Maldives: Domestic Maritime Transport Project · Completion Report Project Number: 37265 Loan Number: 2327 October 2013 Maldives: Domestic Maritime Transport Project

Completion Report

Project Number: 37265 Loan Number: 2327 October 2013

Maldives: Domestic Maritime Transport Project

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit – Rufiyaa (Rf)

At Appraisal At Project Completion (1 March 2007) (31 December 2010)

Rf1.00 = $0.078 $0.078 $1.00 = Rf12.850 Rf12.780

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank EIRR – economic internal rate of return EMP – environment management plan FIRR – financial internal rate of return IDCB – institutional development and capacity building IIC – infrastructure investment component MCPI – Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructure MNH – Malé North Harbor MPL – Maldives Ports Limited MTC – Ministry of Transport and Communication NDP – national development plan PIU – project implementation unit SDR – special drawing rights

NOTE

In this report, “$” refers to U.S. dollars.

Vice President X. Zhao, Operations 1 Director General J. Miranda, South Asia Department (SARD) Director S. Widowati, Transport and Communications Division, SARD Team leader P. Chiang, Transport and Communications Division, SARD Team member T. Prado, Transport and Communications Division, 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 1

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 1 B. Project Outputs 2 C. Project Costs 3 D. Disbursements 4 E. Project Schedule 4 F. Implementation Arrangements 5 G. Conditions and Covenants 6 H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 6 I. Performance of Consultants and Contractors 7 J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 8 K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 9

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 9

A. Relevance 9 B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 10 C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 10 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 15 2. Details of Project Outputs 19 3. Project Cost and Financing Plan 20 4. Disbursement of ADB Loan Proceeds 21 5. Actual Project Implementation Schedules 22 6. Chronology of Major Events 23 7. Organizational Structure for Project Implementation 25 8. Status of Compliance with Major Loan Covenants 26 9. Summary of Contract Packages 35 10. Initial Operation of the Project 36 11. Reevaluation of Economic Analysis 39 12. Reevaluation of Financial Analysis 42

i

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

The Republic of the Maldives Loan 2327-MLD Domestic Maritime Transport Project The Republic of the Maldives Ministry of Finance and Treasury SDR 3,544,000 ($ 5,330,000 equivalent) MLD 1416

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)

28 January 2007 2 February 2007 19 March 2007 20 March 2007 24 April 2007 29 August 2007 27 November 2007 23 October 2007 None 31 December 2009 31 December 2010 1 1.0% per annum during grace period 1.5% per annum after grace period 32 years 8 years

8. Disbursements a. Dates

Initial Disbursement 20 May 2008

Final Disbursement 16 March 2012

Time Interval 46 months

Effective Date 23 October 2007

Original Closing Date 31 December 2009

Time Interval 26 months

ii

b. Amount (SDR)

Category Original

Allocation

Last Revised

Allocation

Amount Increased/ (Canceled)

Amount Disbursed

Undisbursed Balance

a

1. Civil Works 2,435,000 2,435,000 0 2,411,803 23,197

2. Consulting Services 906,000 906,000 0 828,954 77,046

3. Interest Charge 33,000 33,000 0 20,831 12,169

4. Unallocated 170,000 170,000 0 170,000

Total SDR 3,544,000 3,544,000 0 3,261,588 282,412

Total $ equivalent 5,330,000 5,059,290

Source: ADB loan financial information system. a The undisbursed balance was automatically cancelled at the loan account closing.

C. Project Data

1. Project Cost ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign Exchange Cost 4.31 4.41

Local Currency Cost 2.34 1.74

Total 6.65 6.14

Source: ADB loan financial information system.

2. Financing Plan ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Implementation Costs

Borrower Financed 1.32 1.08

ADB Financed 5.28 5.03

Total 6.60 6.11

Financial Chargea

Borrower Financed 0.00

0.00

ADB Financed 0.05 0.03

Total 0.05 0.03

ADB = Asian Development Bank. a Including interest during construction.


3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ million)

Component Appraisal Estimate Actual

1. Base Costs

A. Component 1: Infrastructure Improvement

a. Dredging, reclamation, and quay walls 3.25 3.54

b. Fenders, mooring bars, and bollards 0.08 0.07

c. Paving works 0.27 0.87

d. Land works (shed, fence, gate, guard post, crane, and lights) 0.29 0.33

iii

e. Detailed design, bid preparation, site supervision, and project management 0.54 0.64

B. Component 2: Institutional Development and Capacity Building

a. Institutional development and capacity building 0.65 0.66

b. Environmental impact assessment 0.05 0.00

2. Taxes and Duties 0.43 0.00

3. Contingencies

a. Physical 0.72 0.00

b. Price 0.32 0.00

4. Financing Charges: Interest Capitalized during Construction 0.05 0.03

Total (1+2+3+4) 6.65 6.14


4. Project Schedule

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual

Consultant for IIC component

Recruitment Q4 2006–Q2 2007 Q1 2007–Q4 2007

Implementation Q3 2007–Q1 2009 Q1 2008–Q4 2010

IIC component

Procurement Q4 2006–Q4 2007 Q3 2008–Q4 2009


IDCB component

Recruitment Q4 2006–Q3 2007 Q1 2007–Q2 2008


IIC = infrastructure investment component, IDCB = institutional development and capacity building. Source: ADB loan financial information system.

5. Project Performance Report Ratings

Implementation Period

Ratings

Development Objectives Implementation Progress

From 30 Apr 2007 to 31 Dec 2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory

From 1 Jan 2008 to 30 Jun 2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory

From 1 Jul 2008 to 31 Dec 2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory


From 1 Jul 2009 to 31 Dec 2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory


From 1 Jul 2010 to 31 Jul 2010 Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

From 1 Aug 2010 to 31 Dec 2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory

iv

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

Name of Mission Date No. of

Persons

No. of Person-

Days Specialization of Members

Fact-finding 19–30 Nov 2006 7 70 p, e, t (2), s, f, l Loan appraisal 28 Jan–2 Feb 2007 6 30 p, f, l, e, t, a Special loan administration 23–24 Jul 2007 2 4 t, i Inception 13–17 Jan 2008 3 15 t (2) i Special loan administration 5–7 Aug 2008 2 6 t (2) Review 6–9 Jul 2009 3 12 t (2), a Special loan administration 13–15 Dec 2009 1 3 t Review 28 Feb–2 Mar 2010 1 3 t Review 26–30 Sep 2010 2 10 t (2) Special loan administration 12–13 Apr 2011 2 4 t, a Completion review 21–24 Oct 2012 3 18 t, a, c

a = analyst, c = consultant, e = environment specialist, f = financial specialist, i = implementation officer, l = counsel, p = private sector development specialist, s = social specialist, t = transport specialist.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved a loan of SDR3,544,000 ($5.33 million equivalent) from its Special Funds resources to the Republic of the Maldives on 24 April 2007 for the Domestic Maritime Transport Project. The project’s objective was to deliver sustained, equitable, and regionally balanced economic growth within the Maldives through facilitating access to markets and social services. 2. At appraisal, the project comprised (i) an infrastructure investment component (IIC), and (ii) an institutional development and capacity building (IDCB) component. 1 The IIC was to expand the existing Malé North Harbor (MNH) through (i) construction of a new quay 290 meters (m) long, projecting northward at right angles to Marine Drive alongside the boundary to Malé Commercial Harbor; (ii) ancillary civil works; (iii) provision of cargo handling equipment; (iv) construction of a temporary transit area for goods and passengers; and (v) consulting services for detailed design, preparation of tender documents, bid evaluation, construction supervision, and project management assistance. The IDCB component aimed to increase sustainability of the investment and enhance ongoing sector initiatives by providing support for (i) current efforts to align the organizational structure of the Ministry of Transport and Communication (MTC) to its sector mandate, in particular focusing on policy, planning, and regulatory functions of international and domestic maritime transport infrastructure and transport services; (ii) capacity building within MTC in the areas of (a) strategic planning and policy analysis, (b) establishment of harbor usage charges, (c) maritime safety regulations and vessel inspection and registration procedures, and (d) project performance and impact monitoring; and (iii) capacity building within the Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructure (MCPI) to enable it to manage, operate, and maintain maritime transport infrastructure in Malé in a sustainable manner through (a) harbor management, and (b) financial management training. 3. The investment cost of the project was estimated at $6.65 million, including taxes and duties of $0.43 million. The project cost would be financed by an ADB loan of $5.33 million and government counterpart funds of $1.32 million. The executing agency was to be the Ministry of Finance and Treasury. The implementing agency was to be MTC. Project implementation units (PIUs) were to be established in MTC and MCPI, respectively, to implement the IDCB component and IIC. The project will directly benefit vessel owners, passengers (domestic and international), and cargo owners and shippers from outer atolls. The economic internal rate of return was originally estimated at 22.5%. The project was scheduled for completion before 31 December 2009.

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation

4. Malé North Harbor is the lifeline access point to the social and economic development opportunities available in the capital for 70% of the population living in outer atolls, where the incidence of poverty is highest. At appraisal, congestion in MNH was chronic, constituting a bottleneck for the poorest population to enter the capital as a result of inadequate harbor capacity and weak harbor management. Improvement of the existing harbor facilities was ranked the highest priority within the government’s Seventh National Development Plan 2006–

1 ADB. 2007. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to the

Republic of the Maldives for the Domestic Maritime Transport Project. Manila.

2

2010 (7th NDP).2 Constructing an additional quay and associated facilities would alleviate congestion at the harbor and on the feeder road. Together with the IDCB component, the infrastructure investment would enhance sustainability and increase MNH’s operational efficiency. 5. ADB shared the government’s view on MNH’s importance within the country’s socioeconomic context. 3 Therefore, assistance to improve the country’s main inter-atoll transport hub became a priority investment project. This was also included in ADB’s country strategy and program update. ADB supported the government’s long-term sector objectives of (i) separating maritime transport sector policy, planning, and regulatory functions from operational activities; (ii) realigning MTC to materialize the changes; and (iii) introducing efficiency and sustainability into public sector provision of domestic maritime transport infrastructure, as outlined in the 7th NDP. The project was designed to address both investment and institutional aspects in the transport sector. Availability of skilled and experienced staff for project implementation and monitoring was identified as a major constraint which was to be mitigated through the deployment of consulting services for the IIC and capacity building in the IDCB component. 6. At both appraisal and completion, the project was deemed relevant4 to the government‘s objectives and policies, as well as to ADB‘s country strategy. Upon completion, a new quay of 268 m was constructed to enhance the existing MNH. The required ancillary facilities and cargo handling equipment were also installed at the new quay. The project was supported with substantial consulting services, including those for the IIC and IDCB. Despite its slightly longer implementation period, the project successfully achieved its objectives at appraisal. The outputs and outcomes of the project meet the government’s development objectives and ADB’s country strategy. The design and monitoring framework of the project with results is in Appendix 1.

B. Project Outputs

1. Infrastructure Investment Component

7. During implementation, it was found that the original budget was insufficient to implement the full length of the proposed quay wall. As such, there was a minor revision to build a quay wall 268 m long, rather than 290 m long. The IIC entailed (i) dredging of the harbor basin to a mean sea level of 4.0 m deep and reclamation of 26,500 cubic meters; (ii) construction of additional drive-on access and cargo handling area of 6,500 square meters paved with interlocking concrete blocks; (iii) provision of such ancillary harbor facilities as mooring bollards, fenders, gates, fencing, guard posts, and lighting system; (iv) a covered shelter of 480 square meters to protect passengers and cargos, as well as for a management office and guard room; and (v) utility works such as electricity, water supply, drainage, and sewer lines. Project outputs are detailed in Appendix 2. The IIC was completed by 31 December 2010, the extended loan closing date. No serious quality problem was reported during the defects liability period.5 The project completion review mission found that the new infrastructure was constructed in good quality and is currently in operation.

2 The 7th NDP, endorsed by the ministers in the Cabinet, covers the period 2006–2010.

3 ADB. 2005. Country Strategy and Program Updates (2006－2008): Maldives. Manila

4 The rating is determined based on ADB. 2013. Guidelines for Preparing Performance Evaluation Reports for Public

Sector Operations. Manila. 5 One year after physical completion of the civil work.

3

2. Institutional Development and Capacity Building Component 8. The IDCB was focused on (i) institutional alignment of MTC’s maritime transport activities with its sector mandate; (ii) capacity building in MTC to effectively plan and regulate the maritime transport sector; and (iii) capacity building in MCPI, especially for harbor management and financial management training. 9. The key recommendation of the IDCB was to set up a Maldives Ports and Maritime Authority to separate planning, policy, and regulatory functions from operational functions. The authority is currently being implemented. As part of improving capacity to better regulate the maritime sector, a new harbor usage charge was also developed and introduced successfully. 10. It had been envisioned during appraisal that MCPI would take over and operate the new harbor facilities. Due to internal restructuring, however, the government decided to hand over management and operation of the new facilities to Maldives Ports Limited (MPL) rather than MCPI. Since MPL already owned and operated the commercial port activities at the commercial harbor adjacent to MNH, the training and financial management component under the IDCB was no longer relevant. Consequently, this was removed from the original scope of the IDCB.

C. Project Costs

11. At appraisal, the total project cost, including IIC and IDCB, was estimated at $6.65 million. This included the base cost, tax, contingency, and financial charge. Upon completion, the actual project cost totaled $6.14 million, or about 7.7% less than estimated. 12. The actual cost for the IIC was about 23% higher than originally estimated. This was mainly due to increase in scope and price inflation, since the costs were estimated in 2002 but procurement was during 2007–2009.6 Nevertheless, the additional costs could be fully covered by contingencies.7 At the same time, the actual cost for the IDCB component was diminished from $0.69 million to $0.65 million due to the reduction in scope. Hence, the actual cost at completion turned out to be only slightly (7.7%) lower than originally estimated. Appendix 3 compares the details of the project costs at appraisal and at completion. 13. The project was financed by the ADB loan of $5.33 million (80.2% of total project cost) and the government’s counterpart funds of $1.32 million (19.8% or total). The ADB loan came from ADB’s Special Funds resources with a 32-year term (including a grace period of 8 years) and annual interest rate of 1.0% during the grace period and 1.5% thereafter. The interest charges were capitalized. Under the loan, ADB was to finance 80% of civil works and 100% of consultancy services for both the IIC and IDCB. The government was to provide counterpart funding for the remaining 20% of civil works costs. During implementation, however, the cost of the civil works component increased, while the cost of consulting services decreased. To maximize use of the loan, ADB’s financing portion for civil works was raised. Overall, ADB’s financing portion rose from 80% to 82.3% and the government’s counterpart financing share declined from 20% to 17.7%. Detailed comparison of the financing plan at appraisal and actual is in Appendix 3.

6 During implementation, it was found that additional scope was required for demolition of existing structures and

constructing additional facilities (including a management office with guard room). 7 In Maldives, the average consumer price index was 4.15% per annum during 2002–2009.

4

D. Disbursements

14. The ADB loan was approved on 24 April 2007, signed on 29 August 2007, and became effective on 23 October 2007. Initial disbursement of the ADB loan was slow, mainly due to start-up delays in procuring civil works. Moreover, a lengthy withdrawal application process was used initially and involved several agencies. This was resolved during a review mission, whereby the process was streamlined and shortened to involve only key agencies. To enable completion of the project, the government requested, and ADB approved in December 2009, an extension of the loan closing date by 12 months from original 31 December 2009 to 31 December 2010. 15. The ADB loan closed on 31 December 2010, by which time the IIC was completed. The loan account was kept open to facilitate loan disbursement beyond the loan closing. In 2011, the total loan disbursement was $1.97 million (38.6% of the total loan amount). After resolving some disputes between the government and the IDCB consultants regarding the reduction of scope in the IDCB, the final disbursement of $79,153.30 was made on 16 March 2012, at which time the ADB loan account was closed. Overall, SDR3,261,587.84 ($5,059,290.00 equivalent) was disbursed. The undisbursed amount of SDR282,412.16 was automatically cancelled. Appendix 4 shows the projected and actual disbursements of the loan proceeds.

E. Project Schedule

1. Infrastructure Investment Component (IIC) 16. Although advanced actions were taken to engage consulting services for the IIC in December 2006, the recruitment took longer than expected. The IIC consultants contract was awarded in November 2007, which was about 5 months behind the original schedule. The consultants made rapid progress to undertake detailed design and produced the bidding documents ready for tender of the IIC works by March 2008. During the first bidding exercise, the bids opened in August 2008 were substantially higher than the original budget. To fit the budget, the government made a minor revision by reducing the length of the quay wall. The retender was issued in May 2009. The contract for IIC works was awarded in October 2009, and mobilized in November 2009.

17. The construction works were completed by December 2010. The construction took 2 months longer than estimated at appraisal, which resulted in a 12-month delay in project completion. To enable project completion, ADB extended the loan from 31 December 2009 to 31 December 2010. The consulting service for the IIC was completed at the same time, with extensions approved by ADB.

2. Institutional Development and Capacity Building Component

18. Similarly to the case for the IIC, advanced actions were taken to engage the IDCB consultants in December 2006. The first round of selection was not successful, however, since none of the submitted bids met the minimum qualifications stated in the terms of reference. Moreover, the bidders also lacked familiarity with local conditions. The second round of selection that was re-advertised in October 2007 was successful, and the IDCB consultants contract was awarded on 7 August 2008 and mobilized on 17 September 2008. 19. Since the IDCB was initially designed to develop capacity within MCPI to undertake operational responsibilities for the new harbor infrastructure, the operational training component

5

was postponed by the delays in constructing the new harbor. Moreover, the government underwent major restructuring during project implementation and there were delays due to the time taken by the government to decide on the appropriate agency to operate and manage the new harbor. The government eventually decided to hand over this responsibility to MPL. Since MPL was already managing existing ports, the financial management and training components in the IDCB were no longer required and accordingly were removed from the IDCB scope.

20. Although the consultant made requests to extend the contract expiry date beyond the original expiry date of 30 November 2010 to complete the outstanding tasks, the government did not approve these, as it was felt that the remaining tasks were no longer required and should be removed from the original scope. This resulted in some disputes between the government and the IDCB consultants regarding the final payment. Eventually, this was resolved successfully by mutual agreement for partial payment to the consultant, and the contract was concluded on 31 December 2010. The actual project implementation schedule is in Appendix 5 and a chronology of major events is in Appendix 6. 21. Overall, it is assessed that the IIC constituted the project’s critical path. The main contributor to delay in project completion was the delay in procuring the civil works. F. Implementation Arrangements

22. At appraisal, the Ministry of Finance and Treasury was identified as the executing agency and MTC as the implementing agency. During implementation, a project implementation unit (PIU) was established within MTC for the IDCB component and another PIU was established within MCPI for the IIC. Due to restructuring of the government after the presidential election in November 2008, key persons responsible for implementing and administering the transport project were reappointed. MTC and MCPI were merged with other ministries and formed a new ministry—the Ministry of Housing, Transport and Environment. Consequently, the two PIUs merged. 23. A project steering committee was established during project preparation. This was chaired by MTC and included representatives at director level from the Ministry of Finance and Treasury; MCPI; Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Water; Ministry of Planning and National Development; Ministry of Housing and Urban Development; and Malé Municipality. The project steering committee held regular meetings and provided overall policy and operational advice and guidance to project implementation. 24. The PIU was further supported by the IIC consultants, who were organized into two sub-teams—the design and supervision group and the project management assistance group. The project management group assisted the PIU in many aspects, including to prepare work schedules, monitor progress, check tender documents and drawings, review construction costs and payments, assist with procurement and contract management, coordinate meetings, prepare monthly reports, and carry out environmental monitoring. The design and supervision group focused on the engineering design and construction quality control. Given the successful completion of the civil works, this arrangement proved to be effective.

25. The IDCB consultants also supported the PIU to facilitate efficient loan administration and implementation. The organizational structure for project implementation is in Appendix 7.

6

G. Conditions and Covenants

26. The project implementation mostly complied with most of the loan conditions and covenants, including institutional arrangement, counterpart fund provision, financial and contract management, environmental and social safeguard, report preparation and submission, and initial operation arrangement. As part of enhancing governance, the IIC consultants successfully provided support to the PIU on procurement and project management. A separate financial account was established for the project, an external editor was recruited to audit the financial statements, and audited project accounts were submitted up to 2009. There were delays encountered in the submission of financial statements, mainly due to shortage of experienced staff. Nevertheless, the establishment of the financial audit system itself presents a significant improvement toward enhancing governance. In terms of monitoring, the project performance monitoring system for socioeconomic impact was not implemented as planned. This has caused some difficulties in monitoring the performance of the project. Nevertheless, some of this impact is mitigated as MPL collects some of the required data as part of its operations. The status of compliance with key loan covenants of the project is summarized in Appendix 8. H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement

27. At appraisal, two consulting services packages and one civil works package were designed. During implementation, both consultancy services packages were recruited in compliance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants (2006, as amended from time to time). These packages are summarized in Appendix 9. At appraisal, the government requested ADB’s assistance for undertaking advance actions necessary to facilitate the consultant recruitment, which was approved by ADB. The consulting services were advertised on ADB’s Business Opportunities website on 19 December 2006, and the expressions of interest were requested by 15 February 2007 for the IIC consultants and by 15 March 2007 for the IDCB consultant. For the IIC consultants, quality- and cost-based selection on biodata proposals was used. Following ADB’s approval of the short list and evaluation criteria, the request for proposals was issued on 23 March 2007 with a submission date of 14 April 2007. The evaluation result of the technical proposals was approved by ADB on a no-objection basis on 14 May 2007, and the subsequent opening and evaluation of financial proposals led to the conclusion that Japan Port Consultants was the only eligible firm.8 On 14 June 2007, ADB advised the government to proceed with inviting the firm for contract negotiations and reminded the government that the consultant should not be mobilized prior to the loan effectiveness. On this basis, the government proceeded with inviting Japan Port Consultants for contract negotiation and requested ADB’s participation as an observer. The contract between the government and the IIC consultants was signed on 15 November 2007. 28. Quality- and cost-based selection was also used for recruiting the IDCB consultants, and simplified technical proposals were required. ADB approved the short list and evaluation criteria for the IDCB consultants on 19 April 2007. The request for proposals was issued on 26 April 2007, but the technical evaluation concluded on 18 July 2007 that none of the firms were qualified. Following discussions with the government, the IDCB component was re-advertised. This time, a consortium of firms was selected.9 Contract negotiations on the consulting services were held in Malé on 5 August 2008, and the contract was signed on 7 August 2008.

8 Japan Port Consultants, Tokyo, Japan.

9 SMEC International Pty Ltd (Australia), in association with GreenTech Consultants Pvt. Ltd (Sri Lanka) and

Commerce, Development and Environment Pvt. Ltd (Maldives).

7

29. The civil works for the IIC, comprising just one contract of $3.89 million, was procured using international competitive bidding and the single-stage, one-envelope procurement method. Following the bid opening on 7 August 2008, however, it was found that the bidding price was substantially higher than budgeted. The government reduced and revised the scope of the project, and reissued the retender documents on May 2009. The bids of the retenders were opened and evaluated on 9 July 2009. This time a domestic firm was successfully selected, and the civil works contract was signed on 27 October 2009. Overall, the procurement for civil works was compliant with ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (2007, as amended from time to time). I. Performance of Consultants and Contractors

1. IIC Consultants 30. The performance of the IIC consultants was highly satisfactory. As anticipated at appraisal and as specified in the terms of reference, the IIC consultants successfully completed (i) detailed design, (ii) preparation of tender documents, (iii) bid evaluation support, (iv) construction supervision, (v) project management assistance to the government, and (vi) environment monitoring. Due to delay in the civil works procurement and implementation, however, the contract for the IIC consultants was extended several times upon requests from the government. The IIC consultants completed their services on 31 December 2010 with total inputs of 36.14 person-months that included 18.00 person-months for international consultants and 18.14 person-months for domestic consultants. Upon completion, two reports were submitted by the consultant, including the main completion report and an environmental monitoring report.10 The main report was comprehensive, covering the necessary aspects of the project implementation, including major activities, implementation schedule, institutional framework, and project cost. The environmental reports included the results of the environmental monitoring survey and assessed the environmental impacts. These reports were comprehensive and sufficiently addressed all environmental issues.

2. IDCB Consultants

31. The performance of the IDCB consultants was partly satisfactory. The IDCB component consisted of three subcomponents: (i) institutional alignment of MTC’s maritime transport activities with its sector mandate, particularly focusing on policy, planning, and regulatory functions of international and domestic maritime transport infrastructure and domestic maritime transport services; (ii) capacity building in MTC in the areas of (a) strategic planning and policy analysis, (b) establishment of harbor usage charges, (c) maritime safety regulations and vessel inspections and registration procedures, and (d) project performance and impact monitoring; and (iii) capacity building in MCPI, especially on harbor management and financial management training. The contract was time-based, with a total ceiling of $764,992 and subceilings for each of 18 milestones. Most of the components were implemented successfully except for capacity building of MCPI due to restructuring of responsibilities within the government. The project performance and impact monitoring system was also not implemented.

32. Capacity building of MCPI. Although, the contract was implemented smoothly at first, there were challenges toward the end. Since the construction was delayed, some of the milestones could not be completed by the consultant before the contract expiry date of 30

10

JPC. 2011. Completion Report—Domestic Maritime Transport Project (Consulting Services for Infrastructure Investment Component); JPC. 2011. Environmental Monitoring Report (July to December 2010)—Domestic Maritime Transport Project (ADB Loan Agreement No. 2327-MLD).

8

November 2010. Moreover, the government decided that MPL would operate the new facilities, rather than MCPI as originally envisaged during appraisal. Since MPL was already an experienced operator of existing commercial ports, the government decided not to extend the contract and to cancel the contract milestones relating to harbor management and financial training of the port operator. Thereafter, the consultant submitted a set of invoices on 31 March 2011, requesting payment for preparatory works that had already been undertaken for the cancelled milestones. The implementing agency, upon review of the invoices, requested the consultant to submit proof of the physical work carried out. There were some disputes on the final payment. As requested, the consultant submitted a revised draft final report in December 2010.11 After reviewing the draft reports prepared by the consultant, the government issued a letter to inform the consultant that the contract was concluded on 31 December 2010 and the disputed issue was settled with partial payment. The project completion review mission confirmed that there were no outstanding payment issues. 33. Project performance and impact monitoring. Although a project performance monitoring system was proposed at appraisal, the necessary surveys and monitoring activities were not implemented during the project.

3. IIC Contractor 34. Overall, the performance of the IIC contractor was satisfactory. A domestic construction company was engaged to undertake the civil works. There was some initial delay in physical progress. This was caused by difficulties in transporting construction materials to the project site, which continued to operate as a harbor during construction. This necessitated contract extension for both the IIC consultants and the contractors. An ADB mission in September 2010 also found that the construction progress was far behind of schedule due to the lengthy withdrawal application process that was used. To expedite matters, the ADB mission and the government took necessary actions to streamline and shorten the withdrawal application process. Thereafter, the disbursements accelerated considerably and the infrastructure component was substantially completed by 31 December 2010. The completion certificate was also issued on 31 December 2010, and the final inspection of the project site was conducted by the client and the IIC consultants team on 6 February 2011. J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency

35. The performance of the borrower and the executing agency was satisfactory. The borrower is the Republic of the Maldives and the executing agency is the Ministry of Finance and Treasury. MTC was designated as the implementation agency. During implementation, a project steering committee was established to provide substantial guidance and coordination support to the project. The government provided counterpart funds and all necessary support in a timely manner. The PIU was responsible for day-to-day project management and facilitated the project’s successful completion. The PIU was well staffed and responsible. Staff members worked in a collaborative manner with ADB, consultants, and contractors to resolve implementation challenges. With assistance from the IIC consultants, the PIU was able to prepare all the project progress reports. An external auditor was recruited to audit the project’s financial statements.12 The audited report for 2008 was submitted to ADB a year late, however, and this resulted in the Project Performance Report Rating being “at risk”.

11

SMEC. 2010. Draft Final Report—Domestic Maritime Transport Project—Institutional Development and Capacity Building (ADB Loan 2327-MLD).

12 The financial accounts were audited by AH&ASSOCIATES, Maldives.

9

K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank

36. Overall, the performance of ADB was satisfactory. The project was administered and supervised from ADB headquarters. ADB provided substantial guidance and support to the government and the PIU in all aspects of project implementation, such as approving advance actions, preparing documents and evaluation reports related to procurement, engaging consultants and contractor, and commenting on technical issues. ADB maintained close engagement with the implementing agency during project implementation. Eight project review missions were conducted, during which ADB participated in joint coordination and review meetings together with the Ministry of Finance and Treasury, the implementing agency, and the contractor and consultants. ADB was closely involved in monitoring progress. It identified project issues—especially time-critical issues—and worked with the government to resolve these. The loan closing date was extended once to accommodate the revised project schedule. The role of the ADB missions in advising on contract administration and technical issues was also recognized by the government.

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE

A. Relevance

37. At appraisal and completion, the project was rated relevant and consistent with the government’s development strategy and ADB’s country partnership strategy. Given its geographic and physical characteristics, maritime transport is the country’s lifeline. The MNH project was and remains crucial to enhancing distribution of essential supplies and accessibility from the capital city of Malé to the other atolls for the majority of the population. The outputs and outcomes have proven that the project is important, timely, and effective in enhancing domestic maritime transport sector development in the Maldives and promoting economic development. 38. The project is a continuation of ADB’s efforts to support the government’s development plans. The 7th NDP outlines a development path based on economic growth, social equity, poverty reduction, environmental protection, and good governance. It provides a policy framework for realizing the long-term goals of the President’s Vision 2020. The plan, which continues the strategies and lessons from implementing the Sixth National Development Plan, focuses on creating equitable opportunities and more fairly distributing income and wealth. 39. Recognizing the paramount importance of the maritime transport sector in ensuring population-wide access to social and economic development opportunities, the 7th NDP includes 12 policies with supporting sub-strategies in the form of a combined land and sea transport roadmap. Considering the lifeline characteristics of MNH in enhancing access for the majority of the population living in the outer atolls, where the incidence of poverty is higher, the project has been considered a high priority investment within that roadmap. 40. In terms of institutional capacity, and in line with the 7th NDP objectives of improving the overall management and efficiency of the transport sector, the project also identified the need to separate maritime regulatory functions from operational functions. The recommendation to establish a Maldives Ports and Maritime Authority is currently being implemented. The project was also particularly successful in developing and successfully implementing harbor usage charges at MNH. This promotes better financial and operational sustainability over the long-term, and it fits with the 7th NDP objective to enhance harbor management capacity at Malé.

10

B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome

41. The project is rated highly effective in achieving its outcome. At appraisal, MNH, served as the gateway to the capital for the outer atoll population and for inter-atoll passenger and cargo vessels. It had a quay wall of just 200 m. The harbor area had no infrastructure to support loading and unloading, and its operational efficiency was hindered by lack of harbor management. The insufficient capacity resulted in long vessel waiting times, severe congestion, and, consequently, economic losses for vessel owners. The combination of the aforementioned factors essentially increased transport costs for passenger movement and cargo distribution to and from Malé, thereby limiting access to social and economic development opportunities. 42. The project successfully delivered a new quay 268 m long that has drive-on access, a cargo handling area, ancillary facilities, and utilities. Upon completion, MNH’s operation was handed over to MPL, which has been operating the adjacent Malé Commercial Port for many years. Hence, MPL already possessed the capacity needed to operate the new facilities in terms of management, staffing, funding, and maintenance. Since taking over the new facilities, MPL has implemented various traffic management measures which have been effective in ensuring smooth operations on both the road side and harbor side.

43. Before the physical improvements at MNH, the average turnaround time for vessels was 3.99 days. According to MPL, after the new facilities were opened, the turnaround times for the vessels was reduced to 2.41 days in 2011 and 2.59 days in 2012. This was estimated based on the 2,521 vessel arrivals at MNH during 2011 (May to December) and 3,502 vessel arrivals during 2012 (January to October). The drive-on access and cargo handling area have substantially improved the efficiency in loading and unloading cargo. This drive-on access area has been well utilized, being used on average by about 473 vehicles daily. The operation of the new quay and improvement of the harbor facilities have well facilitated the rapidly growing traffic. Reduced waiting and handling times have brought significant economic benefits to the Maldives. Meanwhile, the project is also generating increased revenue through new harbor usage charges that were developed under the IDCB component. This, too, has supported more efficient harbor operations while at the same time contributing to recovery of the investment costs. Appendix 10 provides a summary of the project’s initial operation. 44. The key recommendations under the IDCB component have been implemented. For example, the proposed creation of the Maldives Ports and Maritime Authority (in order to separate regulatory and operational functions) is currently being implemented; a harbor usage charging system has been introduced at the new facilities (see Appendix 10); and the review of maritime safety regulations has been completed. Although the project performance monitoring system was not implemented, this did not impact on project outcome since MPL already had an existing system that collects information similar to that required by the performance monitoring system for the new facilities. C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs

45. Overall, despite the year-long delay in project completion, the project is still rated efficient in consideration of its robust economic benefits and generation of additional revenues from the introduction of harbor usage charges. 46. The economic reevaluation compared the economic costs and benefits for the “with-project” and “without-project” cases. Economic benefits considered in the reevaluation include (i) passenger time cost savings, (ii) vessel turnaround time cost savings, and (iii) vehicle

11

congestion cost savings. The economic internal rate of return (EIRR) was recalculated on the basis of 23 years (2008–2030), including 3 years of construction and 20 years of operation. The EIRR was recalculated at 29.1%. Since the recalculated EIRR is above the ADB-recommended hurdle rate of 12%, the project is considered economically viable. Compared with 22.5% at appraisal, the higher EIRR is mainly attributed to higher traffic than estimated at appraisal (about double). The EIRR was subjected to sensitivity analysis to test different scenarios. The project was found to be economically viable for all scenarios. In the worst case, combining both a 30% operation and maintenance cost increase and 30% benefit reduction, the EIRR was 22.1%- which is still higher than the 12% hurdle rate. A summary of the economic reevaluation is in Appendix 11. 47. The financial internal rate of return (FIRR) was recalculated using a methodology similar to that at appraisal but based on actual costs and revenues. The actual costs have been higher than at appraisal primarily because the actual infrastructure cost was 23% more than originally estimated. On the revenues side, the actual harbor usage charges implemented are about 80%–90% lower than originally envisaged. As a result the actual FIRR is estimated as −2.18%. An FIRR equivalent to the weighted average cost of capital of 1.36% could be obtained by about a one-third increase in revenues. This could be realistically achieved by boosting the port’s operating efficiency and gradually raising the harbor usage charges. The latter might be more challenging in the short term due to political pressures to keep the usage charges low. D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability

48. Overall, the sustainability of the project is rated likely. 49. Harbor’s operational efficiency. Since its opening, the new facilities have been well utilized, especially during peak periods. MNH is now able to accommodate 35 vessels at a time, and there are 203 vessels currently registered to use MNH. MPL expects the vessel arrivals to grow by at least 5% annually. Therefore, an efficient harbor management system needs to be maintained to maximize operational efficiency. 50. Domestic maritime sector development. The provision of additional capacity for berthing and loading and unloading has alleviated the congestion on both the harbor and on the land side. Nevertheless, since MNH is the gateway to the capital for the outer atoll population and is also currently used for inter-atoll passenger-cum-cargo vessels, demand is expected to increase rapidly in the longer term. There is potential scope for improving the efficiency of domestic passenger and cargo distribution at MNH, possibly by segregating cargo and passenger movements in the longer term. 51. Institutional strengthening and capacity building. The key components of the IDCB are being implemented. The separation of regulatory and operational functions through introducing the Maldives Ports and Maritime Authority is being implemented. Harbor usage charges have been successfully introduced, and this has improved both financial sustainability and efficiency of the operations. The change in implementation arrangement to hand over the new facilities to MPL rather than MCPI is more beneficial than the original arrangement, since MPL already has the capacity to manage and operate the new infrastructure. 52. Harbor infrastructure maintenance. The physical improvements were delivered in high quality. The financial reevaluation also demonstrates that the revenues from harbor operations would be sufficient to cover routine maintenance of the new facilities, as well as longer-term periodic maintenance (for wear-and-tear).

12

53. Financial cost recovery. Although MNH operated at a loss in 2011, its financial status turned modestly profitable in 2012 due to build-up of vessel demand. This should improve, as traffic is anticipated to increase. To capture this growth, MNH should continuously enhance port operational efficiency to manage additional demand. MPL recognizes that the actual tariffs are much lower than envisaged during appraisal. Although there are no firm plans to increase tariffs immediately, the financial position of port operations could be improved by increasing revenues from efficiency improvements as well as gradual increase in usage charges. To further boost revenues, MPL is planning to rent part of the spare capacity in the passenger facilities for retail shops.

E. Impact

1. Environmental Safeguards 54. At appraisal, the project was classified as category “B” according to ADB’s Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003). In compliance with the Environmental Protection and Preservation Act, 1993, an initial environmental examination report was prepared during project preparation. Provisions were made in the project cost to cover environmental mitigation and monitoring. The initial environmental examination also provided a framework for developing the environmental management plan. The framework included a rolling action plan with periodic monitoring and appropriate budget allocations. The IIC contractors prepared and submitted the environmental management plan in accordance with the initial environmental examination. 55. All impacts identified in the initial environmental examination were addressed during implementation. The IIC contractor executed the environmental measures in the environmental management plan. The key measures included (i) installing a temporary steel sheet pile wall to prevent water-quality impacts; (ii) installing a silt curtain to protect the water quality of the basin; (iii) selecting proper equipment to minimize noise impact on the surrounding area; and (iv) adjusting the timing for transporting construction materials to mitigate additional congestion around the adjacent commercial market. The contractor also conducted regular environmental monitoring in relation to water quality, waste treatment, oil spillage, noise levels, and air pollution at the project site. The IIC consultants supervised the implementation of such surveys and monitoring. The IIC consultants’ final report confirmed that the project caused no significant environmental impacts, and the environmental conditions were generally maintained within original conditions.13

2. Land Acquisition and Social Safeguards 56. During project preparation, it was identified that all land required for the project was owned by the government, no additional land would need to be acquired from private landowners, and no resettlement would be involved. During implementation, the executing agency confirmed that no significant changes occurred from the project design.

3. Socioeconomic Impact

57. At appraisal, the social impact analysis (including a poverty analysis) indicated that the project influence area would be nationwide and approximately 70% of the population (about 209,189 people) residing in outer atolls would benefit from enhanced domestic connectivity with

13

JPC. 2010. Environmental Monitoring Report (July to December 2010), Domestic Maritime Transport Project (ADB Loan 2327-MLD.

13

Malé. Island-based communities have benefitted from reduced turnaround time for vessels in Malé, thereby increasing accessibility and vessel frequencies between outer islands and Malé. 58. For better monitoring of the socioeconomic and environmental impacts, the project required development of a results-based project performance monitoring system in the early stage of project implementation. Although this was not implemented satisfactorily by the IDCB consultant, similar information is being collected by MPL as part of its operations. 59. Site visits and interviews were conducted during the project completion review mission. Vessel operators and passengers revealed that the project has had significant positive socioeconomic benefits, especially for the poor in remote atolls. For example, (i) average monthly inter-atoll traffic and total cargo at MNH grew by 11% from 2011 to 2012; (ii) the turnaround time for vessels decreased from 3.99 days before the project to about 2.59 days; (iii) the average monthly number of passengers passing through MNH rose by about 20% from 2011 to 2012; (iv) most vessels are now able to make about three trips per month as compared to two trips per month before the project; (v) congestion along Marine Drive has been alleviated significantly, and the average speed on Marine Drive is now 25 kilometers per hour versus 8 kilometers per hour at appraisal; (vi) total sales in the farm market in front of MNH have grown by about 50% since the new MNH facilities opened.

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Overall Assessment

60. Overall, the project is rated successful. It was relevant to the government’s development objectives and ADB’s country partnership strategy. The project’s main objectives have been realized, ensuring redistribution of benefits, as well as sustained, equitable, and regionally balanced economic growth within the Maldives. Vessel arrivals and total cargo passing through MNH rose by 11% from 2011 to 2012 while the number of passengers through MNH grew by 20%. Total sales at the adjacent farm market grew by about 50%. Congestion around the harbor and on the adjacent Marine Drive improved significantly as a result of providing a better organized loading and unloading area within the harbor. 61. In terms of institutional capacity, the project contributed to better aligning MTC’s organizational structure with its mandate. The IDCB component achieved this by recommending establishment of a Maldives Ports and Maritime Authority, which is currently being implemented. A new harbor usage charging system has been successfully introduced as planned. This has improved the efficiency of port operations and reduced vessel congestion. Due to restructuring within the government and the decision to transfer operations to MPL, part of the original scope on financial management and harbor management training was removed. This did not negatively impact the project outcome, since MPL already had the capacity to manage and operate the new facilities. Overall, the project objectives have been met, and the impacts, outputs, and outcomes planned at appraisal have been substantially achieved.

B. Lessons

1. Project Readiness 62. Although the project cost estimate was made in 2002, procurement for the civil works was during 2008–2009. Due to price escalation, the bid prices received were much higher than originally estimated. Eventually, the implementing agency reduced the project scope so as to fit

14

the project costs within the original cost allocation. In the future, it would be beneficial to shorten the time between detailed design and procurement and to use advance procurement to minimize start-up delays. Price escalation should also be factored into the project cost estimate.

2. Project Implementation Schedule

63. There were initial start-up delays due to re-advertising of the IDCB component and rebidding of the IIC. The latter impacted the implementation schedule most and resulted in a one-year delay in completing the IIC. This also necessitated extending the loan by one year to December 2010. In the future, it would be beneficial to undertake more robust feasibility studies.

3. Procurement and Project Management Support 64. Due to frequent restructuring within the government agencies, the PIU team was unstable throughout implementation. For future projects, permanent technical staff within the PIU team should be retained as much as possible to ensure continuity of key knowledge and information throughout the project. To further mitigate this situation, future projects could include strong procurement and project management support to the PIU to ensure smooth project implementation. C. Recommendations

65. Project benefit monitoring and evaluation. Although monitoring and valuation surveys were designed to be conducted annually and the survey report to be submitted to ADB 5 years after project completion, this aspect has not been implemented. In the future, such targeted monitoring and evaluation of project impact should be strengthened and monitored more closely during implementation to ensure its successful delivery. 66. Timing of the project performance evaluation report. The project performance evaluation report could be prepared in 2014 or later. Even better would be for it to be undertaken after the foregoing survey and evaluation activity. By that time, the project will have fully operated for more than 3 years and the project benefits can be more accurately assessed.

A

pp

en

dix

1 1

5

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Design Summary Performance Targets/Indicators Data Sources/

Reporting Mechanisms Assumptions and Risks Results

Impact

Sustained equitable and regionally balanced economic growth within the Maldives

Increase Malé North Harbor’s contribution to GDP by 0.1% by 2015 10% volume increase in key outputs of domestic agricultural produce (coconut, watermelon, banana, cucumber, pumpkin, and mango) sold in Malé North Harbor markets by 2014

National Economic Data and Statistics Baseline survey

Assumption

The Agricultural Master Plan targets 100% growth in key agricultural produce by 2015. Improved transport only accounts for a portion of this expected growth, estimated at 2% annually. Risk

Other support mechanisms targeting the agricultural sector may fail to materialize, apart from improved access to markets through transport infrastructure investments.

Achieved.

Maldives’ national GDP grew by 5.7% and 7.5% in 2010 and 2011, respectively. The survey of domestic agricultural produce was not conducted. Hence, the following data have been used as a proxy to measure increases in economic productivity: (i) Vessel arrivals at MNH were

2,521 in 2011 (May–Dec) and 3,502 in 2012 (Jan–Oct), with average monthly gain of 11% in 2012 as compared to 2011.

(ii) Total cargo transported at MNH was 428,570 tons in 2011 (May-Dec) and 595,340 tons in 2012 (Jan–Oct), with average monthly increase of 11% in 2012 as compared to 2011.

(iii) Total passengers at MNH were 60,833 in 2011 (May-Dec) and 91,250 in 2012 (Jan–Oct), with average monthly increase of 20% in 2012 as compared to 2011.

(iv) Total sales of the farm market in front of MNH grew by about 50% in the last 2 years.

Outcome

1. Improved services of Malé North Harbor

1. Operation

Reduction of congestion and increase in the amount of larger vessels calling at Malé North Harbor (i) Total time spent in Malé North

Harbor for small vessels reduced from an average of 10 days to 8 days by August 2014, i.e. after 5 years of operations

(i) Harbor operation

service records

Assumptions

Construction of additional 290 meter quay wall is completed on time. The government will introduce harbor management and harbor usage charges in Malé

Achieved.

As there were no formal surveys for monitoring and evaluation, these indicators from MPL provide the best available comparison: (i) Average turnaround time for

small vessels at MNH was 2.41 days in 2011 (May-Dec) and 2.59 days in 2012.(Jan-Oct)



(ii) Total time spent in Malé North Harbor for large vessels decreased from an average of 15 days to 13 days by August 2014.

(iii) At least 70% of service users (i.e., vessel operators, passengers, and cargo shippers) rate the harbor services “satisfactory” by 2011

(iv) By 2014, at least 1% of passengers and cargo sellers visiting Malé North Harbor report that their trip was induced by improved services

(v) Average traffic flow through (as defined by number of vehicles passing through a given point) on Marine Drive along Malé North Harbor will increase by 25% by 2014

(ii) Harbor operation service records

(iii) Annual harbor user

survey and government reports or feedback

(iv) Annual harbor user

survey and government reports or feedback

(v) Baseline survey

North Harbor based on the training and capacity building outputs. Risk

Factors outside the direct project scope, such as improvements to transport and cargo services provided by vessel owners, may influence harbor usage satisfaction.

(ii) The average turnaround time for large vessels at MNH was 2.41 days in 2011 (May-Dec) and 2.59 days in 2012 (Jan-Oct).

(iii) Most of the vessels made 3 trips a month versus 2 trips before the project.

(iv) The average speed of the vehicles on Marine Drive is about 25 kilometers per hour.

(v)

2. Alignment of MTC’s organizational structure with its mandate

2. Institutional development and capacity building

(i) Action plan for institutional alignment of MTC’s maritime transport activities in line with its sector mandate developed by end February 2008

(ii) Action plan for introduction of harbor usage charges, with supportive documentation, developed by end September 2008

(iii) Action plan for recommended changes to maritime safety regulations, vessel inspections, and registration procedures developed by end December 2008

(iv) Action plan for improvements to financial management systems by end May 2009

(i) Institutional

development and capacity building consultants’ reports

(ii) Institutional


(iii) Institutional


(iv) Institutional


Assumption

Political will exists to implement institutional alignment and human resources enhancement efforts.

Achieved:

(i) The recommendation to set up the Maldives Ports and Maritime Authority was accepted and is now being implemented.

(ii) Harbor usage charges have

been successfully introduced at MNH.

(iii) A local vessel safety regulation

was developed (1999) and a local ferry regulation was implemented in 2009. Some other related regulations have been developed in draft format.

(iv) MPL has a financial management system sufficient for the operations of MNH.

16 A

pp

end

ix 1

A

pp

en

dix

1 1

7



Outputs

1. Capacity of Malé North Harbor enhanced

2. Institutional capacity of

MTC and MCPI upgraded

(i) Construction of quay wall and

ancillary civil works, provision of cargo handling equipment, and construction of a temporary transit area for goods and passengers completed and operational by end February 2009

(i) Strategic policy and planning

capacity building provided (ii) Regulatory capacity building in

harbor usage charges conducted by end September 2008

(iii) Capacity building in maritime safety regulations, vessel inspections, and registration procedures for MTC staff completed by end December 2008

(iv) Project performance monitoring system, comprising impact indicators (including environmental and social aspects) developed by end October 2007

(v) Training in harbor management for MCPI staff completed by end March 2009

(vi) Development of best practices

Design and supervision consultants’ reports Institutional development and capacity building consultants’ reports Government reports or feedback

Assumption

Contracts for detailed design, supervision consultants, and civil works are awarded on time. Risk

Delays in construction caused by weather conditions will affect construction schedule. Assumption

Contracts for institutional development and capacity building consultants are awarded on time. Risks

Staffing of PMU and PIUs in accordance with competency requirements. Trained staff will be retained.

Achieved.

Physical component has been completed, including a quay 268 meters long; dredging of harbor basin; additional drive-on access and cargo handling area; and provision of ancillary harbor facilities, a covered shelter, and utilities.

Mostly achieved.

Institutional component was mostly completed: (i) The strategic policy and

planning capacity were reviewed, and the key recommendation to establish an independent Maldives Ports and Maritime Authority is being implemented.

(ii) Harbor usage charges were

developed and successfully implemented.

(iii) Review of safety regulations

was completed.

(iv) Project performance monitoring system was not satisfactorily implemented, but operational data is now routinely collected by MPL and is suitable for monitoring purposes

(v) Harbor management training was not conducted, because MPL is already an experienced port operator.

(vi) Harbor management manual



operations manual for harbor management completed by mid-May 2009

(vii) Development of best practices operations manual for financial management completed by mid-May 2009

(viii) Project management training

for MCPI completed by end February 2009

has been produced and handed over to MPL.

(vii) Financial management operations manual is no longer required, because the new infrastructure was handed over to an existing, experienced port operator rather than MCPI. Project management training for MCPI is no longer required, because infrastructure was handed over to an existing, experienced port operator.

Inputs 1. Investment

component

Total cost: $4.43 million, with ADB to finance $3.65 million (excluding taxes and duties, interest during construction, and contingencies). The government is to finance $777,112. Consulting services: 25 person-months of international input and 15 person-months of national experts

Inception report Monthly progress reports Final reports ADB review missions

Total project cost: $5.46 million (excluding interest during construction), with ADB financing $4.37 million and the government financing $1.09 million Consulting services: 18.0 person-months of international input and 18.14 person-months of national experts

2. Institutional Development and Capacity Building component

Total cost: $697,500, with ADB to finance $697,500 (excluding taxes and duties, interest during construction, and contingencies). Consulting services: 25.5 person-months of international experts and 18 person-months of national experts

Inception report Monthly progress reports Final reports ADB review missions

Total cost: $0.65 million, wholly financed by ADB Consulting services: 25.5 person-months of international experts and 18 person-months of national experts

ADB = Asian Development Bank, GDP = gross domestic product, MCPI = Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructure, MNH = Malé North Harbor, MPL = Maldives Ports Limited, MTC = Ministry of Transport and Communication, PIU = project implementation unit, PMU = project management unit. Source: ADB project completion review mission.

18 A

pp

end

ix 1

DETAILS OF PROJECT OUTPUTS

Component or Subcomponent Outputs and Quantity

A. Infrastructure Investment Component

a. Dredging and reclamation Dredging for harbor basin to mean sea level of -4.0 meter (m) depth and reclamation of 26,500 cubic meters

b. Quay walls Construction of quay wall 268 m long with mean sea level of-4.0 m depth, including (1) main part of quay projecting northward at right angles to Marine Dive (123 m long, 30 m wide); (2) eastward leg of quay, placed along and inside existing breakwater (120 m long, 11 m wide); and (3) quay wall between main part and eastward leg (25 m long)

c. Drive-on access and cargo handling area

Additional drive-on access and cargo handling area of 6,500 square meters with interlocking concrete blocks pavement

d. Ancillary facilities Provision of ancillary harbor facilities such as mooring bollards, fenders, gates, fencing, guard posts, and lighting system

e. Shelter Covered shelter of 480 square meters to protect passengers and cargoes, plus management office and guard room

f. Utility works Utility works such as electricity, water supply, drainage and sewer lines

B. Institutional Development and Capacity Building Component

a. Final report for this component (main report)

Draft final report, which covered many aspects of maritime development in Maldives, including (i) review of relevant policies and programs, (ii) recommendations for creation of a ports and maritime authority, (iii) project performance monitoring system, (iv) analysis and recommendations for a legal and regulatory framework, (v) recommended training programs, (vi) Malé North Harbor management and operation, and (vii) assessment of the financial management system

b. Independent reports and appendices

(i) Harbor Management Manual Report, (ii) Baseline Data Report, (iii) Training Program Report, and (iv) Boat Census Report

Source: ADB project completion review mission.

Ap

pe

ndix

2

19

PROJECT COST AND FINANCING PLAN

Table A3.1: Project Costs ($) Appraisal Estimate Actual

Item

Foreign Exchange

Local Currency

Total Cost

Foreign

Exchange Local

Currency Total Cost

1. Base Costs

A. Component 1: Infrastructure Improvement

a. Dredging, reclamation, and quay walls 2,082,808 1,162,336 3,245,144

2,274,264 1,269,181 3,543,445

b. Fenders, mooring bars, and bollards 51,478 31,589 83,067

45,124 27,690 72,814

c. Paving works 214,306 54,202 268,508

691,502 174,894 866,395

d. Land works (shed, fence, gate, guard post, crane, lights) 228,128 65,266 293,394

259,892 74,354 334,246

e. Detailed design, bid preparation, site supervision, and project management 418,200 124,000 542,200 493,140 146,220 639,360

Subtotal A 2,994,920 1,437,393 4,432,313

3,763,922 1,692,338 5,456,260

B. Component 2: Institutional Development and Capacity Building

a. Institutional development and capacity building 600,000 45,000 645,000

609,125 45,684 654,809

b. Environmental impact assessment 37,500 15,000 52,500

Subtotal B 637,500 60,000 697,500

609,125 45,684 654,809

2. Taxes and Duties

434,622 434,622

Total Base Costs 3,632,420 1,932,015 5,564,435

4,373,047 1,738,022 6,111,069

3. Contingencies

a. Physical 467,382 251,318 718,700

b. Price 163,247 158,122 321,369

Total Contingencies 630,629 409,440 1,040,069

4. Financing Charges (Interest Capitalized during Construction) 49,920

49,920

33,005

33,005

Total 4,312,969 2,341,455 6,654,424 4,406,051 1,738,022 6,144,074

Sources: ADB. 2007. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to the Republic of the Maldives for the Domestic Maritime Transport Project. Manila; ADB loan financial information system; ADB project completion review mission.

Table A3.2: Financing Plan ($ million, except % as shown)

Source

At Appraisal Actual

Foreign Exchange

Local Currency

Total Cost

% of Cost Foreign

Exchange Local

Currency Total Cost

% of Cost

Asian Development Bank 4.31 1.02 5.33 80.2

4.41 0.65 5.06 82.3

Government

1.32 1.32 19.8

1.08 1.08 17.7

Total 4.31 2.34 6.65 100.0 4.41 1.74 6.14 100.0

Source: ADB. 2007. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to the Republic of the Maldives for the Domestic Maritime Transport Project. Manila; ADB loan financial information system.

20

Ap

pe

ndix

3

Appendix 4 21

DISBURSEMENT OF ADB LOAN PROCEEDS

Table A4: Annual and Cumulative Disbursement of ADB Loan Proceeds

i.

Annual Disbursement ii. Cumulative Disbursement

Amount

% of Total SDR

Amount

% of Total SDR

Planned Actual

($ million) ($ million) (SDR million)

(SDR million)

2008 4.50 0.19 0.12 3.6

0.12 3.6

2009 3.90 0.50 0.32 9.8

0.44 13.4

2010

2.32 1.51 46.4

1.95 59.8

2011

1.97 1.26 38.6

3.21 98.4

2012

0.08 0.05 1.6

3.26 100.0

Total

5.06 3.26 100.0

ADB = Asian Development Bank. Source: Asian Development Bank.

Figure A4.1: Annual Disbursement of ADB Loan Proceeds ($ million)

Figure A4.2: Cumulative Disbursement of ADB Loan Proceeds

($ million)

ACTUAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES

IDCB = institutional development and capacity building, IIC = infrastructure investment component. Source: ADB project completion review mission.

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

At appraisal At actual

The IDBC consultant

Implementation

Civil Works

2008 2009 2010

Implementation

Procurement

Item2006 2007

The infrastructure improvement

The IIC consultant

Recruitment

Recruitment

22

Ap

pe

ndix

5

Appendix 6 23

CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS

Date Main Event

A. Project preparation

2006

19–30 November ADB project fact-finding mission

2007

12 January ADB Management Review Meeting

28 January–2 February ADB project appraisal mission

23 February ADB staff review committee meeting

March Loan negotiation

24 April Board approval

23–24 July ADB special loan administration mission

29 August Loan signing

23 October Loan effectiveness

B. Project implementation

2006

19 December Publishing request for expressions of interest in ADB Business

Opportunities for IIC and IDCB consultants

2007

14 April ADB approval of short list for IIC consultants

19 April ADB approval of short list for IDCB consultants

14 May ADB approval on no-objection basis of IIC consultants selection

result

15 November Contract signing between the government and IIC consultants

2008

13–17 January ADB project inception mission

20 May First disbursement of ADB loan

5–7 August ADB special loan administration mission

7 August First bid opening for IIC component

7 August Contract signing between the government and IDCB consultants

17 September Mobilization of IDCB consultants

2009

30 June Original project completion date

6–9 July ADB project review mission

27 October Contract signing between the government and IIC contractors

4 November Starting of IIC civil work

31 December Original loan closing date

24 Appendix 6

2010

28 February Submission of draft final report for IDCB component

28 February–2 March ADB project review mission

26–30 September ADB project review mission

31 December Substantial completion of IIC component

31 December Contract completion of IIC consultant

31 December Contract completion of IDCB consultant

31 December Actual loan closing date

2011

6 February Final inspection of IIC component

12–13 April ADB special loan administration mission

2012

16 March Actual loan account closing and final disbursement of loan

21–24 October ADB project completion review mission

ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDCB = institutional development and capacity building, IIC = infrastructure investment component. Source: The ADB project completion review mission.

Appendix 7 25

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

IIC = infrastructure investment component, IDCB = institutional development and capacity building, MCPI = Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructure, MOFT = Ministry of Finance and Treasury, MTC = Ministry of Transport and Communication. Source: the ADB project completion review mission.

Project Steering Committee

Project Management Office (PMO)

Project Implementation

Unit (PIU-MTC)

Executing Agency (MOFT)

IDCB

Consultants

Project Implementation

Unit (PIU-MCPI)

Implementation Agency

(MTC)

IIC

Contractor

IIC

Consultants

Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructure

(MCPI)

26 Appendix 8

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH MAJOR LOAN COVENANTS

Particulars

Reference in Loan

Agreement Status of Compliance

Section 4.02. (a) The Borrower shall (i) maintain, or cause to be maintained, separate accounts for the Project; (ii) have such accounts and related financial statements audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing standards consistently applied, by independent auditors whose qualifications, experience and terms of reference are acceptable to ADB; (iii) furnish to ADB, as soon as available but in any event not later than 6 months after the end of each related fiscal year, certified copies of such audited accounts and financial statements and the report of the auditors relating thereto (including the auditors' opinion on the use of the Loan proceeds and compliance with the financial covenants of this Loan Agreement, all in the English language; and (iv) furnish to ADB such other information concerning such accounts and financial statements and the audit thereof as ADB shall from time to time reasonably request.

(b) The Borrower shall enable ADB, upon ADB’s request, to discuss the Borrower’s financial statements for the Project and its financial affairs related to the Project from time to time with the auditors appointed by the Borrower pursuant to Section 4.02(a) hereabove, and shall authorize and require any representative of such auditors to participate in any such discussions requested by ADB, provided that any such discussion shall be conducted only in the presence of an authorized officer of the Borrower unless the Borrower shall otherwise agree.

LA, Article IV, Section 4.02

Partly complied with. Separate financial account was established for the project, an external editor was recruited to audit the financial statements, and audited project accounts were submitted up to 2009. Although there were delays in the submission of financial statements, the establishment of the financial audit system itself represents a significant improvement toward enhancing governance.

Section 4.03. The Borrower shall enable ADB’s representatives to inspect the Project, the Goods and Works financed out of the proceeds of the Loan, and any relevant records and documents.

LA, Article IV Section 4.03

Complied with. Inspections were conducted during the ADB missions.

Appendix 8 27

Particulars

Reference in Loan


14. The Borrower, the EA and the IA shall follow ADB’s Anticorruption Policy (1998, as amended to date). Consistent with its commitment to good governance, accountability and transparency, ADB reserves the right to investigate, directly or through its agents, any alleged corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practices relating to the Project. To support these efforts, the EA and the IA shall (a) carry out periodic inspections on the contractors’ activities related to fund withdrawals and settlements, (ii) include relevant provisions in contracts financed by ADB in connection with the Project specifying the right of ADB to audit and examine the records and accounts of the EA, the IA, the PMU, the PIUs and all contractors, suppliers, consultants and other service providers as they relate to the Project.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 14

Complied with. Inspections on contractor’s activities related to fund withdrawals were conducted during ADB missions and audited financial statements had been produced.

15. The Borrower shall ensure implementation of the additional specific measures to enhance governance and prevent corruption. Such measures include, but are not limited to: (a) continued consultant support to MCPI PIU staff on procurement and project management; (b) harbor management training to MCPI PIU staff, including training in collection of harbor usage charges; and (c) improving financial management systems and practices. Specific measures to increase transparency under the Project include random and independent spot checks by ADB review missions on procurement and financial project accounts. The Borrower shall ensure that procurement of all civil works necessary for the Project is undertaken by the Borrower through the Tender Evaluation Board under MOFT.

LA Schedule 5, para. 15

Partly complied with. The IIC consultants provided support to the PIU on procurement and project management. ADB mission also conducted inspections on the progress of contractors and consultants during the project missions. The harbor management training and financial management training became less relevant during implementation. This is due to the government’s decision to transfer operations of the MNH to MPL, which already had experience in commercial port operations, rather than to MCPI, which did not have the required expertise.

Project Executing and Implementing Agencies

1. MOFT shall be the EA for the Project. MTC shall be the IA, responsible for day-to-day implementation of the Project

LA, Schedule 5, para. 1.

Complied with. During implementation, MOFT was the executing agency and MTC was the implementing agency for the project.

28 Appendix 8

Particulars

Reference in Loan


Project Steering Committee

2. A PSC shall be established immediately after the Effective Date. The PSC shall be chaired by Minister, MTC and comprise representatives at director level from MOFT, MCPI, MEEW, MPND, MHUD, Malé Municipality, and other relevant agencies, as necessary. The Project Director shall act as secretary to the PSC. The PSC shall provide overall policy and operational advice and guidance to the Project. The PSC shall meet as often as necessary, but at least quarterly, and shall hold its first meeting within 3 months of the Effective Date.


Complied with. The project steering committee established during project preparation continued to supervise the project. It was composed of representatives at director levels from related government agencies. The PSC had regular meetings and provided overall policy and operational advice and guidance to the project.

Project Management Unit

3. Within 1 month of the Effective Date, the PMU shall be established in MTC and shall be headed by the Executive Director, Planning and Projects, MTC as the Project Director. The PMU shall comprise: (i) a senior transport policy and planning specialist; (ii) a transport policy and planning specialist; (iii) a senior transport project management specialist; and (iv) a transport project management specialist.


Complied with. A project management unit was established under the executing agency to coordinate the project implementation on a daily basis.

Project Implementation Units

4. Within 1 month of the Effective Date, two PIUs shall be established in each of MTC and MCPI. The heads of the PIUs shall be appointed by the Project Director. Unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB, the PIU in MTC (MTC PIU) shall be headed by a senior transport policy and planning specialist and be staffed with (i) a policy and planning expert; and (ii) a regulatory expert. Unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB, the PIU in MCPI (MCPI PIU) shall be headed by a senior engineer and be staffed with (i) a design approval engineer, (ii) a supervision engineer, including environmental coordination; and (iii) a project accountant.


Complied with. Two PIUs were established, one was within MTC for the IDCB component and another was within MCPI for the IIC. Due to restructuring of the government organization, a single project management-cum-implementation unit covering both components was formed to implement the project.

Appendix 8 29

Particulars

Reference in Loan


Institutional Realignment

5. The Borrower shall ensure that the implementation of the action plan for institutional realignment of MTC’s maritime transport activities within its sector mandate, as developed with assistance from the Institutional Consultants, commences not later than 31 May 2008.


Complied with. The recommendation to set up the Maldives Ports and Maritime Authority has been taken forward, and harbor usage charges have been successfully introduced at MNH. The local vessel safety regulation that was developed in 1999 was implemented in 2009. Other related regulations have also been developed in draft format. The proposed financial management system under the IDCB was not fully adopted due to a revised operation arrangement with an experienced port operator (MPL).

Harbor Usage Charge Structures

6. The Borrower shall ensure that a harbor usage charge structure for the Malé North Harbor and Vilin’gili Harbor is finalized and approved for implementation within 18 months of the Effective Date to ensure compliance with the cost recovery covenant in paragraph 11 of this Schedule. With support from the Institutional Consultants, MTC shall (a) review potential usage charge structures including with relevant price segmentation within 15 months of the Effective Date, (b) subsequently submit to ADB and the Borrower for discussion a recommended usage charge structure or structures within 16 months of the Effective Date, (c) facilitate approval of the agreed final usage charge structure such that formal approval is gained within 18 months of the Effective Date, and (d) commence implementation within 18 months of the Effective Date.


Complied with. The principles for establishing usage charges at MNH were proposed in the IDCB consultants’ report. Since the opening of MNH in May 2011, usage charges have been implemented. The tariff of usage charges was proposed by MPL and approved by the government.

30 Appendix 8

Particulars

Reference in Loan


Financial Management

7. With support from the Institutional Consultants, PWS shall implement financial management system reforms such that all Malé North Harbor related assets, expenditures and revenues can be recorded and reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial management system reform action plan shall be established within 24 months of the Effective Date. Financial reports from the systems above shall be made publicly available through MCPI’s website and regularly reported to MTC and the EA.


Complied with. The existing financial management system was reviewed and assessed by the IDCB consultant. Recommendations on improving the financial system have been provided. A harbor management manual has been prepared by the consultant. This includes a chapter on financial management. However, the government decided that Maldives Ports Limited would operate the new facilities at MNH. Since MPL already has experience in managing ports, this aspect of the IDCB component was not entirely relevant. Nevertheless, some recommendations are being implemented gradually.

Assets

8. The Borrower shall ensure that responsibility for management of Malé North Harbor related assets remains with PWS and no changes are made without prior consultation with ADB.


Complied with. Due to restructuring within the government agencies during project implementation, the government decided to transfer responsibility for operating MNH to Malé Ports Limited (MPL), which was already operating the Malé Commercial Harbor and two other regional ports. This change of decision was also reported to ADB before it was implemented.

Revenue and Cost Recovery

9. The Borrower shall ensure that PWS is given the mandate to levy and collect harbor usage charges in Malé North Harbor and Vilin’gili Harbor in accordance with the accepted harbor usage charge structure.


Complied with. Harbor usage charges have been implemented.

10. For the period when harbor usage charges are not adequate to cover all operations and maintenance costs at Malé North Harbor, the Borrower shall ensure that adequate budget allocations are made in a timely manner to PWS for meeting the gap.


Complied with. With the harbor usage charges implemented, the revenues in 2012 have been sufficient to cover all O&M costs

Appendix 8 31

Particulars

Reference in Loan


11. The Borrower shall ensure that PWS implements harbor usage charges such that 75% of cost recovery of operation and maintenance (O&M) is achieved within 3 years after completion of the Project, and 100% cost recovery of O&M is achieved within 4 years after the completion of the Project.


Complied with. With the harbor usage charges implemented, the revenues in 2012 have been sufficient to cover all O&M costs.

Counterpart Funds

12. The Borrower shall ensure that throughout the implementation of the Project, adequate budgetary allocations of the required counterpart funds are made available, approved and released in a timely manner.


Complied with. A total of $1.08 million was paid from the government in counterpart funding. These funds were also disbursed in a timely manner.

13. The Borrower shall ensure that MPA shall (a) demolish the building located on the government-owned 16-meter wide strip of land (adjacent to Malé North Harbor) currently occupied by MPA, including trees and cover all costs associated with such demolition, and (b) make the land and rights in land, free from any encumbrances required before commencement of construction activities relating to the contract. The Borrower shall ensure that the physical conditions of such land are not altered.


Complied with. During implementation, the executing agency confirmed that no significant changes had occurred in the project design since project processing and that consequently civil works did not require any additional land acquisition and resettlement activities prior to approval of award of contract.

Environment and Resettlement

14. The Borrower shall ensure that: (a) the Project facilities are constructed, operated, maintained and monitored in accordance with (i) the Borrower’s applicable environmental laws and regulations, and (ii) ADB’s Environment Policy (2002); (b) the IEE including EMP is updated during the detailed design stage; (c) all required environmental mitigation measures in the IEE including the EMP are incorporated into the Project design, bidding document for civil works contract, and implemented accordingly; (d) any adverse environmental impacts arising from the Project are minimized by implementing the mitigation measures prescribed in IEE; and (e) the civil works contract entered into with contractors includes obligations of contractors relating to environment including mitigation and


Complied with. During implementation, the civil works contractor carefully executed the EMP. The IIC consultants also supervised the survey and the environmental measurement implementation. In the consultant’s report, it was confirmed that the project has not caused any significant environmental impacts and the environment conditions were generally maintained at original conditions.

32 Appendix 8

Particulars

Reference in Loan


monitoring measures as specified in the IEE. The Borrower shall further ensure that both compliance with the environmental mitigation measures and environmental monitoring results collected throughout the Project are submitted by the Borrower to ADB every 6 months.

15. The Borrower shall ensure that the Project does not require any land acquisition or involuntary resettlement. In case of any change in the Project design and consequent land acquisition and resettlement impacts, the Borrower shall inform ADB, prepare necessary resettlement plans in accordance with ADB’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (1995) and the Borrower’s applicable laws and regulations, disclose these resettlement plans to affected people and submit them to ADB for approval prior to award of civil works contracts.


Complied with. During implementation, the executing agency confirmed that no significant changes had occurred in the project design since project processing and that consequently civil works did not require completion of any land acquisition and resettlement activities prior to approval of award of contract.

Social

16. The Borrower shall ensure that all civil works will comply with all applicable labor laws, do not employ child labor for construction and maintenance activities, encourage employment of the poor, particularly women, and will not differentiate wages between men and women for work of equal value. The Borrower shall ensure that the civil works contractors disseminate information at worksites on the risks of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS for those employed during construction. Contracts for all subprojects will include specific clauses on these undertakings, and compliance will be strictly monitored by the Borrower during Project implementation.


Complied with. The executing and implementing agencies confirmed that the civil works complied with all applicable labor laws. The project did not employ any child labor in construction and maintenance.

Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting

17. Without limiting the generality of Section 6.04 of the Loan Regulations, the Borrower shall ensure that each of MTC PIU, MCPI PIU and the PMU shall maintain separate Project records and accounts adequate to identify goods and services financed from the Loan proceeds, financing resources


Partly complied with. Separate financial account was established for implementing the project. An external auditor was recruited to audit the financial statements of the project.1 However, the audited report for

1 The financial accounts were audited by AH&ASSOCIATES, Maldives.

Appendix 8 33

Particulars

Reference in Loan


received, expenditures incurred, and use of local funds. All Project accounting systems shall be set up in accordance with sound accounting principles and practices per national or international standards. Annual project accounts and related financial statements, consolidated at the PMU level, shall be subject to an annual external audit by auditors acceptable to ADB. The annual audit report shall include an opinion on use of the Loan proceeds, compliance with covenants, and discrepancies in accounting records or policies, if any. The EA shall monitor Project accounting systems and reports at the PMU and PIUs and shall provide ADB with the annual audited financial statements and project accounts, audit reports, and management letters in English not later than 6 months after the end of each fiscal year during Project implementation. Without limiting the generality of Section 6.05 of the Loan Regulations, the EA in conjunction with the PMU shall also submit detailed quarterly progress reports to ADB as per PPMS framework.

2008 was submitted to ADB about 1 year late, which resulted in the project being rated ‘at risk’ in ADB’s Project Performance Rating System.

Project Performance Monitoring System (PPMS)

18. The Borrower shall ensure that the IA, supported by the Institutional Consultants, shall have developed comprehensive PPMS framework to monitor activities, analyze and consolidate the data and provide quarterly PPMS monitoring reports for submission to ADB until Project completion. The PPMS framework shall be refined to confirm achievable targets, monitoring arrangements, and shall be finalized not later than 15 December 2007. After Project completion, evaluation surveys shall be conducted annually and submitted to ADB for a period of five years post Project completion. The Project completion report shall be prepared within 3 months after the physical completion of the Project. The report shall include a detailed evaluation of the Project covering the design, costs, contractors and consultants’ performance, social and economic impact, economic rate


Not complied with. The IDCB consultants designed and proposed the PPMS, which included the indicators and data sources. It was also proposed that the baseline survey would be done in 2008 and the monitoring reports would be submitted to ADB quarterly. However, these surveys and monitoring activities have not been implemented.

34 Appendix 8

Particulars

Reference in Loan


of return, and other details relating to the Project, as may be requested by ADB.

Project Reviews

19. ADB shall conduct regular reviews annually or more frequently, as required for effective Project implementation. In June 2008, a midterm review by the Borrower and ADB shall consider the Project’s progress and agree on any changes in scope or implementation required to achieve the Project’s intended impact. The EA and the IA shall monitor the Project implementation and keep ADB informed of any significant deviations that may result in the schedule not being met.


Complied with. Eight project review missions and 1 special administration mission were conducted.

ADB = Asian Development Bank; EA = executing agency; EMP = environment management plan; IA = implementing agency; IDCB = institutional development and capacity building; IEE = initial environmental examination; IIC = infrastructure investment component; LA = loan agreement; MCPI = Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructure; MEEW = Ministry of Environment, Energy and Water; MHUD = Ministry of Housing and Urban Development; MNH = Malé North Harbor; MOFT = Ministry of Finance and Treasury; MPA = Maldives Ports Authority; MPL = Maldives Ports Limited; MPND = Ministry of Planning and National Development; MTC = Ministry of Transport and Communication; O&M = operation and maintenance; PIU = project implementation unit, PMU = project management unit; PPMS = project performance monitoring system; PSC = project steering committee; PWS = Public Works Services. Source: ADB project completion review mission.

SUMMARY OF CONTRACT PACKAGES

No. Package Consultant/Contractor Procurement

Method

Contracted Cost Contract Dates Actual Cost Currency Amount

1 Consultant for IIC Japan Port Consultants, Ltd., Japan

QCBS/BTP US$ 638,039 15 Nov 2007 639,360

2 Consultant for IDCB SMEC International Pty Ltd., Australia

QCBS/STP US$ 764,992 7 Aug 2008 654,809

3 Civil Works Maldives Transport and Contracts Company, Maldives

ICB US$ 4,816,900 27 Oct 2009 4,816,900

Total US$ 6,219,931 6,111,069

BTP = biodata technical proposal, ICB = international competitive bidding, QCBS = quality- and cost-based selection, STP = simplified technical proposal. Source: Project implementation units, ADB project completion review mission.

Ap

pe

ndix

9

35

36 Appendix 10

INITIAL OPERATION OF THE PROJECT

1. The infrastructure investment component of the Domestic Maritime Transport Project was substantially completed by the end of 2010, and initial operation formally commenced on 17 May 2011.

A. Organizational Framework

2. After completion, the project operation was handed over to Maldives Ports Limited (MPL). MPL is a state-owned enterprise, directly under the administration of the Ministry of Finance and Treasury and the Ministry of Transport and Communication. With a staff of about 716, MPL operates the Malé Commercial Harbor (MCH), the Malé North Harbor (MNH), and some regional ports (South-west Harbor, Hithadhoo Port, Kulhudhuffushi Port, and others). 3. MNH is operated under a new branch within MPL, called Local Harbor and Regional Ports. This was established in May 2011. Currently, the MNH branch has about 18 staff led by an Assistant General Manager. This consists of 9 administrative staff, 3 operators, and 4 laborers. MNH operates 24 hours a day in 3 shifts. Figure A10.1 illustrates the general organizational structure for the new branch set up to manage MNH.

Figure A10.1 Organization Structure of MNH

Note: Staff numbers are shown in parentheses. Source: Maldives Ports Limited.

Shift A

Manager

Shift C

Manager

Shift B

Manager

Assistant General

Manager of MNH

Administration

(2)

Operator

(1)

Administration

(2)

Operator

(1)

Administration

(2)

Operator

(1)

Labourers (4)

Appendix 10 37

B. Traffic Development

4. Since opening to traffic on 17 May 2011, 206 vessels have registered to use MNH (188 in 2011 and 18 in 2012). Most of these vessels are for both cargo and passenger transportation between Malé and the atolls. Between May and December 2011, 2,521 vessels arrived at MNH. During January–October 2012, 3,502 vessels arrived. As measured by daily vessel arrivals, the average traffic increased by about 11% in 2012. About 80% of these were large vessels with capacity of about 200 tons and 20% were small vessels averaging approximately 50 tons. The average turnaround times for the vessels were 2.41 days in 2011 and 2.59 days in 2012. MPL expects the vessel traffic to grow by at least 5% per annum in the medium term. Table A10.1 summarizes the actual traffic at MNH.

Table A10.1: Actual Traffic at Malé North Harbor

Year

Large Vessels Arrived

Small Vessels Arrived

Total Vessels Arrived

Average Turnaround Time (days)

Passengers Transported

(person-times)

Cargo Transported

(tons)

May–Dec 2011 2,017 504 2,521 2.41 24,333 428,570

Jan–Oct 2012 2,802 700 3,502 2.59 45,625 595,340

Note: The above traffic is one-way only. Source: Maldives Ports Limited.

5. During 2012 (January–October), an average of about 473 vehicles accessed MNH daily (129,366 in total). This included cars, vans, pickups and trucks.

C. Tariffs and Revenue

6. The harbor usage charge was implemented at the same time as the opening of new facilities at MNH. The principles of the usage charge had been recommended under the institutional development and capacity building component of the project. Table A10.2 describes the tariff rates currently being applied. Berths B and C relate to the project berth, and Berth A relates to the original berth. To increase the harbor’s utilization and efficiency, higher rates have been applied for vessels dwelling in the harbor for more than 3 days. Overall, the current tariffs are relatively low as compared to the tariffs envisaged at appraisal, mainly due to political considerations. 7. According to MNH’s financial statements, total revenues generated at MNH were Rf1,493,390 in 2011, including Rf1,489,412 from operation and Rf3,978 from other sources (which are such nonoperating revenues as rent and fines). The operating revenues were generated from storage charges, quay wall charges, port entry charges, vehicle hire charges, water sales, fuel surcharges, and other miscellaneous income. The total expenses were Rf2,383,768 in 2011 including Rf578,978 for operation and Rf1,804,790 for payroll. As a result, there was an operating loss in 2011. The financial status of MNH improved significantly in 2012, mainly due to increased traffic. According to the financial statements for January to September 2012, revenues totaled Rf2,649,432 and expenses totaled Rf2,584,286 (including depreciation). As a result, the operating profit was Rf65,144 in that period of 2012. It is expected that the financial status will continue to improve as vessel traffic grows and operational efficiency at the harbor increases.

38 Appendix 10

Table A10.2: Malé North Harbor Tariffs

Berth Hire Charge (Rf per meter or fraction thereof)

Berth First 3 days

More than 3 days

A 0.52 1.04

B 1.04 2.08

C 1.04 2.08

Vehicle Entry Permits (Rf per entry per vehicle)

Pickup, Van, Truck, Tractor, Crane Truck 10.38

Car

5.19

Truck, Tractor, Van (monthly pass)

200.00

Car, Taxi (monthly pass) 100.00

Godown Rent (Rf per square meter per day or fraction thereof)

Shed storage charge 20.00

Note: Storage charges apply after 6 hours .

Water Sales (Rf)

per MT per LT

Water 127.36 0.24

Vehicle Hire Charges (Rf per hour)

Crane 25 ton (including vehicle loading and unloading gears) 1,200.00

Forklift 4 ton 707.55

Source: Maldives Ports Limited.

D. Maintenance and Operation

8. The physical facilities under the project (new quay and ancillary facilities) were constructed in good quality. It is thus reasonable that initial maintenance cost is low. Moreover, the budget for labor and overheads related to such maintenance has been covered under the operating budget, which includes salaries of staff involved in maintenance. It has also been assumed that periodic maintenance costing 5% of capital costs would be undertaken every 5 years.

9. To improve its financial performance, MPL is considering to lease out currently unutilized storage, shed, and yard areas for uses such as a café, restaurant, and shops. MPL has estimated that this could yield additional revenues of about Rf150,000 annually, which would improve financial performance and contribute to the cost recovery for the project.

10. There is still room to improve the harbor’s operational efficiency. Currently, loading and unloading is done manually by crew members. It is not feasible to use machines since the vessels are covered, and not flat-decked. Moreover, the vessel management system now in use is quite basic. This presents future opportunity for MPL to explore and implement further measures to reduce vessel dwell times and enhance operational efficiency.

Appendix 11 39

REEVALUATION OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A. General

1. The economic analysis has been reevaluated using a methodology similar to that utilized during appraisal. In the “without-project” case, it was assumed that the original state of Malé North Harbor (MNH) would be retained. The “with-project” case takes into account a new quay at MNH. The economic benefits were calculated by comparing the “with-project” and “without-project” cases. Subsequently, the economic internal rate of return (EIRR) was calculated with the addition of sensitivity testing. Overall, it was concluded that the additional capacity provided by the new quay substantially alleviates capacity constraints and effectively improves domestic connectivity in the Maldives.

B. Traffic Development

2. The project was completed in December 2010 and MNH opened in May 2011. The operation of the new facilities at MNH was transferred to Maldives Ports Limited (MPL). MPL reported that the total vessel arrivals at MNH was 2,521 vessels in 2011 (May to December) and 3,502 in 2012 (January to October). The actual traffic was much greater than estimated at appraisal.1 The average turnaround times for the vessels were 2.41 days in 2011 and 2.59 days in 2012. This is a significant improvement as compared to the longer turnaround times of 6 days at appraisal. The drive-on access and cargo handling area has efficiently facilitated the activities of trucks at the harbor. MPL reported that 129,366 vehicles used this cargo handling area in 2012, averaging about 473 vehicles daily. The operation of the new quay and improvement of the port facilities have promoted the rapidly growing traffic. The reduced waiting and handling time have also generated significant economic benefits. The actual traffic at MNH is listed in Appendix 10. A recent study forecasts that traffic demand will grow at a rate of 5.8%.2 To account for the effect of physical capacity limiting the throughput of MNH, annual traffic growth rates were assumed to be 5.8% up to 2017, 5% up to 2022, 3% up to 2027, and 1% up to 2030. C. Economic Costs

3. Upon completion, the actual cost for the infrastructure investment component was $5.46 million, which was about 23.1% higher than that estimated at appraisal. This was mainly due to price inflation between 2002, during which the project was appraised, and actual procurement made in 2007–2009. The project completion review mission collected actual operating and maintenance costs of MNH in 2011 and 2012. The economic reevaluation used the actual cost for routine maintenance (consisting mainly of routine cleaning) while applying a 3% increase per annum along with the traffic growth. Periodic maintenance was assumed to occur every 5 years at a cost of 5% of the capital cost and consist mainly of paving works and harbor facility replacement. The actual operation cost in 2012 was used in the evaluation (including for operation and payroll), but with 2% annual increase to account for additional demand. The lower rate of operating costs increase as compared with traffic growth is reasonable; being a capital intensive operation, the variable cost component (additional labor) is expected to become a smaller cost component in operations. Assuming an asset life of 30 years, the residual cost of one-third was added to

1 During appraisal, 3,210 vessel calls were anticipated to call at MNH in 2010.

2 ADB. 2011. RETA-6337 REG: MLD: Maritime Transport Masterplan (Subproject 21).

40 Appendix 11

the final calculation year. Consistent with appraisal, a standard conversion factor was applied to convert the financial costs to economic costs. D. Economic Benefits

4. The economic reevaluation compared the economic costs and benefits for “with-project” and “without-project” cases. As at appraisal, the benefit streams include (i) vessel time cost savings for vessels due to faster turnaround at harbor, (ii) inter-island passenger travel time savings, and (iii) savings due to reduced vehicle congestion. For (i), actual vessel arrivals were used and projected for future years; time savings were calculated based on values placed on time per day per vessel derived during appraisal (estimated at Rf1,816 for a small vessel and Rf3,175 for a large vessel). For (ii), passenger arrivals were estimated during the project completion review mission and the passenger time savings computed based on gross domestic product per capita and assuming lower income levels (two-thirds) of passengers from outer islands. It was estimated that the average passenger time cost would be Rf168.17 per person-day. For (iii), since no actual data was available but there was visible improvement in traffic speeds as described at appraisal, similar congestion cost savings as during appraisal were assumed to reflect the improvement. E. Economic Reevaluation

5. The economic internal rate of return (EIRR) was recalculated on the basis of 23 years (2008–2030), including 3 years of construction and 20 years of operation. The recalculated EIRR was 29.1%. Because the recalculated EIRR is much higher than the 12% economic opportunity cost of capital, the project still is considered economically viable. Compared with 22.5% at appraisal, the higher EIRR was mainly caused by higher traffic than estimated at appraisal (about double). Sensitivity tests demonstrated that the project continues to be economically viable for all scenarios tested. In a worst case combining both a 30% operation and maintenance (O&M) cost increase and a 30% benefits reduction, the project EIRR was 22.1%. The sensitivity test also showed that the EIRR was more sensitive to the changes in benefits. Therefore operation efficiency is crucial to sustaining economic benefits. Table A11.1 reports results of the sensitivity test and Table A11.2 presents the full set of cash flows from the economic reevaluation.

Table A11.1: Sensitivity Test

Scenarios EIRR (%) ENPV (Rf)

Base Case 29.1 131,659,876

Sensitivity Tests

O&M cost 10% higher 28.6 127,122,027

O&M cost 20% higher 28.2 123,409,403

Benefits 10% lower 26.2 106,130,298

Benefits 20% lower 23.1 81,425,943

Benefits 10% higher 32.0 155,539,007

Benefits 20% higher 34.9 180,243,361

O&M cost 10% higher and benefits 10% lower 25.7 102,417,673

O&M cost 30% higher and benefits 30% lower 22.1 74,000,693

EIRR = economic internal rate of return, ENPV = economic net present value, O&M = operation and maintenance. Source: ADB project completion review mission.

Table A11.2: Economic Reevaluation of the Project (Rf)

Year

Costs Benefits Net NPV

Capital Maintain Total Vessel P. Time Vehicle Total Benefit

2008 2,401,062

2,401,062

-2,401,062 -3,778,118

2009 6,503,664

6,503,664

-6,503,664 -9,137,180

2010 30,719,038

30,719,038

-30,719,038 -38,533,961

2011 26,594,771 2,265,150 28,859,921

10,246,554 3,437,392 10,000 13,693,946

-15,165,975 -16,985,892

2012

3,273,218 3,273,218

14,091,824 6,445,110 10,500 20,547,434

17,274,216 17,274,216

2013

3,338,688 3,338,688

14,909,150 6,818,926 11,025 21,739,101

18,400,413 16,428,940

2014

3,405,469 3,405,469

15,773,880 7,214,424 11,576 22,999,881

19,594,412 15,620,545

2015 3,310,927 3,473,585 6,784,511

16,688,765 7,632,861 12,155 24,333,781

17,549,270 12,491,224

2016

3,543,063 3,543,063

17,523,204 8,014,504 12,763 25,550,470

22,007,407 13,986,105

2017

3,613,932 3,613,932

18,399,364 8,415,229 13,401 26,827,994

23,214,062 13,172,282

2018

3,686,218 3,686,218

19,319,332 8,835,990 14,071 28,169,393

24,483,176 12,403,939

2019

3,759,950 3,759,950

20,285,299 9,277,790 14,775 29,577,863

25,817,913 11,678,713

2020 3,310,927 3,835,157 7,146,083

21,299,564 9,741,679 15,513 31,056,756

23,910,673 9,657,120

2021

3,911,868 3,911,868

21,938,550 10,033,930 16,289 31,988,769

28,076,901 10,124,812

2022

3,990,113 3,990,113

22,968,944 10,334,948 17,103 33,320,995

29,330,882 9,443,759

2023

4,069,924 4,069,924

24,048,862 10,644,996 17,959 34,711,816

30,641,892 8,808,812

2024

4,151,332 4,151,332

25,180,719 10,964,346 18,856 36,163,922

32,012,590 8,216,835

2025 3,310,927 4,234,367 7,545,294

26,367,052 11,293,276 19,799 37,680,128

30,134,834 6,906,126

2026

4,319,064 4,319,064

26,630,722 11,406,209 20,789 38,057,721

33,738,657 6,903,598

2027

4,405,455 4,405,455

27,810,992 12,067,769 21,829 39,900,590

35,495,135 6,484,829

2028

4,493,574 4,493,574

29,048,763 12,767,700 22,920 41,839,383

37,345,809 6,091,910

2029

4,583,456 4,583,456

30,346,894 13,508,226 24,066 43,879,187

39,295,731 5,723,201

2030 -25,383,772 4,675,135 -20,708,637

31,708,389 14,291,704 25,270 46,025,362

66,733,999 8,678,062

Net present value (NPV): 131,659,876

Economic internal rate of return (EIRR): 29.1%

Discount rate: 12.0%

P. Time = passenger time cost savings. Source: ADB project completion review mission.

Ap

pe

ndix

11

41

42 Appendix 12

REEVALUATION OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

1. After completion, Maldives Ports Limited (MPL) became the operator of Malé North Harbor (MNH). Using a methodology similar to that utilized at appraisal, a financial reevaluation was made using actual traffic, revenue, and tariff values. The financial internal rate of return (FIRR) was recalculated based on the updated cash flows over 23 years, including 3 years for construction and 20 years for operation. Sensitivity testing was also conducted. Overall, it is concluded that the FIRR is −2.18%, mainly contributed mainly attributable to higher project costs and significantly lower tariffs being implemented as compared to appraisal. Nevertheless, the FIRR analysis demonstrates that the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) can still be realistically achieved with a combination of lower operating costs (10% less) and higher operating revenues (27% more).

B. Project Costs

2. The project capital cost was based on actual project cost, excluding the cost for the institutional development and capacity building component and interest during construction. The total actual cost for the infrastructure investment component was about 23.1% higher than that estimated at appraisal. That is mainly due to inflation, as the cost estimate was made in 2002, when the project was appraised, and procurement actually occurred during 2007–2009. The actual contract prices were much higher than estimated. During the project completion review mission, actual operation and maintenance costs for MNH from 2011 and 2012 were collected. The financial reevaluation used the actual cost for routine maintenance (mainly for maintaining harbor cleanness), this was also assumed to increase by 3% per annum along with traffic growth. Periodic maintenance was assumed to take place every 5 years and at a cost equal to 5% of the capital cost. This would mainly entail paving works and harbor facility replacement. The actual operation cost in 2012 was used (including for operation and payroll), and this was assumed to increase by 2% per annum along with traffic growth. The residual cost was added to the last calculation year.

C. Project Revenue

3. As designed during appraisal, harbor usage charges have been implemented at MNH, generating additional revenues. Revenues have also been generated from (i) sea vessel loading charges for usage of the new quay wall, (ii) sea vessel mooring and/or berthing charges for usage of the existing quay wall, (iii) charges to trucks or vehicles for accessing cargo loading areas, and (iv) charges for usage of cargo handling equipment. The existing harbor usage charges and tariffs, defined as any charge levied on vessels or vehicles for the use of facilities within the harbor area, are reported in Appendix 10, but the existing tariff is about 80% to 90% lower than that proposed at appraisal. The actual revenue from MNH in 2012 was Rf1.493 million, which includes a small amount of non-operating (“other”) revenue of Rf3,978 collected as rent and fines. It was assumed that the future operating revenue is likely to increase in tandem with growth in vessel traffic. The analysis shown in Table A12.2 demonstrates that the revenues are sufficient to cover the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and periodic maintenance. To generate additional revenue and improve financial performance, MPL is planning to develop and rent out unutilized facilities at the harbor for such uses as storage and shops.

Appendix 12 43

D. Financial Internal Rate of Return

4. At appraisal, the WACC was 1.36% and the project FIRR was 3.16%. After project implementation and the start of operations, based on the annual cash flows, the project’s FIRR was recalculated to be −2.18%. That this is significantly lower than calculated at appraisal is mainly due to higher infrastructure investment costs (23% more than estimated) and significantly lower harbor usage charges than originally planned. The annual cash flows for the FIRR calculation are shown in Table A12.2. It is found that the FIRR is more sensitive to changes in revenue than to changes in operating costs. To obtain the WACC of 1.36%, the revenues would need to increase by about one-third. This could realistically be achieved by increasing the operational throughput and gradual increase in harbor usage charges or efficiency in the longer term. Cost reductions could also be achieved by increasing productivity over the longer term. The sensitivity test shows that a 10% reduction of O&M cost accompanied by a 27% rise in revenues could also produce a WACC of 1.36%.

Table A12.1: Sensitivity Analysis

Scenarios FIRR (%)

Base Case −2.18

Sensitivity Tests

O&M cost 10% lower −1.38

O&M cost 10% higher −3.00

Operating revenue 34% higher 1.36 (WACC)

Operating revenue 50% higher 2.79

O&M cost 10% lower, and operating revenue 27% higher

1.36 (WACC)

FIRR = financial internal rate of return, O&M = operation and maintenance, WACC = weighted average cost of capital. Source: ADB project completion review mission.

Table A12.2: Financial Reevaluation (Rf)

Net

Capital O&M Total Operation Others Total Balance

2008 2,527,434 2,527,434 -2,527,434

2009 6,845,962 6,845,962 -6,845,962

2010 32,335,829 32,335,829 -32,335,829

2011 27,994,496 2,384,368 30,378,864 1,489,412 3,978 1,493,390 -28,885,474

2012 3,445,492 3,445,492 3,436,274 96,301 3,532,575 87,083

2013 3,514,409 3,514,409 3,635,578 381,518 4,017,096 502,687

2014 3,584,704 3,584,704 3,846,441 384,644 4,231,086 646,382

2015 3,485,186 3,656,405 7,141,591 4,069,535 406,954 4,476,489 -2,665,102

2016 3,729,540 3,729,540 4,305,568 430,557 4,736,125 1,006,585

2017 3,804,139 3,804,139 4,520,847 452,085 4,972,931 1,168,793

2018 3,880,229 3,880,229 4,746,889 474,689 5,221,578 1,341,349

2019 3,957,842 3,957,842 4,984,233 498,423 5,482,657 1,524,815

2020 3,485,186 4,037,007 7,522,193 5,233,445 523,344 5,756,789 -1,765,403

2021 4,117,756 4,117,756 5,495,117 549,512 6,044,629 1,926,873

2022 4,200,119 4,200,119 5,659,971 565,997 6,225,968 2,025,848

2023 4,284,131 4,284,131 5,829,770 582,977 6,412,747 2,128,616

2024 4,369,823 4,369,823 6,004,663 600,466 6,605,129 2,235,307

2025 3,485,186 4,457,229 7,942,415 6,184,803 618,480 6,803,283 -1,139,132

2026 4,546,383 4,546,383 6,370,347 637,035 7,007,382 2,460,999

2027 4,637,321 4,637,321 6,434,050 643,405 7,077,455 2,440,135

2028 4,730,078 4,730,078 6,498,391 649,839 7,148,230 2,418,152

2029 4,824,690 4,824,690 6,563,375 656,337 7,219,712 2,395,022

2030 -26,719,760 4,921,195 -21,798,565 6,629,009 662,901 7,291,909 29,090,474

Financial internal rate of return (FIRR) -2.18%

Year

Cost Revenue

Source: Project completion review mission.

44

A

pp

en

dix

12

Documents

Maldives: Domestic Maritime Transport Project · Completion Report Project Number: 37265 Loan Number: 2327 October 2013 Maldives: Domestic Maritime Transport Project