.30 2.40 2.40 2.30 1.70 8.80

Actual 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 1.06 0.00 0.00 2.84

2013 Projection 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50

Actual 0.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2014 Projection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.40 0.00 4.40

Actual 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 Projection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Actual 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.54

Q = quarter.

Source: ADB.

26 Appendix 5

SUMMARY OF CONTRACT DETAILS

PCSS No.

Contract Amount

($)

ADB Financing

($) Disbursed

($) Contract Package Contract Description Contractor

Contract Award

Actual Completion

Urban Infra Improvement-Civil Works

0006 697,771 615,708 615,708 ALW-JHL/WS-01 (Lot 1)

Replacement of inefficient pumping machinery of pump houses and tube wells

Dynamic–Megha (JV)

21 Jun 2008 22 Mar 2010

0010 3,688,649 3,527,700 3,527,700 ALW/WS-02 Providing, laying, jointing, testing and commission of water pipeline to strengthen distribution system

SMC Infrastructure–GKC (JV)

5 Sep 2008 12 Jun 2012

0011 3,954,743 4,925,770 4,925,770 JHL/WS-02 Improvement of intake structures; replacement of pumping machinery; rehabilitation of old WTPs

SMC Infrastructure–GKC (JV)

5 Sep 2008 30 May 2016

0012 2,211,218 1,991,131 1,991,131 JSL/WS-02 Providing, laying, jointing, testing and commission of water pipeline to strengthen distribution

SMS Paryavaran 9 Sep 2008 30 Apr 2017

0021 14,209,097 12,809,823 12,809,823 JSL/WS-01 Design, supply, construct, install and commission of raw pump station at Mohangarh

Offshore Infrastructure

8 Jul 2009 12 Dec 2012

0027 834,670 626,584 626,584 ALW/WS/03 Providing, installation, testing and commissioning of bulk flow meters and domestic water meters

DEEM Construction Company

6 Sep 2010 30 Apr 2017

0020 2,763,407 3,545,003 3,545,003 ALW/BR-01 Construction of approaches and viaduct spans of ROB at Itarana level crossing

JAIN Construction–PNC Infra Tech (JV)

13 Jul 2009 30 Apr 2012

0008 1,098,307 883,789 883,789 JSL/DR-01 Construction of new drains and minor bridges

Offshore Infrastructures

8 Jul 2008 30 Sep 2010

0009 4,080,775 2,504,184 2,504,184 JSL/WW-01 Sewerage and waste stabilization ponds, phase 1

SMS Paryavaran. 11 Aug 2008 30 Apr 2017

0013 1,461,557 1,482,394 1,482,394 ALW/WW-01 Lot2

Providing, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of 1100 mm RCC pipe for sewer laying of outfall

L. R. Sharma and Company

31 Oct 2008 21 Sep 2010

0019 2,717,369 3,405,553 3,405,553 ALW/WW-02 Lot 1

Providing, laying, jointing, testing and commission of 800–1200 mm RCC pipe for sewers laying of outfall

Bhoorathnom Construction Company

10 Jul 2009 20 Jun 2012

Appendix 5 27

PCSS No.

Contract Amount

($)

ADB Financing

($) Disbursed

($) Contract Package Contract Description Contractor

Contract Award

Actual Completion

0022 2,268,275 2,173,366 2,173,366 ALW/WW-02 Lot 2

Design, construction, supply, erection, testing, commissioning and five years O&M of 20 mld STP

Bhoorathnom Construction Company

21 Aug 2009 30 Jul 2012

0028 2,798,018 1,557,395 1,557,395 ALW/WW/03 Supply, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of various trunk and lateral sewers

A2Z Maintenance -Engineering Services (JV)

25 Mar 2011 31 Mar 2017

0029 3,383,772 504,243 504,243 ALW/WW/05 Supply, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of sewer lines and road restoration

UEM India 7 May 2013 31 Mar 2017

0030 2,504,229 1,322,982 1,322,982 JSL/WW/09 Laying of main sewer, intercepting sewers, lateral sewers in various areas

UEM India 15 Mar 2013 31 Mar 2016

0023 339,605 385,270 385,270 ALW/SW-05 Development of sanitary landfill site

R.K. Construction Company

24 Aug 2009 17 Oct 2012

0024 191,794 143,639 143,639 JSL/SW-07 Development of sanitary landfill site Durga Impex–Hema Const (JV)

24 Aug 2009 31 Dec 2014

0026 191,118 127,432 127,432 JHL/SW-08 Development of sanitary landfill site D'Silva Enterprises 10 Feb 2010 31 Mar 2016

Urban Infra Improvement-Equipment

0014 155,745.34 144,600 144,600 ALW-JHL-JHP-JSL/SW-

01

Supply and delivery of rickshaw trolley (8 bins), hand carts (6 bins) and litter bin (twin bin)

Nilkamal 4 Nov 2008 17 Sep 2009

0015 78,052.52 70,027 70,027 ALW-JHL-JHP-JSL/SW-

02 Lot1

Supply and delivery of 1.1 cum bin carrier auto rickshaw for 3 Project towns

Ensol Multiclean Equipments

4 Nov 2008 14 Sep 2009

0016 324,872.03 309,612 309,612 ALW-JHL-JHP-JSL/SW-

02 Lot2

Supply and delivery of 14 cum truck-mounted refuse compactor and 1.1 cum garbage collection container

TPS Infrastructure 4 Nov 2008 14 Dec 2009

0017 139,066.03 121,173 121,173 ALW-JHL-JHP-JSL/SW-

02 Lot3

Supply and delivery of truck with hydraulic lift for transport of solid waste 10 and 5 cum for 2 Project towns

Prabhu Dayal–Om Prakash

4 Nov 2008 13 Jan 2011

0018 178,692.65 165,163 165,163 ALW-JHL-JHP-JSL/SW-

03

Supply and delivery of loader backhoe machine for 3 Project towns

JCB India 4 Nov 2008 14 Dec 2009

28 Appendix 5

PCSS No.

Contract Amount

($)

ADB Financing

($) Disbursed

($) Contract Package Contract Description Contractor

Contract Award

Actual Completion

Capacity Development-Investment Program Management & Consultancy Services

0001 2,641,136.91 905,100 905,100 IPMC Investment program management consulting services

Consulting Engineering Services (India)

17 Dec 2007 31 Dec 2014

0002 3,991,136.79 1,353,477 1,353,477 DSC-I Design and construction supervision consultancy services-package I

Gherzi Eastern 17 Dec 2007 31 Dec 2014

0003 4,744,285.86 1,522,747 1,522,747 DSC-II Design and construction supervision consultancy services-package II

Span Consultants 17 Dec 2007 31 Dec 2014

0004 4,701,245.83 1,522,229 1,522,229 DSC-III Design and construction supervision consultancy services-package III

Shah Technical Consultants

17 Dec 2007 31 Dec 2014

0005 1,276,888.80 425,959 425,959 CAPP Design and implementation of community action participation program (CAPP)

Indian Institute of Rural Management

17 Jul 2008 31 Dec 2014

0007 285,486.50 39,310 39,310 IPPMS Investment program performance monitoring system (IPPMS)

Tetra Tech India 18 Aug 2008 31 Dec 2014

Incremental Recurrent Cost

0025 2,092,958.52 836,196 836,196 VARIOUS Incremental recurrent cost Various 18 Nov 2009 31 Dec 2014

0031 184,015.87 73,432 73,432 ROB supervision charges at Alwar and cost of shifting of the electrical lines at Jaisalmer STP

Various 18 Apr 2014 31 Dec 2014

cum = cubic meter, JV = joint venture, mld = million liters per day, mm = millimeter, O&M = operation and maintenance, RCC = reinforced cement concrete, ROB = rail over bridge, STP = sewage treatment plant, WTP = water treatment plant.

Source: Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan.

Appendix 6 29

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: APPRAISAL–ACTUAL

Task

Original Target Revised Target Actual

Start Date End Date Start Date End Date Start Date End Date

Incremental Administration 1 Jul 2007 30 Jun 2014 1 Jul 2007 31 Dec 2013 18 Nov 2009 30 Jun 2013

Investment Program Consultants 1 Oct 2007 30 Jun 2014 1 Jan 2008 31 Dec 2013 17 Dec 2007 31 Dec 2014

Institutional Development 1 Oct 2007 31 Dec 2010 1 Jan 2008 31 Dec 2012 NA NA

Community Awareness and Participation Program

1 Jan 2008 30 Jun 2013 1 Jul 2008 31 Dec 2013 17 Jul 2008 31 Dec 14

Program Performance Management System

1 Jul 2008 31 Dec 2013 1 Jul 2008 31 Dec 2013 18 Aug 2008 31 Dec 2014

Water Supply

Leak Detection and Rectification/ Replacement of Pipelines

1 Jul 2007 30 Jun 2009 1 Jul 2007 31 Dec 2010 21 Jun 2008 31 Mar 2017

Expansion of Distribution Network and Construction of Storage Reservoirs

1 Jan 2008 31 Dec 2009 1 Jan 2008 31 Dec 2010 5 Sep 2008 31 Mar 2017

Environmental Sanitation Infrastructure

Construction of Sewage Treatment Plants (Sample Subprojects)

1 Jul 2007 31 Dec 2008 1 Jul 2007 31 Dec 2010 11 Aug 2008 31 Mar 2017

Laying of Outfall, Trunk, and Part Lateral Sewers

1 Jul 2007 30 Jun 2008 1 Jul 2007 31 Dec 2010 31 Oct 2008 20 Jun v12

Procurement of SWM Equipment (Sample Subprojects)

1 Jan 2008 31 Dec 2008 1 Jan 2008 31 Dec 2010 4 Nov 2008 13 Jan 2011

Urban Transport and Roads

Construction of Road Over Bridges (Sample Subprojects)

1 Jul 2007 31 Dec 2008 1 Jul 2007 31 Dec 2010 13 Jul 2009 30 Apr 2012

NA = not applicable, SWM = solid waste management.

Source: Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan.

30 Appendix 7

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

1. The executive agency for the Investment Program is the Local Self Government Department (LSGD), which has the jurisdiction over the Investment Program ULBs. The project management unit of ADB’s first loan (Loan 1647-IND) to the state, Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, reconstituted as the investment project management unit (IPMU), is the implementing agency responsible for overall implementation and management of activities financed under the Investment Program. The IPMU is headed by a project director who manages the Investment Program and coordinates with the investment program implementation units (IPIUs), concerned agencies and departments.

2. An inter-ministerial state-level empowered committee (SEC), chaired by the minister of urban development and local self governance, with the project director as member secretary, provides policy guidance and coordination with full powers to decide on matters relating to the Investment Program. The secretaries of infrastructure, urban governance, local self governance, finance, planning, tourism, art and culture, and public health engineering department (PHED) are members of the SEC.

3. A work finalization committee, chaired by the principal secretary of urban governance, reviews and endorses subproject appraisal reports prior to submission to ADB. Its members include the secretary, LSGD, the project director, RUIDP, concerned district collectors, representatives of concerned departments (Local Bodies, Archaeology, Medical and Health, Tourism, Town Planning), chief engineers of PHED and public works department, and the superintending engineer of concerned IPIU.

4. City-level committees, chaired by the respective district collectors, provide guidance to IPIUs on actions to improve project performance. Members included elected representatives from the city (members of the Parliament and the legislative assembly), the municipal commissioner, elected chairpersons of relevant development committees, officers of concerned departments such as Archeology Department and Tourism Department, as appropriate, and participating community-based organizations.

5. Individual project city IPIUs carry out day to day implementation activities and report to the IPMU. Investment program management consultants and three design and supervision consulting firms assisted the IPMU and IPIUs, respectively, in preparing the detailed designs, bidding documents, and supervision of the contract packages.

6. A community development officer was appointed in each project ULB to coordinate between the IPIU activities and the communities, particularly about awareness and generation and social impacts. Besides this, the city-level committees also acted as grievance redress committees and met at regular intervals to discuss representations, if any, regarding the implementation of the project.

Appendix 8 31

STATUS OF MAJOR LOAN COVENANTS

Covenant Reference in Loan

Agreement

Status of Compliance

Execution and Committees

The Empowered Committee as established by the State shall provide policy guidance and overall coordination across all the State agencies and ULBs, and take decisions on matters related to the Facility and the Project.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 2 (a)

Complied with.

The work finalization committee as established by the State, shall be responsible for reviewing the Subproject appraisal reports for their final approval in accordance with the procedures set forth under schedule 4 to the FFA.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 2 (b)

Complied with.

Implementation

An IPMU as established and fully staffed by the EA that shall be the implementing agency (IA), shall be responsible for overall implementation and management of the Project. The IPMU shall be headed by a Project Director (PD). The PD shall be responsible for overall management of the Facility and the Project and coordination with and reporting to the Empowered Committee, the State and ADB on the same.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 3 (a)

Complied with.

The IPMU, with the assistance of IPMC and DSCs, shall be responsible for detailed appraisal of subprojects and ensure that these meet the selection criteria described in Schedule 4 of the FFA.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 3 (b)

Complied with.

Establishment of 3 IPIUs at the zonal and sub-division levels of the LSGD (cities of Alwar, Jaisalmer, and Jhalawar) by Dec 2007; appointment of a full-time representative of the IPIU.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 4 (a)

Complied with.

IPMU and IPIUs shall be assisted by the IPMC in managing the Project and assuring the technical quality of design and construction, and the DSCs in preparing the design documents, managing tendering of contractors and supervising the construction works.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 4 (b)

Complied with.

CLCs to review Project activities, identify issues for improvement, and provide guidance to the IPIUs on actions to improve project performance. In ULBs where water source augmentation subprojects are proposed, representatives from State Department of Irrigation shall also be made members of the CLC; and wherever heritage and tourism subprojects are proposed representatives from Archaeological Survey of India or State Department of Archaeology Museum (depending on appropriate jurisdiction), and State Department of Tourism shall be members of the CLC. The CLCs shall meet at least quarterly or more frequently, as required.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 5

Complied with.

Funds

The State shall on-lend the Loan proceeds to the ULBs under appropriate arrangements acceptable to ADB; as also ensure that sufficient counterpart funds are made available from its budget for each fiscal year, in a timely manner.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 6

Complied with.

On-lending arrangement signed in Oct 2008.

Subproject selection and implementation

The EA shall ensure that all ULBs and subprojects are selected and processed for approval, in accordance with the criteria and procedures included under Schedule 4 to the FFA, as agreeable to ADB, the Borrower and the State.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 7 (a)

Complied with.

The EA shall post the procurement documents, the criteria for subproject selection and details of sanctioned contracts/ Subprojects on the State’s Investment Program office bulletin board and its website.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 7 (b)

Complied with.

ITB and sanctioned works were posted.

32 Appendix 8

Covenant Reference in Loan

Agreement

Status of Compliance

The EA shall ensure that civil works for all subprojects are synchronized with civil works for sewerage, water supply pipe laying, and drainage, as appropriate.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 7 (c)

Complied with.

Additional conditions for commencement of civil works under Subprojects for water, and urban transport and roads

Without limiting the generality of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to this LA, following compliances shall apply to Subprojects as referred, prior to commencement of civil works under the Subprojects:

LA, Schedule 5, para. 8

Complied with.

(a) In the case of water supply Subprojects–the related PHED/ULB shall have set up a separate accounting system for water supply and sewerage for the ULB.

Account for water has been separated for all three ULBs.

(b) In the case of urban transport Subprojects–the ULB shall have prepared a comprehensive citywide traffic and transportation plan.

Complied with.

Institutional Reforms and Sustainability

The State shall ensure adequate funds towards O&M of the Project facilities through budgetary allocations or other means, to be provided to the IPMU, appropriate ULB or line agency(ies) during and after Subproject completion.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 9

Complied with.

Appropriate budgetary allocations were made and adequate funds provided to the implementing agency during the subproject implementation. GOR supplements ULBs’ budgetary allocations for O&M after completion.

The EA shall ensure that for each ULB, the Institutional and Financial Improvement Action Plan (IFIAP), which includes water, sewerage, solid waste tariffs and infrastructure development tax (Table 2, Schedule 1 to the FFA) is implemented on schedule.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 10

Partially complied.

The commitment to IFIAP requirements was included under an on-lending agreement between GOR and all Investment Program ULBs, signed in Oct 2008.

The EA shall ensure that the contractual documents under any PPP modality, in particular the extended O&M, BOT, or PBMC, as applicable, are provided to ADB for prior review and approval, for use under individual Subprojects.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 11

Complied with.

Other Subproject specific requirements

The EA shall ensure that

(a) if a Subproject contains augmentation of supply from surface sources that are under the mandate of the State Irrigation Department (ID), the ID shall be included in the relevant CLC and in all decisions regarding the Subproject proposal

LA, Schedule 5, para. 12

Complied with.

(b) Inclusion of representatives from the Archaeological Survey of India and State Department of Tourism within CLC for the ULBs with proposed heritage and tourism subprojects.

Not applicable for project 1.

Appendix 8 33

Covenant Reference in Loan

Agreement

Status of Compliance

(c) prior to commencement of water supply Subprojects, the source shall be made secure for the ULBs; where possible, all proposed water supply/source augmentation shall be carried out from surface water sources; for all groundwater supply augmentation proposals, a comprehensive catchment-based water resource plan has been completed, supported by data, in consultation with all users/stakeholders, including the groundwater department of the Borrower and the State.

Complied with.

(d) prior to commencement of distribution network improvement works in water supply Subprojects for the towns, a detailed unaccounted for water (UFW) reduction program, including network maps/plans, showing where rehabilitation is required, has been prepared by the PHED, to be reviewed and approved by the relevant IPIU and CLC.

To be complied.

UFW reduction is part of the design of water supply subprojects and will be achieved upon their completion.

(e) 90% customer metering is achieved in the respective ULB within three years of the completion of water supply subprojects in stated ULB.

Complied with.

(f) PHED/ULB shall set up a separate accounting system for water supply and sewerage for the ULB prior to commencement of water supply Subproject in the ULB.

Complied with.

(g) the domestic waste is segregated from the industrial, medical and hazardous waste in the ULBs where solid waste management Subprojects are being implemented, which is to be treated separately as per the prescribed system in the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, of the Borrower

Complied with.

Environment

The EA shall ensure that

(a) the Project is carried out and all Subproject facilities designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and monitored in compliance with the environmental laws and regulations of the Borrower, the State, ADB's Environment Policy (2002), and the EARF.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 13

Complied with.

(b) Subprojects encroaching any National Park or its buffer zone shall not be included in the Project; however, Subprojects in or close to the wild life sanctuaries or any other environmentally sensitive areas may be allowed subject to the EA obtaining all statutory clearances.

Complied with.

(c) an IEE as required, including an EMP with budget identifying the cost of its implementation as incorporated in the related bid document if any, with adequate public consultation for each Subproject, in accordance with the EARF shall be submitted to ADB for review and approval before award of related contract. In case of any EIA or SIEE for Subproject classified as A or B sensitive, this shall be subject to the 120 day public disclosure requirement under ADB's Environment Policy (2002).

Complied with.

(d) all mitigation measures identified in the IEE, SIEE, EIA or SEIA and the related EMP, as applicable, for each Subproject, shall be incorporated in Subproject design, and carried out during construction, and O&M, and disclosed to stakeholders.

Complied with.

(e) if there are any changes in specific locations or alignments of any Subproject facilities after completion of the process of IEE (or EIA) or due to detailed design or implementation that has an impact on the environmental assessment carried out thus far, then additional environmental assessment shall be carried out in accordance with

Complied with.

34 Appendix 8

Covenant Reference in Loan

Agreement

Status of Compliance

ADB's Environmental Policy (2002) and the EARF, and prior approval of ADB obtained before further physical implementation of the Subproject.

(f) all environmental clearances required by applicable laws, and regulations at Borrower, State, or local levels shall be obtained in a timely manner, prior to commencement of civil works for the relevant Subproject.

Complied with.

(g) semi-annual progress reports on the implementation of the EMPs, measures under the IEE/EIA, and the environmental monitoring shall be carried out as a part of Project implementation for review and disclosure in accordance with ADB's Public Communications Policy (2005).

Complied with.

Land Acquisition, Resettlement

The EA shall:

(a) Undertake the Project in accordance with the Borrower's and State laws and regulations, ADB's Policy on Involuntary Resettlement (1995) and the RF.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 14

Complied with.

(b) ensure that to the extent possible, Subprojects will not require land acquisition or involuntary resettlement; however, if land acquisition and/or involuntary resettlement are required for any subproject; the EA shall ensure following:

(i) a RP for the Subproject, acceptable to ADB is prepared, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the RF, and submitted to ADB for review and approval before award of related civil works contract proper consultation during preparation of the RP with the affected persons, as also disclosure of the RP to the affected persons including information on land acquisition and compensation process undertaken.

Complied with.

(ii) all land, rights of way and other land-related rights required for the Subproject are acquired or made available.

Complied with.

(iii) all affected persons are compensated in accordance with the agreed RP before commencement of civil works of the related subproject including any section-wise handover thereof, strictly in accordance with the stipulation in the related civil works contract. If during detailed design and implementation, any modification and/additional land acquisition or involuntary resettlement impacts are identified, the RP will be prepared (or modified if existing) in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the RF and prior approval of ADB obtained before further implementation of RP.

Complied with.

(iv) ensure that efficient grievance redressal mechanisms are in place in accordance with the related RP to assist affected persons resolve queries and complaints if any, in a timely manner.

Complied with.

City-level committee also functions as the GRC.

(v) ensure that all compensation at replacement value for acquired assets made to affected persons well in advance for them to make alternative arrangements, before commencement of civil works.

Complied with.

Appendix 8 35

Covenant Reference in Loan

Agreement

Status of Compliance

Indigenous Peoples

The EA shall ensure that if any impact is identified during planning, design, or implementation of any Subproject on indigenous peoples, that an IPDP or integration of specific actions for the indigenous people in the RP is prepared in accordance with ADB's Policy on Indigenous People (1998) and the IPDF and that the same is further (i) approved by ADB before award of related civil works contract, and (ii) implemented before commencement of related civil works contract. Any updation to the IPDP due to detailed designs or during implementation shall follow requirements similar to the RPs.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 15

Complied with.

Subprojects were screened and there were no impacts on IPs. Revised RPs show that the minor change in scope had no IP impacts.

Other Social Issues

The EA shall ensure that civil works contracts under the Project follow all applicable labor laws of the Borrower and the State and that these further include provisions to the effect that contractors; (i) carry out HIV/AIDS awareness programs for labor and disseminate information at worksites on risks of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS as part of health and safety measures for those employed during construction ; and (ii) follow and implement all statutory provisions on labor (including not employing or using children as labor, equal pay for equal work), health, safety, welfare, sanitation, and working conditions. Such contracts shall also include clauses for termination by the State/EA in case of any breach of the stated provisions by the Contractors.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 16

Complied with.

Performance Monitoring and Evaluation: Reports

(a) The EA through IPMU shall ensure that an IPPMS satisfactory to ADB is established within three months of Effective Date. The IPPMS shall monitor and evaluate performance of the Investment Program, Facility, as well as of Subprojects and the Project, including key impact and outcome indicators and associated assumptions with corresponding target dates. For Subprojects under PPP modalities, such as PBMC, or extended O&M contracts, if applicable, key performance indicators satisfactory to ADB will be developed during the preparation of requests for proposals and draft contract documents for each Subproject.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 17

Complied with.

IPPMS consultants were mobilized in September 2008. Final report on baseline socio-economic survey was submitted in March 2012. Final monitoring report is awaited.

(b) Without limiting the generality of Section 2.08 of the Project Agreement the EA shall, after physical completion of the Facility, but in any event not later than three months thereafter or such later date as ADB may agree for this purpose, prepare and furnish to ADB a report, in such form and in such detail as ADB shall reasonably request on the Facility.

Not yet due.

Review

Based on a review of quarterly progress reports provided under section 2.08 of the Project Agreement, ADB, Borrower and State representatives shall meet as required to discuss the progress of the Project, Facility and the Investment Program, any changes to implementation arrangements, or remedial measures required to be undertaken to achieve the overall objectives of specific subprojects and components and of the overall Facility and Investment Program. In addition to regular reviews, including a midterm review for the Project, a detailed midterm review of the Facility will be undertaken within no later than four years of the Effective Date. The midterm review shall include a detailed evaluation of the scope of the Facility, implementation arrangements, any outstanding issues, environment,

LA, Schedule 5, para. 18

Complied with.

36 Appendix 8

Covenant Reference in Loan

Agreement

Status of Compliance

resettlement and other safeguard issues, achievement of scheduled targets, contract management progress, and other issues, as appropriate.

Particular Covenants in Project Agreement

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the State through LSGD, shall furnish to ADB quarterly reports on the execution of the Project and on the operations and management of the Project facilities. Such reports shall be submitted in such form and in such details 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.

PA, Section 2.08, para. (b)

Complied with.

The State through LSGD, shall (i) maintain separate accounts for the Project; (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 9 (nine) 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 auditor’s opinion on the use of the Loan proceeds and compliance with the covenants of the Loan Agreement as well as on the use of the procedures for imprest account/statement of expenditures), all in the English language. The State through LSGD, 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.

PA, Section 2.09

Complied with.

BOT = build, operate and transfer, CLC = city level committee, DSC = design and construction supervision consultants, EA = executing agency, EARF = environmental assessment and review framework, EIA = environmental impact assessment, EMP = environmental management plan, GOR = Government of Rajasthan, GRC = grievance redress committee, IA = implementing agency, ID = irrigation department, IEE = initial environmental examination, IFIAP = institutional and financial improvement action plan, IPDP = indigenous peoples development plan, IPMC = investment program management consultant, IPMU = investment program management unit, IPPMS = investment program performance and management system, ITB = invitation to bid, LA = loan agreement, LSGD = Local Self Government Department, O&M = operation and maintenance, PA = project agreement, PBMC = performance based management contract, PD = project director, PHED = public health engineering department, PPP = public private partnership, RF = resettlement framework, RP = resettlement plan, SEIA = summary environmental impact assessment, SIEE = summary initial environmental examination, UFW = unaccounted-for-water, ULB = urban local body.

Source: ADB.

Appendix 9 37

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

A. Re-evaluation Scope, Methodology, and Data Input

1. The economic internal rates of return (EIRR) for water supply and wastewater components for the three project 1 urban local bodies (ULBs) were assessed upon project completion and compared with appraisal estimates. In the case of Jaisalmer, urban drainage components were clubbed with the wastewater component, as the benefits were overlapping and interdependent. The EIRR was not computed for (i) the solid waste management (SWM) component, as the packages are not operational and (ii) the urban transport component, as it consisted of a 0.85 kilometer (km) long rail over bridge (ROB) in Alwar, whose economic benefits are difficult to quantify.

2. The financial internal rate of return (FIRR) for the water supply component was computed as it is the only revenue-generating intervention under project 1. The FIRR was not computed for (i) wastewater as collection of sewerage charges is yet to commence, (ii) SWM as the packages are not operational, and (iii) the urban drainage and urban transport components, as these are non-revenue generating.

3. The economic and financial analysis was based on ADB’s Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects (2017), Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Water Supply Projects (1998), and Financial Management and Analysis of Projects (2005). The reassessment also examines the financial and fiscal capacities of PHED and project 1 ULBs to service project debts and ensure sustainable provision of urban services, and provides insights into the financial and economic performance of the investments during project execution and two years after completion in December 2014. The economic and financial viability of the project is evaluated over a period of 25 years, with no salvage value assumed thereafter. Cost–benefit analyses were undertaken for a 20-year period from completion of each subproject considering 2006–2007 domestic prices. A shadow wage factor of 0.75 and shadow exchange factor of 1.1 were applied to convert financial cost to economic cost.

4. Data from Government of Rajasthan (GOR), PHED, investment program management unit (IPMU), investment program implementation units (IPIUs), and ULBs were used for analyses. Census 2011 data, published by Government of India were used for population projections. Project costs were derived from actual disbursements.

B. Economic and Financial Cost at Completion for the Analysis

5. For economic analysis, the financial cost has been converted into economic costs by applying prescribed conversion rates, adjusting for contingencies, taxes, and duties, but excluding the financing costs (interest during construction and commitment charges). The local costs incurred until 30 July 2015 were converted to US dollars at the exchange rate on the date of disbursement and local costs incurred between 31 July 2015 and 31 December 2016 were converted at an average exchange rate of ₹65 = $1.

6. Though excess claims of ₹7,857,747 ($120,888 equivalent) were disbursed, actual disbursements including such excess claims were considered for EIRR and FIRR analyses. The capacity development and investment program management components were for the entire tranche and hence, apportioned among the project 1 ULBs, and then between the executed components based on the final cost of the respective components.

38 Appendix 9

C. Economic Evaluation

I. At Appraisal

7. The selection criteria for the subprojects require an EIRR exceeding economic opportunity cost of capital of 12% for investments. The economic net present value (ENPV) for selected subprojects, assessed during loan appraisal in 2007, was positive, applying discount rates of 10% and 12%. Sensitivity analysis indicated that EIRR was most sensitive to delays in realization of benefits, though EIRR remained above 12% in all sensitivity analyses. The negative impacts of competing water uses during drought conditions was also considered while computing EIRR. The economic opportunity cost of capital was considered 12% for evaluation.

II. At Completion

8. The approach used at appraisal was used for the recalculation of EIRR and compared with the hurdle rate of 12% and economic opportunity cost of capital of 12%. For calculating population growth, the compounded annual growth rate of the population between 2001 and 2011 was used for projecting the population until 2025.

9. Water supply. EIRR evaluation considered (i) the economic cost of interventions, (ii) average cost of procuring water from alternate sources, (iii) annual cost incurred for procuring water from alternate sources to meet the demand supply gap, and (iv) savings from water resource cost and health costs.

10. Wastewater and urban drainage. EIRR evaluation considered (i) the economic cost of interventions, (ii) savings due to avoidance of flooding and attendant loss of livelihood; (iii) amount of loss avoided in managing wastewater, (iv) avoidance of septic tank construction cost, and (v) savings in health costs.

III. Analysis and Reevaluation of Findings

11. EIRR is rated efficient in achieving the outcome and outputs for water supply, wastewater and urban drainage components. EIRR at completion is higher than 12%, justifying project 1 investments. Several indirect and direct benefits that could not be quantified have not been captured in the analysis, though qualitative assessments demonstrate their contribution in improving urban environment and quality of life of project 1 ULBs. The comparative summary of EIRR for executed project components at appraisal and at completion is in Table A9.1.

Table A9.1. Comparative Summary of EIRR at Appraisal and at Completion

Component EIRR at Appraisal EIRR at Completion

Water supply (Alwar) 28.00% 37.80%

Water supply (Jaisalmer) 16.50% 20.33%

Water supply (Jhalawar) 19.50% 22.26%

Wastewater and urban drainage (Alwar) 25.40% 25.05%

Wastewater and urban drainage (Jaisalmer) 129.70% 13.96%

Wastewater and urban drainage (Jhalawar)a 206.70% -

a Implemented in subsequent tranches

EIRR = economic internal rate of return

Source: ADB estimates.

Appendix 9 39

12. EIRR at completion for the water supply component is higher than appraisal estimates, as beneficiaries’ welfare has increased significantly beyond appraisal estimates, mainly due to health benefits considered during reevaluation. In the case of the wastewater and urban drainage components, EIRR is lower than appraisal estimates, as property connections are not yet complete and consequent sewage flow to the sewage treatment plant (STP) is lower than planned.

D. Financial Evaluation

I. At Appraisal

13. The financial viability evaluation of the project was considered for the entire MFF and financial sustainability analysis for project 1 ULBs was carried out during loan appraisal. The weighted average cost of capital (WACC) was considered at 2.97%. The project had three (potentially) revenue-generating components, namely, water supply, sewerage, and SWM. The remaining sectors, namely, urban drainage, urban transport and roads, social infrastructure, and heritage support infrastructure were non-revenue generating.

14. For revenue-generating sectors, financial analysis was conducted on a with- and without- project basis in real terms, at 2007 domestic prices, estimating incremental costs and revenues over a 25-year period and no salvage value at the end of the period. User charge revisions and increase in service coverage were assumed. Levy of SWM charge and recovery of at least 50% operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, and recovery of balance 50% from other municipal revenues were assumed. For non-revenue generating sectors, the analysis focused on the ULBs’ capacity to sustain the project assets with available financial resources and service debt.

II. At Completion

15. Financial sustainability analysis was undertaken only for the water supply component. FIRR was evaluated for the project, and for individual project 1 ULBs, considering water production, water distribution, O&M costs, and water sales to the projected population under with- and without-project scenarios. The financial projections for sustainability are undertaken at real prices. In addition, operating ratio for water supply operations were also evaluated for the project 1 ULBs.

III. Analysis and Reevaluation Findings

16. The water supply interventions are likely sustainable for project 1 with a combined FIRR of 2.93%. The FIRR at completion for Alwar is positive as the interventions generate additional revenue, thus recovering capital expenditure and O&M cost. However, the FIRR at completion is negative for Jaisalmer and Jhalawar, as capital expenditure was substantial compared to the revenue from water charges, since the population of these ULBs is very low. Nevertheless, the interventions are a genuine need and proved to be transformative in the desert town of Jaisalmer. As the water supply interventions are implemented by a single agency, PHED, considering a combined FIRR for the sector is more appropriate. The GOR notification mandating an automatic annual 10% increase in water tariff would further improve sustainability by recovering the operating costs, but will still not recover the full capital expenditure.1 The comparative FIRR for the water supply component at appraisal and at completion is presented in Table A9.2.

1 Users pay ₹20/month for consumption below 8KL/month, ₹50/month for consumption between 8KL and 15KL, and

volumetric tariffs for consumption exceeding 15KL/month.

40 Appendix 9

Table A9.2: Comparative Summary of FIRR at Appraisal and at Completion

Component FIRR at Appraisal FIRR at Completion

Water supply (Project 1 ULBs) Not available 2.93%

Water supply (Alwar) 8.00% 12.70%

Water supply (Jaisalmer) 16.10% -2.63%

Water supply (Jhalawar) 14.50% -0.85%

FIRR = financial internal rate of return.

Source: ADB estimates.

17. Detailed analysis of metered consumption patterns and impact of the new increasing block tariffs (introduced in November 2015) on the water usage and revenue to these PHED divisions could not be examined at project completion. Based on available information, a water account was created to calculate operating ratio (cash operating costs/cash operating revenues) computed in nominal terms for the three PHED divisions for the next 15 years. The operating ratio of the water account of three project 1 ULBs are:

a. Alwar: Ratio of 1.61 in 2008–2009 reaches below 1.0 in 2012–2013;

b. Jaisalmer: Ratio remains below 1.0 throughout the period of analysis; and

c. Jhalawar: Ratio reaches below 1.0 from 2015–2016.

18. An operating ratio below 1.0 indicates recovery of O&M costs with revised tariff after 3 to 5 years of operations.

19. It is evident from the comparative summary of FIRR and operating ratio, that PHED’s efforts to introduce water metering and enhance collection efficiency based on revised water tariffs have made the water sector financially sustainable to recover O&M costs for these divisions. Continued enhancement of collection efficiency would enable creation of corpus for future rehabilitation.

20. The sewerage assets have the potential to generate additional revenue, once the revised tariffs are levied and transferred to the ULBs. This would enable project 1 ULBs to meet the O&M cost of sewerage assets, besides creating a corpus and making the interventions sustainable. The untied transfers based on the recommendations of the 14th Central Finance Commission and the State Finance Commission would further assist the ULBs in meeting O&M cost of sewerage and SWM assets. The ULBs could also create a corpus by bringing more properties under the urban development tax. However, as sewerage charges are collected as part of the water bill, GOR needs to devise a mechanism for PHED to transfer the sewerage charges to the ULBs.

21. The WACC for project 1 is computed as 1.63% in real terms considering the actual financing plan, as against 2.97% at appraisal.

Appendix 9 41

E. Fiscal and Financial Sustainability of Project 1 ULBs and PHED

22. During loan appraisal, the financial performance of the program ULBs was assessed as (i) heavily dependent on grants, ranging from 74.8% in Jaisalmer to 90.8% in Alwar, as percentage of revenue income, (ii) increasing revenue expenditure at an average annual growth rate of 7.0%–11.2% as against average revenue income growth rate of 5.4%–9.5%, (iii) revenue account deficit in the preceding four years, and (iv) dismal property tax collection despite being the single-largest receipt in tax income accounting for 0.3%–4.1% of total revenue income. Further, in 2007, the state decided to abolish the property tax altogether and introduced an urban development tax, which further exacerbated the dismal financial situation.

23. At completion, the budgets and financial statements of the project 1 ULBs revealed that the ULBs remain dependent on assigned revenues and grants from GOR to meet capital expenditure and are not fully harnessing the potential of raising revenue from available tax sources or user fees. Thus, the project 1 environmental sanitation interventions are likely to become financially sustainable when (i) sewerage charges collected by PHED are transferred to the ULBs, (ii) solid waste collection charges are levied, (iii) public–private partnership arrangements initiated in the solid waste management sector are operationalized, and (iv) collection efficiency of the urban development tax is improved, or property taxes are re-introduced to meet O&M costs. GOR needs to establish adequate O&M systems and depute dedicated technical staff in the ULBs to enhance fiscal and financial sustainability.

24. Financial sustainability of PHED divisions is assessed to be adequate to meet O&M costs of water supply assets from the revenue generated, due to water tariff revision in November 2015, subject to PHED maintaining collection efficiency. The sewerage assets also have the potential to generate additional revenue for PHED, once the tariffs notified in November 2015 are levied. Sufficient financial and human resources are available for O&M of water supply and urban transport assets, with their line agencies like PHED and Urban Improvement Trusts.

F. Conclusion

25. Overall, water supply interventions under project 1 are economically efficient and likely sustainable, as PHED is managing the interventions as a single agency with adequate human resources and cost recovery under revised tariffs. The wastewater and urban drainage component is economically efficient but less than likely sustainable, and SWM is economically and financially inefficient. GOR needs to establish adequate O&M systems and depute dedicated technical staff in the ULBs besides transferring sewerage charges collected by PHED to the ULBs; levying solid waste collection charges; operationalizing the public–private partnership for SWM; and improving the collection efficiency of the urban development tax. GOR must also consider re-introducing property taxes, as this remains the most buoyant form of local body taxation throughout India. Timely transfer of untied funds based on the recommendations of the 14th Central Finance Commission and the State Finance Commission should also be ensured. Therefore, it is critical that the institutional and financial improvement action plan is implemented to ensure complete sustainability of all project assets.

42 Appendix 10

ACTION PLAN FOR OUTSTANDING ISSUES

Action Responsibility

for Action Time frame Monitoring

Responsibility Reporting Frequency

1. Institutionalize and implement the asset transfer plans for project assets

GOR Ongoing LSGD Report to be sent to ADB

2. Levy and collect user charges for sewerage and solid waste management

PHED, ULBs Ongoing LSGD Report to be sent to ADB

3. Refund excess claims to ADB IPMU 30 Sep 2017 CAAA N/A

CAAA = Controller of Aid Accounts and Audit, GOR = Government of Rajasthan, IPMU = investment project management unit, LSGD = Local Self Government Department, N/A = Not applicable, PHED = public health engineering department, ULBs = urban local bodies.