Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program ... · 3. Project title Rajasthan Urban...

Completion Report

Project Numbers: 40031-013 and 40031-053 MFF Number: M0015 Loan Number: 2725 July 2019

India: Rajasthan Urban Sector Development

Investment Program (Tranche 3 and Multitranche

Financing Facility) This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB’s Access to Information Policy.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit – Indian rupee/s (₹)

At Appraisal

At Project Completion

2 November 2010 30 June 2017 ₹1.00 = $0.0224 $0.0154 $1.00 = ₹44.475 ₹64.785

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank APFS – audited project financial statements BPL – below the poverty line CAPP – community action and participation program CFC – Central Finance Commission CTO – consent to operate DMF – design and monitoring framework DSC – design and construction supervision consultants EIRR – economic internal rate of return EMMP – environmental monitoring and management plan HSC – house sewer connection ICDP – institutional and capacity development plan GOR – Government of Rajasthan IEE – initial environmental examination IPIU – investment program implementation unit IPMC – investment program management consultant IPMU – investment program management unit MFF – multitranche financing facility O&M – operation and maintenance PHED – public health engineering department ROB – road-over bridge RUSDIP – Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Project SFC – State Finance Commissions SRP – short resettlement plan SOE – statement of expenditure STP – sewage treatment plant SWM – solid waste management UFW – unaccounted-for-water ULB – urban local body WTP – water treatment plant

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

km – kilometer lpcd – liters per capita per day mld – million liters per day tpd – tons per day

NOTES

(i) The fiscal year (FY) of the Government of India ends on 31 March. FY before a calendar year denotes the year in which the fiscal year ends, e.g., FY2019 ends on 31 March 2019.

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

Vice-President Shixin Chen, Operations 1 Director General Hun Kim, South Asia Department (SARD) Director Kenichi Yokoyama, India Resident Mission, SARD Team leader Pushkar Srivastava, Senior Project Officer, SARD Team member Bhawna Kulshreshtha, Executive Assistant, SARD

Girish Mahajan, Senior Environment Officer, SARD Suhail Mircha, Safeguard Officer, 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. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 2

A. Project 3 and Facility Design and Formulation 2

B. Project 3 and Facility Outputs 3

C. Project 3 and Facility Costs and Financing 6

D. Disbursements 7

E. Project 3 and Facility Schedule 7

F. Implementation Arrangements 8

G. Technical Assistance 8

H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 8

I. Safeguards 9

J. Monitoring and Reporting 10

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 10

A. Relevance 10

B. Effectiveness 11

C. Efficiency 12

D. Sustainability 13

E. Development Impact 14

F. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 15

G. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 16

H. Overall Assessment 16

IV. ISSUES, LESSONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17

A. Issues and Lessons 17

B. Recommendations 18

APPENDIXES

1. Design and Monitoring Framework for Facility 19 2. MFF Cost at Appraisal and Actual 30 3. MFF Cost by Financier 32 4. Disbursements of ADB Loan Proceeds 34 5. Contract Awards of ADB Loan Proceeds 35 6. Summary of Contract Details 36 7. Safeguards Assessment 40 8. Gender Equality Results and Achievements 45 9. Status of Compliance with Representation and Warranties 50 10. Economic and Financial Analysis 63

BASIC DATA

I. Multitranche Financing Facility

A. Facility Identification

1. Country India

2. Facility number and financing source M0015, ADB’s Ordinary Capital Resources

3. Facility title Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program

4. Borrower India

5. Executing agency Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan

6. Amount of facility $273 million

B. Facility Data

1. Appraisal

– Date started 27 April 2007

– Date completed 7 May 2007

2. Framework financing agreement negotiations

– Date started 27 September 2007

– Date completed 28 September 2007

3. Date of Board approval 31 October 2007

4. Date of framework financing agreement 28 September 2007

5. Multitranche financing facility availability period

– In framework financing agreement 31 December 2014

– Actual 30 June 2017

– Number of extensions 2

6. Terms of loan Final terms and conditions determined in the context of individual loans

– Interest rate According to ADB’s London interbank offered rate (LIBOR)-based facility

– Maturity (number of years) 25

– Grace period (number of years) 5

7. Disbursements

a. Dates

Initial Disbursement

31 July 2008

Final Disbursement

29 November 2017

Time Interval

112 months

Approval Date

31 October 2007

Actual Closing Date

29 November 2017

Time Interval

121 months

ii

b. Amount ($ million)

Tranche

Original Allocation

(1)

Increased during

Implementation (2)

Cancelled during

Implementation (3)

Last Revised

Allocation* (4 = 1+2–3)

Amount Disbursed

(5)

Undisbursed Balance (6 = 4–5)

Tranche 1 60.00 0.00 6.00 54.00 50.02 3.98

Tranche 2 150.00 0.00 28.00 122.00 117.26 4.74

Tranche 3 63.00 0.00 8.00 55.00 52.60 2.40

Total 273.00 0.00 42.00 231.00 219.88 11.12

C. Program Data

1. Multitranche financing facility investment plan ($ million)

Tranche Appraisal Estimate Actual

A. Foreign exchange cost

Tranche 1 10.00 1.97

Tranche 2 17.00 4.44

Tranche 3 8.50 1.74

Total 35.50 8.15

B. Local currency cost

Tranche 1 65.00 61.57

Tranche 2 202.00 179.75

Tranche 3 87.50 74.28

Total 354.50 315.60

2. Multitranche financing facility investment plan ($ million)

Source Appraisal Estimate Actual

A. ADB Loan

Tranche 1 60.00 50.02

Tranche 2 150.00 117.26

Tranche 3 63.00 52.60

Total 273.00 219.88

B. Governmenta

Tranche 1 15.00 13.52

Tranche 2 69.00 66.93

Tranche 3 33.00 23.41

Total 117.00 103.86

a Including commitment fee

iii

II. Project 3

A. Loan Identification

1. Country India

2. Loan number and financing source 2725, ADB’s Ordinary Capital Resources

3. Project title Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (Tranche 3)

4. Borrower India

5. Executing agency Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan

6. Amount of loan $63 million

7. Financing modality Multitranche financing facility

B. Loan Data

1. Appraisal

– Date started 18 October 2010

– Date completed 2 November 2010

2. Loan negotiations

– Date started 6 December 2010

– Date completed 6 December 2010

3. Date of Board approval 13 December 2010

4. Date of loan agreement 17 March 2011

5. Date of loan effectiveness

– In loan agreement 16 June 2011


– Number of extensions Nil

6. Project completion Date



7. Loan closing Date



– Number of extensions 3

8. Financial closing date 24 November 2017

9. Terms of loan

– Interest rate London interbank offered rate (LIBOR)-based (floating) + 0.60%

– Maturity (number of years) 25

– Grace period (number of years) 5

iv

10. Disbursements

a. Dates

Initial disbursement

17 August 2011

Final disbursement

24 November 2017

Time interval

75 months

Effective date

16 June 2011

Original closing date

30 June 2015

Time interval

48.5 months

b. Amount ($ million)

Category

Original Allocation

(1)

Increased during

Implementation (2)

Cancelled during

Implementation (3)

Last Revised

Allocationa (4 = 1+2–3)

Amount Disbursed

(5)

Undisbursed Balanceb (6 = 4–5)

1 Urban infrastructure improvement

57.40 3.60 53.80 51.04 2.76

1a Civil works 52.60 2.60 50.00 47.48 2.52

1b Equipment 4.80 1.00 3.80 3.56 0.24

2 Capacity development and implementation support

2.60 7.40 1.20 1.56 (0.36)

2a Incremental administration

0.85 0.85 1.52 (0.67)

2b Preparation and implementation assistance

1.75 1.40 0.35 0.05 0.30

3. Contingencies 3.00 3.00 0.00 0 0.00

3a Physical contingencies

1.20 1.20 0.00 0 0.00

3b Price contingencies 1.80 1.80 0.00 0 0.00

Total 63.00 11.00 55.00 52.60 2.40

( ) = negative. a Last revised allocation takes into account the reallocations carried out on 3 December 2015 and 27 June 2016. b The undisbursed balance of $2.40 million was cancelled on 24 November 2017.

v

C. Project Data

1. Project cost ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign exchange cost 8.50 1.74

Local currency cost 87.50 74.28

Total 96.00 76.02

2. Financing Plan ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Implementation costs

Borrower financed 24.50 21.68

ADB financed 63.00 52.60

Total 87.50 74.28

Financing charges during implementation

Borrower financed 8.50 1.74

Total 96.00 76.02

ADB = Asian Development Bank.

3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ million)

Component Appraisal Estimate Actual

Part A Base Cost

Component A: Urban Infrastructure Improvements

Water Supply 13.60 12.89

Sewerage and Sanitation 33.00 29.08

Urban Drainage 0.70 6.13

Urban transport 1.80 13.96

Solid Waste 5.10 2.17

Fire Fighting 3.20 2.63

Heritage 2.40 1.10

Land Acquisition and Resettlement 1.70 0.05

Unallocated 1.50 0.00

Subtotal of Component A 62.90 68.00

Component B: Capacity Development and Implementation Support

Incremental Administration 1.50 4.31

Implementation Assistance 1.40 0.06

Subtotal of Component B 2.90 4.36

Part B Contingencies

Physical Contingencies 5.10

Price Contingencies 7.90

Subtotal of Part B 13.00

Part C Taxes and Duties 8.70 1.92

Part D Financing Charges during Implementation 8.50 1.74

Total 96.00 76.02

Notes: Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding.

vi

4. Project Schedule

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual

Date of contract with consultants

Investment program management unit 1 January 2011 17 March 2011

Design and supervision consultant-I 1 January 2011 17 March 2011

Design and supervision consultant-II 1 January 2011 17 March 2011

Design and supervision consultant-II 1 January 2011 17 March 2011

Project management consultant 1 January 2011 17 March 2011

Investment program performance monitoring system consultant

1 January 2011 17 March 2011

Civil works contracts

Date of award 1 January 2011 24 February 2011

Completion of work 30 September 2014 30 June 2017

Equipment and supplies

First procurement 1 January 2011 15 February 2011

Last procurement 31 March 2012 16 November 2011

Completion of equipment installation 31 June 2013 15 November 2012

Completion of tests and commissioning 31 December 2013 15 November 2012

Beginning of start-up 1 January 2014 15 November 2012

5. Project Performance Report Ratings

Implementation Period

Ratings

Development Objectives Implementation Progress

From 17 March 2011 to 31 March 2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory

Single Rating

From 1 April to 30 June 2011 Actual Problem

From 1 July to 31 December 2011 On Track

From 1 January to 31 March 2012 Potential Problem

From 1 April to 30 September 2012 On Track

From 1 October to 31 December 2012 Potential Problem

From 1 January to 30 September 2013 Potential Problem

From 1 October to 31 December 2013 On Track

From 1 January to 31 December 2014 On Track

From 1 January to 31 March 2015 On Track

From 1 April to 30 September 2015 Potential Problem

From 1 October to 31 December 2015 Actual Problem

From 1 January to 31 December 2016 On Track

From 1 January to 30 June 2017 On Track

vii

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

Name of Mission Date No. of

Persons

No. of Person-

Days Specialization of

Members

Loan Appraisal 18 Oct–2 Nov 2010 9 118 a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i

Training and Capacity Building Mission 19–20 Aug 2011 4 8 j, k, l, m

Safeguard Review Mission 19–22 Nov 2011 1 4 n

Disbursement Mission 3–7 Sep 2012 2 10 o, p

Midterm Review 21–29 Oct 2013 2 18 q, r

Loan Review 1 21–29 Jan 2014 2 18 q, r

Loan Review 2 1–5 Sep 2014 3 15 r, j, s

Loan Review 3 22–23 Dec 2014 1 2 q

Loan Review 4 22–27 Apr 2015 3 12 r, s, t

Disbursement Mission 17–21 Aug 2015 2 10 o, p

Special Project Administration 30 Sep–1 Oct 2015 2 4 r, u

Special Project Administration 2–3 Dec 2015 2 4 r, t

Special Project Administration 18–29 Feb 2016 2 16 v, w

Loan Review 5 23 Feb–3 Mar 2016 6 36 r, s, x, y, z, u

Loan Review 6 13–14 Jul 2016 2 4 r, aa

Loan Review 7 29 Aug–9 Sep 2016 3 18 r, y, aa

Loan Review 8 28–30 Jun 2017 2 6 r, aa

Project Completion Review 17–21 Dec 2018 4 20 m, aa, ab, ac

Project Completion Review 11–15 Feb 2019 4 20 m, aa, ab, ac

Project Completion Review 2–4 Apr 2019 6 18 m, y, aa, ab, ac, ad

a = principal urban development specialist, south Asia urban development division; b = urban development safeguard specialist; c = project implementation officer, India resident mission ; d = urban development specialist, south Asia urban development division; e = counsel, office of general counsel; f = social and resettlement specialist (consultant); g = senior engineer (staff consultant); h = financial specialist (staff consultant); i = environment specialist (staff consultant); j = climate change specialist; k = capacity development technical advisor; l = capacity development expert; m = capacity development consultant; n = environment specialist; o = financial control officer; p = associate financial control analyst; q = senior urban development specialist, south Asia urban and water division; r = senior project officer (urban); s = senior safeguards specialist; t = associate project officer (urban); u = gender consultant; v = operations communications specialist; w = south Asia operation division officer; x = associate project analyst; y = social safeguard officer; z = environment consultant; aa = project analyst (consultant); ab = consultant, urban development; ac = consultant, finance and economics; ad = associate environment officer.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. The Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (RUSDIP), supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), was designed to improve the urban environment and promote ongoing reforms for sustainable, efficient, and responsive urban service delivery. RUSDIP sought to close the development gap in the state with increased economic growth, reduced poverty, and sustained improvements in the urban environment, impacting the quality of life of 1.6 million people in 15 urban local bodies (ULBs).1 2. ADB approved RUSDIP as a multitranche financing facility (MFF) on 31 October 2007 for $390 million, with a loan component of $273 million and a Government of Rajasthan (GOR) contribution of $117 million.2 The MFF had three tranches: project 1 of $60 million, project 2 of $150 million, and project 3 of $63 million. Project 3 was approved on 13 December 2010, signed on 17 March 2011, and declared effective on 16 June 2011. Project 1 closed on 31 December 2014; and project 2, project 3, and the MFF resource availability period closed on 30 June 2017. 3. The investment program, including project 3, comprised the following:3

(i) Part A: Urban infrastructure improvements. This component aimed to improve (a) water supply, (b) wastewater management, (c) solid waste management (SWM), (d) urban drainage, (e) road rehabilitation and road safety, (f) social infrastructure, and (g) support infrastructure for cultural heritage.

(ii) Part B: Capacity development and implementation support. This component involved (a) capacity building of ULBs to implement ongoing institutional, financial, and service delivery reforms; and (b) investment program management.

4. At appraisal, the MFF was expected to benefit 15 ULBs with (i) improved access to treated piped water supply to 1.4 million people (90% of the population) of at least 100 liters per capita per day (lpcd); (ii) provision of total and appropriate sanitation with sewerage facilities, including sewage treatment plants (STPs), to 1.6 million people, thereby reducing wastewater discharge to water bodies; (iii) access to appropriate sanitary landfill facilities, with capacity and facilities to collect municipal waste; (iv) drainage outfalls to reduce risks of flooding, and provision of roadside drains in core areas; (v) improved traffic flow, and travel times between zones maintained at present levels or reduced; (vi) improved basic urban services and living conditions of about 0.21 million people living in notified slums; (vii) improved institutional capacity in ULBs to meet operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of all urban services and have sound financial management practices, with adequate revenues from their own sources to meet all of their own expenses, with adequately trained and skilled human resources to run facilities and services. 5. At appraisal, project 3 was expected to benefit 12 ULBs with (i) increased average duration of drinking water meeting national water quality standards in two ULBs; (ii) nonrevenue water reduced to 20% in two ULBs; (iii) increased population with access to piped sewerage provided in five ULBs; and (iv) 50% of households covered with house-to-house municipal waste collection in all ULBs, with 25% coverage of slum and low-income or women-headed households.4

1 Of the 15 ULBs selected, two pairs of ULBs are twin towns and are counted as one each: (i) Jhalawar–Jhalarapatan,

and (ii) Baran–Chabra. No interventions were taken up in Chabra. 2 ADB. 2007. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche Financing

Facility to India for the Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program. Manila. 3 The heritage component was taken up only under project 3, the solid waste component was not taken up under

project 2, and the firefighting component was included during appraisal of project 3. 4 The design and monitoring framework (DMF) in the periodic financing report request for tranche 3, submitted by the

Government of India on 10 November 2010, is being used to assess project 3 performance.

2

II. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Project 3 and Facility Design and Formulation 6. The MFF and project 3 were relevant to the sector strategies of the state government and ADB at appraisal and remained relevant at completion. They were aligned with ADB’s country strategy and program, 2003–2006 and country partnership strategy, 2009–2012 for India, with their emphasis on infrastructure for inclusive and environmentally sustainable growth and recognized need for focused investments in Rajasthan considering the high poverty incidence in the state.5 They were also aligned with ADB’s Water for All Policy, 2001.6 At appraisal, the MFF and project 3 were consistent with India’s Tenth Five-Year Plan, 2002–2007 and Eleventh Five-Year Plan, 2007–2012. 7 In the urban sector, the plans’ objective of providing adequate and equitable water supply and urban services were in line with the objectives of the MFF and project 3. The MFF and project 3 were also consistent with the guiding principles of successive GOR’s 10th and 11th 5-year plans, aimed at providing qualitative and quantitative improvement in water supply schemes, improved sanitation, and inclusive growth.8 7. The MFF modality was a relevant and effective approach as it facilitated a long-term partnership between ADB and GOR and addressed the state’s medium- and long-term requirements while also limiting commitment charges of the borrower. The sector loan approach for project 3 was appropriate as it reflected GOR’s capacity to effectively address large-scale development challenges in the urban sector, besides offering flexibility in subproject selection and timelines for implementation. ADB is the only development partner working with GOR in the 15 ULBs. 8. Learnings from the first ADB loan in Rajasthan and other ADB projects in India were applied in the MFF and project 3 design, with areas of focus delineated, availability of all required land ensured before project commencement (except the STP at Sikar [paras.14 and 26]), investment program implementation units (IPIUs) established, and project consultants mobilized before the signing of project 1.9 Subprojects were prioritized through a rigorous process as per the subproject selection criteria, including stakeholder consultation. All subprojects identified and appraised during processing of the tranches were implemented, except the STP at Sikar and SWM.10 At appraisal, while the design was appropriate to achieve the expected outcomes, it could have also considered incorporating 24x7 water supply. The scope of the MFF or project 3 was not changed during implementation. However, in 2013, the effective gender mainstreaming categorization of project 3 was revised to some gender elements to align with the revisions adopted in 2012 to the ADB gender categorization in a one-off, ADB-wide exercise.11

5 ADB. 2003. India: Country Strategy and Program, 2003–2006. Manila; and ADB. 2009. India Country Partnership

Strategy, 2009–2012. Manila. 6 ADB. 2001. Water for All: The Water Policy of the Asian Development Bank. Manila. 7 Government of India, Planning Commission. 2002. Tenth Five-Year Plan, 2002–2007. New Delhi; and Government

of India, Planning Commission. 2008. Eleventh Five-Year Plan, 2007–2012. New Delhi. 8 Government of Rajasthan, Planning Department. 2002. Tenth Five-Year Plan, 2002–2007. Jaipur; and Government

of Rajasthan, Planning Department. 2007. Eleventh Five-Year Plan, 2007–2012. Jaipur. 9 ADB. 1998. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to India for

the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project. Manila 10 On 24 September 2012, the GOR directed the executing agency to withdraw from sanitary landfill works in

15 program towns and hand these over to a GOR agency named Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam (RAVN). 11 ADB. 2009. Project Classification System. Manila. Updated version: ADB. 2012. Guidelines for Gender

Mainstreaming Categories of ADB Projects. Manila.

3

9. Analysis of the design and monitoring frameworks (DMFs) for project 1 and project 2 with respect to the facility DMF are dealt with in the respective project completion reports.12 Project 1 did not have an individual DMF and there were inconsistencies between the performance indicators across the facility and tranche DMFs. The facility outcome indicator requiring ULBs to generate adequate revenues from own sources to meet all of their own expenses is inconsistent with the risk assessment and mitigation measures and the assurances sought from, provided by, and met by the GOR. This outcome indicator, along with that on ULBs’ ownership of assets and responsibilities per the 74th constitutional amendment, were dropped from project 2 and project 3 DMFs. Six water treatment plants (WTPs); the STP at Baran; road-over bridges (ROBs) at Bundi, Nagaur, and Sikar; and the social infrastructure component in the facility DMF were not covered under any of the tranche DMFs. Some of the outcome indicators for urban drainage, urban transport, and firefighting services are defined in the project 3 DMF as output indicators. The facility DMF was not updated to reflect the inclusion of the firefighting component under project 3. Also, the project 3 DMF does not define the outcomes intended from the output interventions for firefighting services and support infrastructure for cultural heritage components. Though the overall objective of the MFF and its projects are the same in terms of impacts, outcomes, and outputs, there are variations in the respective performance indicators between the MFF and the projects. Performance of the water supply, drainage, and urban transport subprojects are measured differently in the DMFs of project 3 and the facility, resulting in the same output being measured under multiple parameters in the two DMFs, impacting accuracy of overall performance assessment. The indicator used to measure declining trends in poverty in the ULBs in the facility DMF is the population living below the poverty line (BPL), which is available at national and state level only and not at ULB level (para. 45) and has not been used in any of the project DMFs. The wastewater outputs under the facility DMF covered only 12 ULBs (1.4 million people) while the corresponding outcome targeted 100% of the population in 15 ULBs (1.6 million people). Further, the project 3 DMF targeted impacting 2.16 million people in these 15 ULBs. The details of the achievements under the facility DMF and project 3 DMF are in Appendix 1. B. Project 3 and Facility Outputs 10. Project 3 and the MFF delivered their respective planned outputs. Overall, 31 of 35 outputs under project 3 and 22 out of 26 outputs under the MFF have been achieved, as summarized in paras. 11–22.

1. Part A: Urban Infrastructure Improvements 11. Water supply. Under project 3, seven of the eight outputs have been achieved: (i) 10,539 consumer water meters were installed or replaced in Baran against a target of 12,600 water meters, of which 4,113 (39%) are in slum or low-income or women-headed households against a target of 25% in target households, while 10,409 water meters were installed in Chittorgarh against a target of 10,500 water meters, of which 2,953 (28%) are in slum or low-income or women-headed households against a target of 25%;13 (ii) service area coverage with piped water supply increased to 95% or 274,000 beneficiaries in two ULBs against the target of 90% or 253,000 beneficiaries; 14 (iii) the percentage of the population having individual piped water connections, including slums or low-income households, increased to 85% in the service area

12 ADB. 2017. Completion Report. India: Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (Tranche 1).

Manila; and ADB. 2019. Completion Report. India: Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (Tranche 2). Manila.

13 Consumer water meters were installed under the ADB-financed contract and hence precise household categorization data was available.

14 The target population for Chittorgarh was overestimated, as the current ULB population is only around 133,000.

4

against a target of 90%;15 (iv) source augmentation, intake, and WTP throughput of 43.5 million liters per day (mld) in two ULBs, including all associated structures and 16 storage reservoirs, constructed as targeted; (v) network of 198 kilometers (km) in three ULBs against a target of 160 km in two ULBs were rehabilitated or constructed as per detailed engineering design; (vi) 4,747 new property connections against the targeted 6,500 in two ULBs, of which 2,172 connections (45% as against 25% target) were provided to slum or low-income or women-headed households (footnote 13); (vii) 16,201 old property connections were replaced in two ULBs against a target of 16,600 connections, of which 4,894 connections (30% as against the target 25%) are in slum or low-income or women-headed households; and (viii) roadmap for 24x7 water supply was not prepared for two ULBs as the existing distribution system was not based on the district metering area. 12. The range of interventions covered under four outputs under the facility DMF in 15 ULBs were achieved as planned by (i) system rehabilitation and unaccounted for water (UFW) reduction, including (a) replacement of leaking house connections and installation of 172 bulk flow meters, 159 electromagnetic flow meters, and 142,669 household water meters; (b) refurbishment or replacement of pumping machinery at 75 tube wells and 32 pump houses; (c) creation of adequate storage capacities with 126 storage reservoirs (clear water reservoirs and overhead storage reservoirs); and (d) chlorination facilities to achieve 100% disinfection of supply; (ii) new intakes in five ULBs, source augmentation in five ULBs, rehabilitation of two WTPs in one ULB, and construction of WTPs in four ULBs against a target of 11 ULBs (para. 9 and footnote 10 of Appendix 1,); (iii) replacement of leaking carrier mains and laying of distribution mains totaling 1,704 km to cover over 93% of households in 15 ULBs; and (iv) establishment of a district water quality testing laboratory in Jhalawar; water security was ensured in the desert town of Jaisalmer by creation of 15 days of storage capacity. 13. Sewerage. The six fully achieved and one partially achieved outputs under project 3 are (i) service area coverage for the sewerage system increased in all of the targeted five ULBs, though the specified coverage levels were achieved to date in only four ULBs; (ii) sewage treatment capacity increased to 35 mld (cumulative) in five ULBs as targeted, and reuse and recycling of effluent of STPs are ongoing in all ULBs, with storage structures created to supply treated effluent for reuse; and (iii) 296 km of sewer network were laid in five ULBs against the target 310 km, including outfall, trunk, and lateral sewers and connection to STPs, including associated works with the first 5 years of O&M, with desired service-level standards. House sewer connections (HSCs) are not financed under the MFF and were provided using GOR grant funds in all 15 ULBs.16 Currently, 18,018 HSCs (48%) are provided and functional against the DMF target of 37,600 HSCs in five ULBs. The ongoing HSC works are likely to be completed in 2019, and the impact of this complementary work in progress will be evident 2–3 years after completion. 14. The MFF output target was achieved. Sewerage systems, including outfall, trunk sewers, and tertiary networks totaling 920 km, were laid in priority areas of 14 ULBs as against the targeted 12 ULBs, and 61,946 HSCs were provided. Sewerage interventions were not taken up in Baran (para. 9) and, because of nonavailability of land for STP, in Sikar. STPs with cumulative treatment capacity of 109 mld were constructed in 12 ULBs against the facility DMF target of 142 mld capacity in 11 ULBs as the Sikar STP was dropped because of land availability, and the

15 Data on provision of individual connections to slums and low-income households are not maintained by line agency. 16 ADB. 2007. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche

Financing Facility to India for the Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program. Manila. Appendix 6, para.5(i): The works proposed under the Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns or any other scheme of the Government of India, and state schemes containing grant funding, should not be included under the Investment Program.

5

STP capacities were refined during detailed engineering design in project 2 and in the project 3 DMF. Vehicle-mounted sewer suction-cum-jetting machines and sewer jetting machines were provided to 13 ULBs, except Sikar and Baran where sewerage interventions were not undertaken. 15. Solid waste management. Three of the four output targets met under project 3: (i) collection and transportation of over 90% of solid waste generated in 15 ULBs against the target of 80%, (ii) equipment to strengthen the ULBs to handle the solid waste were supplied in 12 ULBs against the target of 11 ULBs, (iii) collection and transportation of over 655 tons per day (TPD) of the 675 TPD solid waste generated (the target of 700 TPD was overestimated) in 15 ULBs, and (iv) two sanitary landfills which were constructed but not operational against targeted development of landfills in 10 ULBs, as compost plants were not constructed, and the landfill component was dropped (footnote 10 and para. 38). Two of the three MFF outputs achieved are (i) provision of household waste containers in all 15 ULBs, and (ii) procurement and supply of solid waste equipment and vehicles to all 15 ULBs. For the third MFF output, sanitary landfills were developed in five ULBs but remain unused (footnote 10 and para. 38). 16. Drainage. All three targets were exceeded under project 3: (i) rehabilitation and desilting, strengthening, and extension of existing drains including construction of 1.1 km of new drains; (ii) upgrading 1.3 km of an existing drain in one ULB; and (iii) reducing incidences of street flooding from an average of 60 days per year to less than 1 day per year in respective ULBs. Construction of three drainage pumping stations, associated facilities, and 21.9 km of storm water drains in another ULB and laying of 12.0 km of roadside drains in three ULBs were also taken up under project 3. Both targets under the MFF were achieved: (i) preparation of comprehensive drainage master plans for five ULBs based on risk assessment for flooding; and (ii) construction of 41.8 km of trunk outfalls in five ULBs and 27.7 km of roadside drains in six ULBs, to facilitate runoff of storm water into natural channels, and provision to ULBs of adequate tools and resources to maintain the drains according to master plans. 17. Urban transport and roads. All three outputs under project 3 were met: (i) widening and improvement of 3.97 km of roads in one ULB; (ii) construction of two minor bridges in another ULB with safety features appropriate for the elderly, disabled, children, and women; and (iii) reduction in travel time from one end of the city to the other to less than 20 minutes in six ULBs (exceeded targets). In addition, 23.1 km of roads in four ULBs and one rail-under bridge in one ULB were constructed. All three output targets of the MFF were achieved with (i) comprehensive traffic management and transport master plans prepared for 12 ULBs; (ii) 98.2 km of roads in eight ULBs strengthened, widened, and resurfaced as per traffic master plans, including town centers and traffic choke points; and (iii) transport infrastructure created with construction of two-lane ROBs in six ULBs, one rail-under bridge in one ULB, two major bridges in one ULB, and two minor bridges in one ULB (para. 9). 18. Social infrastructure. The component was not included under the project 3 DMF (para. 9). The sole MFF output target—of providing access to basic infrastructure, including water supply and sanitation, roads, streetlights, drainage, etc. to 0.21 million people living in slums—was exceeded with provision of basic infrastructure to 0.39 million poor people and 0.26 million people living in slums in 15 ULBs. 19. Support infrastructure for cultural heritage. The single output under project 3 was substantially achieved with conservation or restoration of heritage sites and development of support infrastructure for tourists in six of the seven target ULBs. The two MFF outputs were met: (i) preparation of heritage conservation plans, and (ii) support infrastructure for monuments and facilities for tourists in six of the seven ULBs.

6

20. Firefighting. Although this component was not proposed under the MFF, it was included under project 3 based on ULBs’ needs reassessment (para. 9). All four output targets were exceeded with construction of four fire stations in three ULBs as against the target of three fire stations, and supply of firefighting equipment to 12 ULBs against the target of 10 ULBs, reducing response times of fire tenders to reach fire-affected places to acceptable levels in these 12 ULBs.

2. Part B: Capacity Development and Implementation Support 21. Capacity development under project 3 and the multitranche financing facility. All five project 3 outputs were achieved. A structured institutional and capacity development plan (ICDP) for 15 ULBs and concerned state bodies was developed based on a detailed study identifying the gaps and measures required for strengthening the governance and institutional management structure. Over 650 trainings were imparted to staff of 15 ULBs and state bodies in municipal services such as responsive grievance redress, construction management, safeguards, gender mainstreaming, O&M of municipal services, asset management, financial management, urban governance, and service delivery. Over 30 different kinds of community awareness campaigns on topics including health, housing, sanitation, and gender issues using different media were conducted in 15 ULBs. Actions under the ICDP included use of contractual staff for municipal services such as SWM and urban drainage, use of contractors to manage the STPs through provisions for O&M embedded in their contracts, and outsourcing water bill generation and distribution by the public health engineering department (PHED), in addition to leveraging public–private partnership models for SWM. These actions have resulted in more effective reallocation of human resources. The three MFF outputs were achieved in 15 ULBs: (i) preparation of infrastructure base maps for 15 ULBs; (ii) delivery of trainings under the ICDP; and (iii) introduction of double-entry accounting, computerization of financial management systems, and improvement of asset management systems. 22. Implementation support. Community action and participation program (CAPP) consultants supported the MFF and project 3 (para. 27) in mobilizing the community and were critical in enabling the beneficiaries to understand the benefits of wastewater services and, in opting for wastewater services, improving hygiene at the local level. The six MFF outputs were achieved. CAPP and information, education, and communication programs were implemented and have contributed to improved acceptability of sewerage services by the residents. ULB and departmental staff were trained in O&M of municipal services, financial management, and regulation enforcement under the ICDP. Geographical information system-based maps were prepared, and assets and responsibilities of sewerage systems were handed over to respective ULBs. A sustainable user charge structure was implemented for water supply services across the state and is being incrementally levied for sewerage as households are provided with sewer connections. SWM collection fees charged by the outsourced agencies for door-to-door waste collection service to nearly 100% of the population do not accrue to the 15 ULBs. GOR is also exploring public–private partnership options for SWM, including (i) primary collection to final disposal, (ii) secondary collection to final disposal (e.g., ₹90/ton at Udaipur), and (iii) only treatment and disposal (e.g., ₹151/ton at Alwar). C. Project 3 and Facility Costs and Financing 23. The MFF design was founded on a road map based on an investment needs assessment for $450.0 million. The program cost at loan appraisal was $390.0 million with an ADB loan component of $273.0 million and GOR’s contribution of $117.0 million. At completion,

7

$219.9 million of ADB funds were disbursed with matching GOR contribution of $103.8 million, changing the ADB loan to GOR contribution ratio from 70:30 at appraisal to 68:32 at completion. 24. The project 3 cost at appraisal was $96.0 million, with an ADB loan component of $63.0 million and GOR’s contribution of $33.0 million. At completion, the total project cost reduced to $76.0 million without curtailment of project outcomes, with an ADB loan amount of $52.6 million and GOR’s contribution of $23.4 million, changing the ratio of ADB loan to GOR contribution from 70:30 at appraisal to 69:31 at completion. Financing charges decreased by $6.7 million because of lower interest rates. An amount of $8.0 million was cancelled and $2.4 million remained unutilized at loan closing because of United States dollar appreciation and high contingencies allocation (para. 26).17 GOR fully financed the completion of works under six contract packages that extended beyond the loan closing date (para. 26). Appendix 2 compares MFF and project 3 costs at appraisal and actual, and Appendix 3 compares MFF and project 3 costs by financier. D. Disbursements 25. A total of $52.6 million (95.6% of the revised loan amount of $55.0 million) was disbursed by project completion. Loan disbursements were on track from the first disbursement on 17 August 2011 and were evenly spread out between 12% and 21% per year, except for the first and last years. This included an imprest advance of $6.3 million, which GOR availed in 2011. Following GOR’s decision to make payments through treasury procedure, the imprest was liquidated against claims between the third quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013. Annual and cumulative disbursements of loan proceeds are in Appendix 4, while that of contract awards are in Appendix 5. The statement of expenditure (SOE) procedure allowed up to $100,000 equivalent per individual payment, which could have been enhanced considering the capacity of the investment program management unit (IPMU). Of the total allocation of $273.0 million under the MFF, $219.9 million was utilized ($50.0 million under project 1, $117.3 million under project 2, and $52.6 million under project 3) and $53.1 million was cancelled. E. Project 3 and Facility Schedule 26. The original loan closing date of project 3 of 30 June 2015 was extended thrice to close on 30 June 2017 to use savings attributable to United States dollar appreciation by including additional subprojects, and to enable completion of the additional subprojects, thereby optimizing loan utilization. There were no significant start-up delays, which reflects the state’s (i) preparedness at appraisal, with requisite land identified for STPs (except Sikar [paras. 8 and 14]) and other facilities, permission obtained from the concerned authorities for bridges, and preparation of detailed project reports; and (ii) capacity for implementation and interdepartmental coordination, which led to smooth execution of utility shifting and timely issuance of necessary permissions and clearances. By loan closure on 30 June 2017, of the 46 contracts, six sewerage contracts in five ULBs were ongoing and were completed using state funds (para. 24). All contracts were completed at the time of the project completion report mission (Appendix 6). The MFF was extended twice by a cumulative period of 36 months, from 31 December 2014 to close on 30 June 2017, so as to (i) use savings attributable to United States dollar appreciation, (ii) use high contingency allocations by including additional subprojects and increasing coverage of ongoing subprojects, and (iii) complete the remaining portions of ongoing contracts under projects 2 and 3 as well as terminated contracts that could be re-awarded only in 2014 and 2015, thereby optimizing the use of loan funds. There was no change in the scope of the MFF, and the

17 Partial loan cancellations of $3.0 million on 3 December 2015 and $5.0 million on 27 June 2016 were effected, while

the unutilized amount of $2.4 million was cancelled at loan closure on 24 November 2017.

8

extension of the MFF resource availability period did not affect the intended MFF outcomes and outputs. F. Implementation Arrangements 27. The implementation arrangements were consistent with the design at appraisal, for the MFF and its tranches, and appropriate to achieve the envisaged outputs. The arrangements comprised the Local Self Government Department, GOR as the executing agency; a state-level and interministerial-empowered committee; a works finalization committee chaired by the principal secretary for urban governance; the IPMU as the implementing agency for RUSDIP headed by the project director; IPIUs in each project town; and city level committees, which also functioned as grievance redress committees, chaired by district collectors. The IPMU and IPIUs were assisted by an investment program management consultant (IPMC) and three design and supervision consultants (DSCs) in preparing design documents, managing the tendering of contracts, and supervising construction works. For training, there was CAPP and for monitoring, investment program performance and management system consultants. G. Technical Assistance 28. The project 1 design under ADB’s $1.5 million component technical assistance was sound and supported GOR in capacity development and ensured a high level of project readiness that aided initial implementation. The technical assistance was part of a $15.0 million technical assistance cluster, fully funded by the Government of the United Kingdom.18 The technical assistance delivered its intended outcomes—improving project implementation readiness, strengthening local capacity and ownership, and enhancing the efficiency of implementation. The overall rating of the technical assistance cluster was successful.19 H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 29. Consultants under the MFF were recruited in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants (2007, as amended from time to time). The IPMU followed the quality- and cost-based selection procedure to appoint the IPMC and three DSCs. The procurement of civil works and goods conformed to ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (2007, as amended from time to time). In April 2008, a minor change in the procurement plan was approved, providing greater autonomy to IPMU to expedite project implementation.20 Standard bid documents and quality control protocols were prepared and approved for use as part of the entire MFF. GOR’s e-portal was assessed and approved by ADB in October 2012 for MFF contracts procured following national competitive bidding and shopping methods. Procurement activities were executed smoothly and were amongst the IPMU’s core strengths. End-to-end e-procurement and contract management systems would have further strengthened the IPMU’s capacity. 30. The overall performance of the consultants under the MFF, including project 3, is rated generally satisfactory. The performance of the IPMC and DSCs was satisfactory. The

18 ADB. 2006. Technical Assistance Cluster to India for Project Processing and Capacity Development. Manila.

(TA 4814-IND, approved on 30 June 2006). 19 ADB. India Resident Mission. 2009. TA 4814-IND: Project Processing and Capacity Development. Technical

Assistance Completion Report. New Delhi; and ADB. 2017. Completion Report for India: Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (Tranche 1). Manila.

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

9

performance of the DSCs was initially hampered by slow internal mobilization and frequent replacement of team members, leading to some delays in planning, design, and implementation of the project. Close monitoring of the DSCs and removal of a few DSC personnel by the IPMU led to optimal utilization of the DSCs’ services and improved delivery of outputs by DSCs. The performance of the investment program performance and management system consulting firm engaged to prepare baseline, midterm, and end-term project performance monitoring reports was less than satisfactory and the contract had to be terminated. Following the termination, the performance of the consulting firm appointed to complete the remaining tasks was rated satisfactory. Overall, the performance of contractors under the MFF, including project 3, is also rated satisfactory. However, the ambitious contract periods affixed exacerbated the poor resource mobilization by a few contractors, resulting in 17 water supply and sewerage contracts of the total 132 contracts under the MFF being extended beyond the loan period (para. 26). Performance of the suppliers under the MFF, including project 3, is rated satisfactory. I. Safeguards 31. The MFF and all its tranches were classified category B for environment and involuntary resettlement as per ADB’s safeguard policies; and for indigenous peoples the MFF, project 1, and project 2 are classified category B and project 3 as category C.21 The environmental assessment and review framework, resettlement framework, and indigenous peoples planning framework were prepared during respective loan processing. ADB approved six sample sector-specific, town-specific initial environmental examination (IEE) reports and four short resettlement plans (SRPs) under project 3, based on which additional requisite IEEs and SRPs were prepared during implementation (a total of 55 IEEs and 45 SRPs for 15 ULBs).22 None of the MFF subprojects were located within the boundaries of national parks, sanctuaries, or biosphere reserves, except for (i) one subproject sourcing water indirectly from the National Chambal Sanctuary, and (ii) one heritage subproject involving a listed monument (Chaurasi Khambon Ki Chhatri) by the Rajasthan Department of Archaeology and Museum. No indigenous peoples were impacted during the implementation of the MFF, including project 3. The IPMU confirmed that at completion there are no outstanding issues and/or court cases related to safeguards under the MFF. Safeguard compliance management, under appropriate institutional arrangements, including information disclosure,23 stakeholder participation, consultation activities, grievance redress, and regular submission of semiannual safeguard monitoring reports, were rated effective.24 32. Safeguards implementation under the MFF was initially weak because of lack of specialized personnel. It later improved with engagement of full-time professionals in IPIUs, DSCs, and contractors. Except for continued renewal of consents to operate (CTOs) for the WTPs and STPs after loan closure, the overall safeguard compliance was found to be satisfactory. The IPMU

21 For project 1 and project 2, policies applicable are (i) ADB. 2002. Environment Policy. Manila. (ii) ADB. 1995.

Involuntary Resettlement. Manila. and (iii) ADB. 1998. The Bank’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples. Manila. For project 3, the policy applicable is ADB. 2009. Safeguards Policy Statement. Manila.

22 Under the MFF, four affected households were compensated with ₹7.15 million for 0.9 hectares of land, and 719 affected households were compensated with ₹7.03 million for temporary loss of livelihood and shifting assistance. Under project 3, ₹3.41 million was paid as land compensation to two households, and ₹1.15 million as compensation for livelihood and crop loss to 197 households.

23 Under project 2, a complaint claiming regulatory noncompliance and inadequate environmental assessment was received by ADB in 2012. However, all requisite regulatory compliances were found to be in place during ground truthing and feedback was obtained from the complainant about resolution prior to closing the complaint.

24 Adequate safeguards monitoring and management was ensured by officers at the IPMU, supported by safeguard experts of the IPMC. The officers at the IPIU, supported by the social and environmental experts of the concerned design and supervision consultants, were responsible for safeguards implementation, monitoring, and management in the project ULBs. All contractors engaged environment officers during construction.

10

has agreed to ensure renewal of CTOs by 30 September 2019 (para. 56). Details on safeguards under the MFF are in Appendix 7 and gender activities under project 3 are in Appendix 8. J. Monitoring and Reporting 33. All MFF assurances and project 3 covenants including safeguards were complied with, except for partial compliance with the representation, warranties, and covenants on levy of sustainable user tariffs and audited project financial statements (APFS). Enhanced water tariffs, infrastructure development tax, or urban development tax are being levied while sewerage cess are being levied as and when HSCs are being provided (para. 22). However, SWM charges were not levied by the ULBs as their residents did not benefit from SWM treatment and disposal facilities under the MFF (footnote 10), though door-to-door collection is being charged by the outsourced agencies (para. 22). Annual audits were conducted by statutory auditors and furnished in a timely manner to ADB (para. 34), but separate accounts for each project were not maintained and reconciled with the loan financial information services, and the statutory auditor’s opinion were unclear. Monitoring and reporting arrangements including quarterly progress reporting, semiannual safeguard reporting, and project completion reporting were adequate and were complied with. Baseline and end-term surveys were also conducted and reported. Appendix 9 provides the status of compliance with representation, warranties, and loan covenants. 34. The financial management arrangements of the borrower and the executing agency were less than satisfactory (paras. 33, 50, and 51) though counterpart funding for the MFF was timely. All APFS were submitted within the specified time, except for minor delays (within 6 months grace period) because of delay in mobilization of the statutory auditor.25

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE A. Relevance 35. The MFF and project 3 are rated relevant to the government’s development objectives and ADB’s country and sector strategies, both at appraisal and completion (para. 6). Though the MFF predated ADB’s Strategy 2020, its road map, policy framework, and undertakings continue to be aligned with and relevant to Strategy 2020, with their focus on provision of safe and effective water and sanitation services.26 The MFF and project 3 are aligned with ADB’s Water Operational Plan, 2011–2020.27 At completion, the MFF and project 3 remain relevant to ADB’s policy focus on India in areas of inclusive growth, infrastructure, and environmental sustainability.28 The MFF sector strategy and policy matrix defined under project 3 are aligned with the government’s successive 5-year plans, NITI Aayog’s 3-year action agenda (2017–18 to 2019–20) and GOR’s 12th plan, which prioritized supply of potable water and urban poverty alleviation. 29 The processing of project 3 as a sector loan and the MFF were relevant and in response to the agenda

25 Submission of APFS was delayed for project 1 and project 2 by 0.4 months in 2011, 2.6 months in 2014, and 1.2

months in 2018; and for project 3 by 0.2 months in 2012, 5.6 months in 2014, 1.4 months in 2015, 0.2 months in 2016, and 4.2 months in 2018.

26 ADB. 2008. Strategy 2020: Working for an Asia and Pacific Free of Poverty Manila. 27 ADB. 2011. Water Operational Plan, 2011–2020. Manila. 28 ADB. 2018. Country Partnership Strategy: India, 2018–2022—Accelerating Inclusive Economic Transformation.

Manila; ADB. 2018. Country Operations Business Plan: India, 2018–2020. Manila. 29 Government of India. Planning Commission. 2007. Eleventh Five-Year Plan, 2007–2012. New Delhi; and

Government of India. Planning Commission. 2012. Twelfth Five-Year Plan, 2012–2017. New Delhi. http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html; Government of India, NITI Aayog. 2017. India Three-Year Action Agenda, 2017–18 to 2019–20. New Delhi; and Government of Rajasthan, Planning Department. 2012. Twelfth Five-Year Plan, 2012–2017. Jaipur.

11

of ADB and the state government (para. 7). The results chain was sound for the MFF and its individual projects though the performance indicators varied between the projects (para. 9). The MFF, including project 3, introduced wastewater services in hitherto uncovered towns and was instrumental in inducing awareness and raising community demand for such services. Landfills could not be undertaken because of factors outside project control (para. 15 and footnote 10). The firefighting component was included during project 3 appraisal based on ULBs’ needs reassessment, enhancing the relevance of project 3 and the MFF, though the facility DMF was not updated to reflect the same (paras. 9 and 20). B. Effectiveness 36. The project 3 is rated effective as four of the five outcomes and 31 out of 35 outputs have been achieved (Appendix 1, for project 3). Drinking water quality in two ULBs meets national water quality standards as a result of water supply interventions taken up under project 3. Reliability and average duration of supply has increased, though 8 hours of daily supply could not be achieved, especially in summers in the desert region, and 0.27 million people (95% of the population of the project towns) are being provided with more than 127 lpcd of water. Nonrevenue water has reportedly been reduced to 20% and 15% in the two ULBs as targeted. Project interventions developed piped sewerage infrastructure, including STPs, benefitting 100% of the population in five ULBs. All ULBs have reported covering more than 90% of households with door-to-door collection and transportation of municipal solid waste, including proportionate coverage of slum and low-income households and women-headed households. 37. Overall, the MFF is rated effective as 12 of the 13 outcome targets are fully achieved, and one target is partly achieved (Appendix 1, for MFF). The water supply interventions under the MFF resulted in asset creation, improved production, pumping and distribution efficiencies, additional quantum of potable water, UFW reduction, and lower O&M costs, and all households in all 15 ULBs being provided with regular and reliable service. The water supply component benefitted over 2.28 million people (96% of the population) with an average supply of 131 lpcd of 100% disinfected, treated, piped water in 15 ULBs, in addition to reducing UFW by 20% in 14 ULBs. The MFF contributed significantly towards achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 6 in the state.30 The wastewater management component under the MFF resulted in asset creation and development of a safe disposal system for sewage and protected water bodies. Sewerage facilities developed in 14 hitherto unserved ULBs benefit 1.92 million people (100% of the population), and over 60,000 households in priority areas have already gained access in 14 ULBs (paras. 13–14). Discharge of untreated wastewater to water bodies has been reduced and is currently more than 44 mld (of the 109 mld treatment capacity created). The sewer suction and jetting equipment supplied helped in maintenance of the sewerage network. The detailed project reports for sewerage and drainage, prepared for the entire municipal area of the 15 ULBs, are being used as the basis for network expansion by the ULBs with state resources. Comprehensive drainage master plans were prepared, drainage outfalls were rehabilitated or constructed in five ULBs based on assessed risks of flooding, and roadside drains were constructed in six ULBs, thereby reducing incidences of flooding and the number of days these ULBs are impacted. The urban transport component improved mobility in 13 ULBs, benefitting residents, particularly the poor, with improved access to economic opportunities by eliminating vehicle idling time and traffic congestion and reduced average travel times and travel costs, in addition to reported reduction in accidents at the sites of interventions. ROBs constructed in eight ULBs eliminated high-traffic, gated, railway level crossings. Over 0.21 million people living

30 Sustainable Development Goal 6: Ensure access to water and sanitation for all. https://www.un.org/

sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/

12

in identified slums benefited from improved basic infrastructure and urban services, resulting in significantly improved living conditions. 38. The MFF SWM outcome was partly achieved. While the capacity of ULBs to collect and transport waste has been augmented with over 90% of waste generated being collected (aided by the equipment supplied to 15 ULBs), the ULBs’ access to sanitary landfill facilities was unmet as the five landfills developed remained nonfunctional and remaining landfills were dropped per GOR’s decision to develop compost plants through Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam (footnote 10). 39. The MFF, including project 3, built capacities of IPMU and IPIU staff, consultants, and contractors in a structured manner through training programs and on-the-job learning. The MFF successfully introduced good practices such as the use of trenchless technologies with pulling method, which enabled the use of high-density polyethylene pipes without buckling, and adherence to health and safety measures. The capacities of 15 ULBs and concerned state bodies were also strengthened by implementation of a structured ICDP developed under the MFF. Actions taken, such as outsourcing operational functions of some municipal services (SWM and water billing including sewerage cess), freed up human resources for urban governance and management of municipal service delivery (para. 21). The training programs effectively reoriented the staff of ULBs and state bodies towards professionalization of municipal services and better urban governance, including grievance redress and safeguard management mechanisms. Safeguard compliance reporting, monitoring, and management were rated effective for the MFF and for project 3 (para. 31). 40. The MFF design recognized the risk that ULBs might not be able to generate adequate revenues from internal resources to manage and maintain the existing and newly acquired assets, and hence, covenanted that the GOR shall make available, through budgetary allocations or other means, all counterpart funds required to meet any shortfall between cost and revenues for the O&M of the assets created or rehabilitated under the MFF, during and after MFF completion (Appendix 9, Loan Agreement, Schedule 5, para.4). ULBs and state bodies meet O&M costs of all urban services through well-structured and planned budgetary allocations based on a revenue-sharing model between the three tiers of government (footnote. 31), regular transfers from State Finance Commissions (SFC) and the Central Finance Commissions (CFC), tariff enhancements, and improved tax collections. As set out in the sector road map, and being one of the assurances, the MFF also supported measures for improved revenue performance, such as fiscal devolution by GOR, progressive tariff and related collection efficiencies for water and wastewater services, shifting to accrual accounting, and associated structured budgeting. C. Efficiency 41. Overall, project 3 is rated efficient. The economic internal rates of return (EIRRs) of the subprojects identified at appraisal were reevaluated as follows: (i) water supply, Chittorgarh 29.6% (appraisal 17.8%); (ii) wastewater, Bharatpur 15.9% (appraisal 13.2%); (iii) urban drainage, Sawai Madhopur 14.5% (appraisal 16.4%); (iv) urban transport, Sawai Madhopur 14.2% (appraisal 14.0%) (Appendix 10). All subprojects were evaluated at completion and the EIRRs ranged from 12.6% to 39.4%, all being above the 12.0% threshold. The estimated EIRRs of the main project components at completion were water supply 26.4%, wastewater 14.3%, and urban transport 16.7%. The estimated EIRR for the total project combining all subprojects was 18.3%. With a 20% reduction in future benefits, the project EIRR remained above the threshold. Although estimated at appraisal, the EIRR at completion was not assessed for the Bundi SWM subproject as the sanitary landfill was dropped. The EIRRs for firefighting and heritage subprojects were not estimated at appraisal and not assessed at completion. The economic net present value for

13

assessed subprojects at completion are positive, applying a 12% discount rate. The delays in execution of some contracts (para. 30) did not affect the EIRRs as they were counterbalanced by efficient contract award and funds disbursements and increased service area coverage and project ULBs. The institutional efficiencies and grievance redress mechanisms developed in ULBs and line agencies reduced transaction costs and time, improved transparency and accountability of governance, and significantly augmented administrative capacities of respective institutions (paras. 21 and 39). The MFF is rated efficient, with the EIRR of the major components for all tranches estimated at 24.5% for water supply, 15.8% for wastewater and drainage, and 17.6% for urban transport. The estimated EIRR of the facility is 19.6%. D. Sustainability 42. Overall, the MFF and project 3 are rated likely sustainable. As the MFF, including project 3, was not designed for capital cost recovery, the operating ratios (revenue–O&M cost ratios) calculated for the 10 ULBs averaged 1.0:0.9, indicating that the ULBs have the financial capacity to meet operating expenses out of internal revenues and assigned compensations (para. 40).31 The Constitution of India (Article 243X) mandates the state to allocate to the ULBs associated sources of finance and functionaries required to manage the assigned functions and sustain service delivery. ULBs’ finances are structured through fiscal transfers from the state in the form of compensation grants (in lieu of octroi tax on goods [since abolished] and other taxes subsumed under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017), transfers from the CFC and SFC, tariff enhancement, and performance improvement in collection of taxes and user charges. CFC transfers account for about 30%–40% of ULB finances, of which up to 90% may be used for O&M of municipal assets. However, less than the required levels of ownership of STPs by project ULBs has led to delayed O&M payments to contractors, resulting in suboptimal maintenance of the STPs. The IPMU has agreed to resolve this situation by 30 September 2019 (para. 56). A review of the overall finances of the PHED and Public Works Department indicates the ability of the two departments to meet the O&M requirements of the existing assets, and inclusion of new projects, through state budgetary allocations.32 Further, analysis indicates consistency in timely release of requisite O&M funds by the state, as providing water is a fundamental duty of the state. 43. Institutional capacities of ULBs and state bodies were strengthened as part of ongoing reforms and under the MFF (paras. 21 and 39). The systematic improvements in the administrative capacities of ULBs and line agencies enabled the redefining of internal processes (such as accounting systems and grievance redress mechanisms) and improved transparency and accountability of governance (para. 21). The PHED has sufficient human resources and institutional capacities for O&M of water supply assets, and the water supply interventions have improved system efficiency and minimized losses, enabling the PHED to manage a more sustainable system focused on service delivery benchmarking and water conservancy. ULBs have significantly benefitted from the finance and urban governance reforms and need to continue their human resources and institutional capacity augmentation initiatives for better municipal asset management and governance. The MFF supported the ULBs’ transformation towards improved financial management practices, such as double-entry accounting, municipal asset registers,

31 The finance commissions allocate a percentage of net proceeds of tax (around 7.18% of net state tax revenue) / the

general pool (as in the case of the Government of India) to local governments based on population (55%) and area (15%) and pool the balance to support weaker local bodies. The CFC follows the same criteria and has additional provision of a 5% performance incentive. The transfers from the SFC can be used for investments (85%), administration (10%), and management reforms (5%). The CFC transfers can be used for O&M, with a ceiling of 10% towards capital investments.

32 http://phedwater.rajasthan.gov.in/content/dam/doitassets/water/Public%20Health%20Engineering%20Department/ pdf2017/citizencorner/water%20tariff.pdf

14

infrastructure planning through geographical information system base maps (prepared under the MFF), e-procurement, e-governance, and computerization of ULB processes. 44. The MFF, including project 3, is assessed to be environmentally sustainable as it contributes to water and fuel resource conservation; control of vectorborne diseases; and air, water, and noise pollution abatement, thus improving quality of life and the urban environment. Social sustainability of the MFF, including project 3, is ensured by the universal access to continuous, reliable, and affordable basic municipal services (by 98% of the population) and free water for monthly lifeline consumption, thereby improving access to economic opportunities. E. Development Impact 45. The development impacts of the MFF and project 3 are rated satisfactory as they contributed to the impact indicator of increased economic growth, reduced poverty, and sustained improvement in the urban environment and quality of life in the 15 ULBs (Appendix 1). They also significantly contributed towards improving the overall quality of life indices of residents, inclusive economic growth, and social inclusion of the marginalized, particularly women and poor people. While the MFF and its projects may not have directly impacted on the statistics that indicate the sharpest decline in poverty levels in the country and significant increase in district domestic products (driven by urban services), the MFF’s contribution was nevertheless significant. 33 The MFF focused on urban areas, which have grown to contribute around 45% gross state domestic product and 11% average growth in per capita net state domestic product.34 The tourism sector, one of the main drivers of the services sector and a key ULB selection criteria under the MFF, has also shown an average 31% growth during 2007–2018.35 Current BPL population in 13 of the 15 ULBs has marginally declined from 20.0% in 2006 (footnote 16, RRP, para. 6) to 19.8% based on unpublished data (para. 9) available from the ULBs. 46. The MFF including project 3 addressed basic needs deficiency of the poor, particularly women, with reduced time and energy required for water collection and associated increased time for economic activities. As planned under the MFF, universal coverage of basic urban services was achieved. As proposed under the MFF, water connections and lifeline tariffs were implemented by the GOR to ensure poor people can afford clean drinking water (para. 44), contributing significantly towards achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 6. Annual incidence of sanitation-related diseases decreased by nearly 38% as against a 20% target in the 13 ULBs where sanitation subprojects were undertaken. Sanitation improvements have led to overall public health improvements, and in particular impacted poor people, with reduced burden of diseases, treatment costs, and productive losses. However, the long-term impacts of addressing deficiencies in environmental sanitation on reducing high morbidity and mortality amongst poor people can be quantified at a later stage. Over 375,547 BPL people have benefitted with access to improved urban infrastructure services, which constitutes 21% as against the 20% target. Drainage interventions have significantly reduced flooding in low-lying areas, and urban transport interventions have improved the riding quality and pedestrian safety and reduced traffic congestion, travel times, and vehicle operating costs, thus contributing to improvement in the health and urban environment quality and thereby contributing toward achieving the strategic objectives of the project. Initiatives implemented under the MFF and the impetus the facility

33 Source: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/423761467995629413/pdf/105877-BRI-P157572-ADD-

SERIES-India-state-briefs-PUBLIC-Rajasthan-Proverty.pdf 34 McKinsey & Company. 2014. India’s Economic Geography in 2025: States, Clusters and Cities. New Delhi. From

2001 to 2011, the annual population growth rate in the national capital territory of Delhi (3.95%) was twice the national average; and https://www.rajras.in/index.php/economy-of-rajasthan-macro-indicators-2018/.

35 Source: Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation data provided by IPMU.

15

provided to GOR to complement it with other works, such as provision of household sewer connections, provide a comprehensive work-in-progress approach that will continue to deliver and strengthen the impacts. The environmental impacts of the MFF and the project 3 are assessed in para. 44. 47. The IPMU has developed significant institutional capacities since implementation of the first ADB loan for the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project and the three tranches of this MFF to plan and formulate projects; handle procurement; and manage contracts, safeguards, and project implementation. It has consolidated its position in the state as the preeminent organization in managing large-scale, externally aided, and government-funded projects, while also enhancing the capacity of the IPMU and other government departments, which continue to be sustained with GOR support. Subsequent ADB loans to GOR were developed as a combination of policy-based lending and project loan, providing greater flexibility to the IPMU to identify infrastructure gaps and capacity building needs, develop and design subprojects, and undertake sustainable urban sector reforms at the state level.36 In compliance with one of the reforms under the policy-based lending, the IPMU is now a part of the state nodal agency for implementing urban infrastructure projects.37 48. The MFF’s contribution to the ADB results framework are (i) households with new or improved water supply in two ULBs: 402,977; (ii) wastewater treatment capacity added or improved: 109,000 cubic meters per day; (iii) water supply pipes installed or upgraded: 1,704 km; and (iv) land improved through drainage and/or flood management: 2,425 hectares. 49. The contribution of project 3 to the ADB results framework are (i) households with new or improved water supply in two ULBs: 56,224; (ii) wastewater treatment capacity added or improved: 35,000 cubic meters per day; (iii) water supply pipes installed or upgraded: 198 km; and (iv) land improved through drainage and/or flood management in Sawai Madhopur: 400 hectares. F. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 50. The overall performance of the borrower and the executing agency under the MFF and the project 3 are rated satisfactory. The borrower, represented by the Government of India’s Department of Economic Affairs, provided timely guidance and decisions to GOR and undertook regular tripartite review meetings with ADB, GOR, and the IPMU, which helped identify bottlenecks, resolve issues, and monitor progress. GOR provided strong support to the IPMU, including timely counterpart funding and adequate human resources throughout the project period. However, the financial management performance of the borrower and the executing agency is rated less than satisfactory, as audit shortcomings persisted over the years and separate project accounts were not maintained by the IPMU (paras. 33–34). The IPMU established project implementation procedures for planning and implementation early in the project cycle. It also established effective monitoring and implementing mechanisms through IPIUs in each project town, headed by executive engineers. This ensured interagency coordination, monitoring, and progress reporting from the field, and flow to ADB and the 15 ULBs. The IPMU exhibited strong leadership with the placement of senior officers from the state government in its management, which helped in change management, which was critical for implementation of reforms. The

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

Assistance Grant and Administration of Grant to India for Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Program. Manila. (Loan 3182-IND and Loan 3183-IND).

37 GOR established the Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water, Sewerage and Infrastructure Corporation, amalgamating the IPMU, the Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam, and the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Finance and Development Corporation.

16

contract periods estimated by the IPMU for water supply and sewerage contracts were ambitious and led to contractors exceeding implementation milestones (para. 26). Though the IPMU spent considerable time and effort on managing arbitration and other legal issues in the absence of techno-legal personnel, it was effective in managing the overlapping policy, regulatory, technical, administrative, and financial management aspects of project implementation, including safeguard compliance. Excess claims because of duplication were identified during the project completion report mission of project 1 and were later refunded by the borrower. Overall, the IPMU was effective in managing the MFF and project 3, including safeguard compliance. G. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 51. The performance of ADB under project 3 and MFF is rated satisfactory. ADB undertook regular review missions, a disbursement review mission, midterm review mission, and project completion review mission to assess progress and advise on the resolution of outstanding issues. Monitoring, capacity building, and guidance by ADB throughout the project cycle helped define processes, address issues through time-bound actions and targets, and expedite project implementation. However, financial management performance of ADB is rated less than satisfactory, as audit shortcomings were identified and commented upon, but missions were not fielded over the years to resolve these issues (paras. 33 and 34). The IPMU found ADB’s support and advice effective in the resolution of project management issues and safeguard management (para. 31). ADB also provided training and supported exposure visits of IPMU and IPIU personnel to other ADB-supported projects. ADB monitoring ensured adherence to due processes and transparency in procurement, disbursements, and safeguards while upholding integrity and ethical standards. H. Overall Assessment 52. Overall, the MFF and the project 3 are rated successful. The MFF, including project 3, was relevant to the government’s overall development objectives and ADB’s policies at appraisal, and continues to remain so upon completion. The strength of the MFF and project 3 was their objective of universal coverage of water supply and wastewater services. The MFF and project 3 are rated effective, as planned outcome and output targets of the project investments were achieved, except that of SWM. The project 3 is rated efficient, as the EIRR for all interventions was reassessed to be higher than the economic opportunity cost of capital of 12%. The MFF is rated efficient as all of its three tranches are rated efficient. 38 The MFF and project 3 are rated likely sustainable as the O&M costs of MFF assets are met by the GOR as per the assurances and covenants, through statutory transfers from SFC and the CFC, and collection of municipal taxes and user charges. The development impacts are rated satisfactory, as the MFF and project 3 have contributed significantly to all the impact indicators, resulting in improved quality of life indices, poverty reduction, and economic and social inclusion in the 15 ULBs. The performance of the borrower and the executing agency as well as ADB under the MFF and the project 3 are rated satisfactory. These are summarized in the following table.

Multitranche Financing Facility and Project Overall Ratings

Criterion Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 MFF Relevance Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant

Effectiveness Effective Effective Effective Effective

38 ADB. 2017. Completion Report. India: Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (Tranche 1).

Manila; and ADB. 2019. Completion Report. India: Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program (Tranche 2). Manila.

17

Criterion Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 MFF Efficiency Efficient Efficient Efficient Efficient

Sustainability Likely sustainable

Likely sustainable

Likely sustainable

Likely sustainable

Overall assessment Successful Successful Successful Successful

Development impact Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

Borrower and executing agency

Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

Performance of ADB Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

ADB = Asian Development Bank, MFF = multitranche financing facility. Source: Asian Development Bank.

IV. ISSUES, LESSONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Issues and Lessons 53. The following important lessons emerge from the project: (i) delay in HSC provision impacts timely realization of benefits of wastewater management systems (para. 13); (ii) continued renewal of CTOs for WTPs and STPs by the PHED and project ULBs after handover of the assets by the IPMU is necessary for compliance with statutory requirements (para. 32); (iii) continued payment of O&M fees for STPs by project ULBs after handover of the assets by the IPMU is necessary for optimal maintenance of the plants (para. 42);39 (iv) having a dedicated cadre in the IPMU, rather than deputed staff, would have ensured continuity in implementation, and a legal cell in the IPMU would have improved the handling of techno-legal cases (para. 50); (v) the SOE threshold of $100,000 equivalent per individual payment should consider the institutional capacity and the size and nature of contracts (para. 25); (vi) overestimation of contingencies results in partial loan cancellation or loan extension to utilize the contingency amount (para. 26); (vii) while the design was appropriate, addition of recent developments and best practices such as 24x7 water supply could have been considered during project design (para. 8); (viii) inconsistent and nonuniform DMF indicators between the facility and its projects, and impractical measurement tools and irregular data sources, affects accuracy in performance assessment (para. 9); (ix) project design was informed by the strong interplay among various factors such as (a) the capacity of executing agencies in development of project components and safeguard management, (b) the scope of project interventions and determination of performance targets, and (c) the selection of implementation arrangement (paras. 7, 8, 9, 22, 27, 31, 34, 35, and 50); (x) close monitoring of consultants’ performance is necessary for optimal utilization of consulting services and timely delivery of outputs (para. 30); (xi) determination of contract periods needs to be realistic to ensure adherence to implementation milestones (paras. 26 and 50); (xii) end-to-end e-procurement and contract management systems would augment the IPMU’s capacity (para. 29); (xiii) enhancing project preparedness, through preparation of detailed designs, finalization of land required, and coordination for utility shifting, prior to contract award helps deliver projects in a timely, responsive, and efficient manner (paras. 8, 22, 26, 27, and 50); and (xiv) emphasis on financial management requirements by the borrower’s auditors, project authorities, and ADB is required for continued compliance with financial covenants (paras. 33, 34, 50, and 51).

39 GOR under the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) is committed to 10-year O&M,

induction of contractual staff, and e-governance (State Amrut Action Plan 2015-16). Eleven of the project towns are part of AMRUT.

18

B. Recommendations 54. The project-specific recommendations are: (i) HSCs should be included in the project to end concurrently with commissioning of sewerage networks and STPs to ensure timely accrual of project benefits (para. 13),40 (ii) line departments are to ensure renewal of CTOs for WTPs and STPs after taking over the assets (para. 32); (iii) line departments are to ensure payment of O&M fees to contractors after taking over the assets (para. 42); (iv) the IPMU should be strengthened with a techno-legal cell to handle contract arbitration (para. 50); (v) the SOE threshold may be set based on the institutional capacity of the IPMU to manage funds (para. 25); (vi) allocation of large sums under contingencies should be rationalized (para. 26); (vii) subproject design should incorporate the latest developments in the sector (e.g., 24/7, nonrevenue water reduction) (para. 8); (viii) switch to use of urban services key performance indicators as outcomes for measuring end-user benefits and consistency in assessing achievements across DMFs of the MFF and its projects; and (ix) the DMF for project 1 needs to be prepared along with the facility DMF (para. 9). 55. General recommendations for future projects are: (i) a realistic matrix of executing agency capacity and implementation arrangements against project scope and achievable performance targets is required to be determined at the project design stage for project success (paras. 26, 30, and 50); (ii) a hybrid payment structure involving deliverable-based payments for designs, reports and documents, and input-based payments for supervision will improve accountability and effectiveness of consultant performance (para. 30); (iii) realistic contract periods must be provided for complex contracts involving multiple stakeholders and implementation complexities (paras. 26 and 50); (iv) robust procurement and contract management should be established by extending e-procurement beyond e-submission, database for contract performance (para. 29), and smart asset management practices and systems; (v) for improved sustainability and alignment with Strategy 2030’s operational priority 6 (strengthening governance and institutional capacity), strengthening the public financial management at the state and ULB level to be included in future projects (para. 43); (vi) clear identification of interventions and requisite technical detailing and regulatory clearances prior to contract award will ensure smooth and timely execution (paras. 8, 30, and 50); (vii) innovative capacity building methods involving the private sector should be considered to introduce best practices; (viii) inclusion and continued capacity building of financial management specialists in the project team in addition to statutory auditors as per ADB’s financial management requirements is necessary (paras. 33, 34, and 50); and (ix) ADB’s financial management specialist to field regular missions, recommend actions for improvement, and ensure continued compliance (para. 51). 56. Future monitoring. The IPMU to provide by 30 September 2019 (i) details of renewal of CTOs for STPs; (ii) payment of O&M fees to contractors; and (iii) reconciliation with loan financial information services and audit opinion on APFS for financial year ending 2018. 57. Covenants. The covenants relating to a levy of SWM charges should be deleted as ULB residents did not benefit from SWM treatment and disposal facilities under the MFF (para. 33). 58. Timing of the project performance evaluation report. The project performance evaluation report should be prepared in 2020, by which time the subprojects would have been operational for over 3 years.

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

included in the scope of the project to ensure concurrent completion.

Appendix 1 19

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK FOR FACILITY

Design Summary Performance Indicators or Targets Program Achievements

Impact

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

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

Per capita net district domestic product in 15 program ULBs increased by an average of 42% from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012.1

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

30% more population served by improved water supply and 80% population hitherto unserved by wastewater services in the program ULBs.2

10% more tourists in the Investment Program ULBs.

Tourists have increased by average 31% between 2007 and 2018 in Rajasthan.3

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

About 38% fewer households in 15 program ULBs reported incidences of water-borne diseases in 2016–2017, as compared to 2008.4

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

Nearly 98% of total population, including BPL and slum population, in 15 program ULBs have access to improved urban infrastructure services.5

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

13 of the 15 program ULBs have shown a declining trend in average BPL population from 20% to 19.8%.6

Outcome Water supply: Achievements7

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

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

Achieved. 2.23 million people (95%) in 15 program ULBs provided with treated piped water supply; with average 122 lpcd supply.

Wastewater management:

1.6 million people in the Investment Program ULBs provided with total and appropriate sanitation.8

Achieved. Sanitation infrastructure provided in 14 ULBs against targeted 12 ULBs, to benefit 2.08 million (100%) population.

1 Per capita real income data is not available at the ULB level, and hence district-wise per capita real income (Net

District Domestic Product at Constant Prices) data for Rajasthan, which is available only till 2011–2012, has been used. Source: Government of Rajasthan, Department of Planning, Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Estimates of District Domestic Product of Rajasthan, 2004-05 to 2011–12. Jaipur. This is corroborated by the 206% increase in the per capita real income at State level between 2007–2008 and 2015–2016. Source: Government of Rajasthan, Department of Planning, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Economic Review 2015-16. Jaipur.

2 Source: Investment program management unit (IPMU). 3 Source: Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation data provided by IPMU. 4 Source: Investment Program Performance and Monitoring System (IPPMS) Consultants. End-term Evaluation

Report. December 2018. 5 Source: IPPMS Consultants. End-term Evaluation Report. December 2018. 6 Source: IPMU. Data on population living below the poverty line (BPL) is available at national and state level only and

not at an urban local body (ULB) level. BPL data for Baran and Sikar were not available. For 13 ULBs, the IPMU has collected the BPL data from respective ULBs.

7 Source: IPMU 8 Outcome indicators targeted benefitting 100% population (1.6 million) in 15 ULBs, while wastewater outputs were

proposed only for 12 ULBs with 1.4 million population.

20 Appendix 1


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

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

Achieved. Sewerage facilities, including STPs, have been provided in 14 ULBs against 12 ULBs targeted under three projects.

Less wastewater discharged to water bodies.

Achieved. Wastewater discharge to water bodies reduced by 41 million liters per day (mld).

Solid waste management:

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

Partly achieved. Sanitary landfills provided in 5 ULBs not functional due to GOR decision to withdraw landfill works under the MFF and handover to Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam. Over 90% of solid waste generated is collected and transported.

Urban drainage:

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

Achieved. Outfall drains developed in 5 ULBs based on drainage master plans and risk assessment for flooding.

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

Achieved. Roadside drains developed in 6 ULBs where road works were taken up.

Urban transport and roads:

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

Achieved. Traffic flow improved and minimal vehicle idling time with increased mobility, reduced average travel costs, and eliminated traffic congestion in 12 ULBs.

Social infrastructure:

About 0.21 million people living in notified slums of Investment Program ULBs provided with improved basic urban services and living conditions.9

Achieved. About 0.21 million people in notified slums in 14 of the 15 ULBs (data for Rajsamand not available) benefited with improved basic urban services and living conditions.

Improved institutional capacity

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

Achieved. Project ULBs meet O&M costs of all urban services from internal revenue streams and assigned compensations (para.42 of main text). Project ULBs have sound financial management practices (para.43 of the main text).

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

Achieved. ULBs have adequate revenues from their own sources and compensations from the Central and State Governments for abolished and subsumed taxes (para.42 of and footnote.31 of main text).

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

Achieved. Project assets have been handed over to ULBs or respective line agencies upon completion.

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

identified slums” to make it compatible with the output indicator for social infrastructure.

Appendix 1 21


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

Achieved. Actions taken as per the institutional and capacity development plan to augment human resources and institutional capacities for better municipal asset management, service delivery and governance.

Outputsa Water supply

Implemented Investment Program for water supply

System rehabilitation and UFW reduction program implemented in all Investment Program ULBs, including replacement of excessively leaking carrier mains; repair and replacement of distribution mains; repair and replacement of leaking house connections older than 10 years; installation or replacement of consumer water meters in all existing connections; refurbishment or replacement of old pumping machinery; installation of bulk meters at all supply points; rehabilitation of water treatment plants; augmentation of storage capacities; and provision of chlorination facilities.

Achieved. System rehabilitation and UFW reduction program implemented in all 15 Investment Program ULBs, including: (i) laying of 1,704 km of new water supply pipelines, including replacements of leaking carrier mains and distribution mains, (ii) installation and replacement of 135,862 household water meters, (iii) rehabilitation of pumping machinery at 75 tube wells and 32 pump houses; (iv) installation of 172 bulk flow meters and 159 electromagnetic flow meters at all supply points, (v) rehabilitation of water treatment plants (WTPs) at Jhalawar and Jhalarapatan; (v) storage capacities developed with construction of 28 clearwater reservoirs and 98 GLSRs and OHSRs; and (vii) new intake and supply augmentation in Jhalawar and Jhalarapatan, Rajsamand, Baran and Chittorgarh.

Source augmentation and new treatment plants in Alwar, Jaisalmer, Baran–Chabra, Barmer, Rajsamand, Dhaulpur, Karauli, Churu, Nagaur, Sawai Madhopur, and Sikar.10

Achieved. Source augmented in Alwar, Jhalawar-Jhalarapatan, Rajsamand, Baran and Chittorgarh; and new WTPs constructed in Baran-Chabra, Chittorgarh, Rajsamand and Dhaulpur. WTP was not taken up in Jaisalmer as the ULB already had WTP of adequate capacity. Further, for water security, 15 days storage capacity created for the desert town of Jaisalmer.

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

Achieved. 1,704 km of water supply pipelines installed to increase piped water supply to more than 98% households in program ULBs.

District water quality testing laboratory in Jhalawar.

Achieved. District water quality testing laboratory established and operational in Jhalawar

Implemented Investment Program for wastewater management

Sewerage and sanitation

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

Achieved. 920 km of sewerage system and 61,946 household connections completed in 14 ULBs.

Achieved. 109 mld treatment capacity achieved with construction of STPs in 12 ULBs (10 mld each in Jaisalmer, Barmer, and Sawai Madhopur; 8 mld each in Bharatpur, Bundi and Nagaur; 5 mld each in Chittorgarh, Karauli and Rajsamand; Alwar (20 mld), Dhaulpur (10 mld and 3 mld), and Churu (7 mld)).

10 WTPs were not proposed under any project DMF for Barmer, Karauli, Churu, Nagaur, Sawai Madhopur and Sikar.

22 Appendix 1


Sawai Madhopur (13 mld), and Sikar (16 mld).11

Implemented Investment Program for Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management

Household waste containers in all Investment Program ULBs

Achieved. Household waste containers provided as planned in all program ULBs.

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

Achieved. Solid waste equipment and vehicles procured and supplied as planned to all program ULBs.

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

Not achieved. Sanitary landfills developed for Alwar, Baran, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar and Rajsamand, but not functional due to GOR decision to withdraw landfill works under the MFF and handover to Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam.

Implemented Investment Program for urban drainage

Urban drainage

Comprehensive drainage master plan for all Investment Program ULBs

Achieved. Comprehensive drainage master plans prepared for 5 ULBs (Bharatpur, Churu, Jaisalmer, Sawai Madhopur and Sikar) where drainage works were taken up.

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

Achieved. 41.8 km of trunk outfalls in 5 ULBs and 27.7 km roadside drains in 6 ULBs (Baran, Bundi, Chittorgarh, Dholpur, Nagaur, and Rajsamand) were constructed to facilitate runoff of storm-water into natural channels and adequate tools and resources to maintain the drains provided.

Implemented Investment Program for urban roads and transport

Urban transport and roads

Comprehensive traffic management plans prepared for all Investment Program ULBs

Achieved. Comprehensive traffic master plan prepared for 12 ULBs where transport interventions were taken up.

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

Achieved. Strengthening, widening and resurfacing of 98.22 km roads in 8 ULBs (Baran, Barmer, Bharatpur, Bundi, Dholpur, Nagaur, Rajsamand and Sikar), including town centers and traffic choke points as per traffic masterplans.

Identified transport infrastructure—roads over bridges or under bridges in Alwar, Baran and Chabra, Bharatpur, Bundi, Chittorgarh, Churu, Nagaur, Sawai Madhopur, and Sikar—completed in Investment Program ULBs12

Achieved. 2-lane road over bridges were constructed in Alwar, Baran, Barmer, Bharatpur, Churu, Sawai Madhopur, 2 major bridges in Chittorgarh, 1 railway under bridge in Chittorgarh and 2 minor bridges in Sawai Madhopur.

Implemented Investment Program for social infrastructure

Major entry and exit roads, basic urban infrastructure, and amenities (e.g., water and sanitation, roads, streetlights, drainage, community hall, rainwater harvesting structures) developed for

Achieved. Over 0.21 million people in notified slums in 14 of the 15 ULBs (data not available for Rajsamand) benefitted from basic urban infrastructure and amenities developed. Government order issued to provide basic

11 STPs for Baran and Chabra were not included in any of the three project DMFs. Preliminary estimates of STP

capacities in facility DMF were refined in (i) project 2 during detailed engineering design, and (ii) project 3 in the DMF, and achieved as planned.

12 Road-over-bridges were not proposed under any project DMF for Bundi, Nagaur and Sikar.

Appendix 1 23


0.21 million people living in identified slums in Investment Program ULBs

municipal services to all the people living in slum areas, irrespective of land ownership.

Implemented Investment Program for support infrastructure for cultural heritage

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

Achieved. Heritage conservation plans prepared for identified sites and monuments in Baran, Bundi, Dholpur, Jhalawar, Karauli and Sawai Madhopur.

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

Achieved. Supporting infrastructure around monuments and facilities for tourists, like heritage entry gates, fort walls, access roads, water and sanitation connections, etc. were developed in Baran, Bundi, Dholpur, Jhalawar, Karauli and Sawai Madhopur.

Implemented Investment Program for capacity development

Infrastructure base maps completed for all Investment Program ULBs

Achieved. Prepared for all 15 ULBs.

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

Achieved. Training and capacity-building activities were provided to staff in identified governance and institutional management aspects as per planned institutional and capacity development plan in 15 ULBs.

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

Achieved. Double-entry accounting system introduced; financial management systems computerized, and asset management systems improved in 15 ULBs as per planned institutional and capacity development plan.

Investment Program implemented and well managed

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

Achieved. All program assets, including sewerage systems, have been handed over to respective ULBs and line agencies.

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

Partly achieved. Sustainable user charge structure, including improved volumetric water charges, implemented by concerned agencies. Sewerage tariff is implemented as and when house sewer connections are provided. SWM charges are collected by outsourced agencies but do not accrue to ULBs.

GIS installed in priority areas Achieved. GIS based maps prepared for 15 ULBs.

Municipal and departmental staff trained in operation and maintenance (O&M) of services, financial management, and regulation enforcement

Achieved. Municipal staff in 15 ULBs and concerned line agencies were trained under the program in O&M of municipal infrastructure, service delivery, financial management, and regulation enforcement. Training programs reoriented staff towards professionalization of municipal services and improved urban governance.

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

Achieved. SWM collection is already managed in 186 ULBs under PPP mode, while other PPP options are also being explored for SWM and implemented in selected MFF ULBs.13

13 Public private partnership based treatment and disposal options in (i) waste to energy plants at Jaipur and Udaipur,

and (ii) compost cum refuse-derived-fuel at Alwar, Bharatpur, Baran, Bundi, Karauli, Rajsamand and Sikar.

24 Appendix 1


CAPP and IEC programs implemented in Investment Program ULBs

Achieved. CAPP and IEC programs were initiated by July 2008 and implemented as planned in 15 ULBs.

BPL = below poverty line; CAPP = community action participation program; GIS = geographic information system; IEC = information, education, and communication; km = kilometer; mld = million liters per day; O&M = operation and maintenance; PHED = Public Health and Engineering Department; PPP = public-private partnership; STP = sewage treatment plant; UFW = unaccounted-for water; ULB = urban local body.

Source: Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan.

Appendix 1 25

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK FOR PROJECT 3

Design summary Performance indicators/Targets Achievements

Impacts By 2016:

Increased access to sustainable urban infrastructure and services for 2.16 million people in the identified 15 ULBs

Beneficiary population increased by at least 60% in the 15 ULBs.

Substantially achieved. Beneficiary population increased by 42%.14

Incidence of water-borne diseases reduced by 15% for both women and men in 15 ULBs.

Achieved. Incidence of water-borne diseases in Project ULBs reduced by over 26%.15 Sex disaggregated data not available.

Outcomes By 2014: Achievements16

Improved urban services in the 15 ULBs.

Drinking water quality in Baran and Chittorgarh meets water quality standards of India, and average duration of supply increased from 1 hour per day to at least 8 hours per day.

Substantially achieved. Drinking water quality meets prescribed quality standards of India. Reliability and average duration of supply has increased, though 8 hours of daily supply could not be achieved especially in summers in the desert region, and 0.27 million population (95%) are being provided with over 127 lpcd of water against national target of 135 lpcd.

Non-revenue water reduced from approximately 40% to 20% in Baran and Chittorgarh

Achieved. Non-revenue water reduced to 20% in Baran and Chittorgarh.17

Population with piped sewerage increased from current negligible level to 47% in Churu; 70% in Karauli; 21% in Bharatpur; 15% in Chittorgarh; and 36% in Jaisalmer;

Achieved. Service area coverage with piped sewerage system increased to 48% in Churu; 42% in Karauli; 40% in Bharatpur; 21% in Chittorgarh; and 70% in Jaisalmer.

Solid waste collected and transported to landfill sites as percentage of generation increased to at least 80% in all ULBs

Achieved. Over 90% of solid waste generated is collected and transported.

Households covered with house-to-house collection increased to at least 50% in all ULBs, with 25% of slum/low income or women-headed households

Achieved. Nearly 100% households covered with door-to-door collection, including proportionate coverage of slum/low income or women-headed households.

Outputs

Water Supply subprojects successfully implemented (Baran and Chittorgarh)

Consumer water meters numbering 12,600 in Baran and 10,500 in Chittorgarh installed/ replaced (25% of which are slum/ low income or women headed households).

Achieved. 10,539 consumer water meters installed/ replaced in Baran of which 4,113 (39%) are in slum/ low income or women-headed households, while 2,953 (28%) of the 10,409 water meters installed in Chittorgarh are in target households.

14 Source: IPMU 15 Source: IPPMS Endterm Report. December 2018. 16 Source: IPMU 17 Source: PHED Circle office in Baran and Chittorgarh.

26 Appendix 1


Service area coverage with piped water supply increased from 70% or 70,000 beneficiaries to 90% or 105,000 in Baran and 64% or 83,000 to 90% or 148,000 beneficiaries in Chittorgarh

Achieved. Service area coverage with piped water supply increased to 95% in Baran and Chittorgarh, with over 148,000 and 126,000 beneficiaries, respectively. (Chittorgarh hasn’t attained the targeted population yet and currently has a population of about 133,000).

Population having individual piped water connections increased to 90% in service area and to 95% in slum/low income areas in Baran and Chittorgarh.

Achieved. Population having individual piped water connections increased to 86% in Baran and 84% in Chittorgarh. Data on connections provided to slum/low income groups are not collected by the line department.

New water supply intake well, transmission lines, WTP, OHSR, constructed for 21 mld in Baran and 22.5 mld in Chittorgarh

Achieved. Source augmented by 21 mld in Baran and 22.5 mld in Chittorgarh, including all associated structures such as intake, WTP and 16 storage reservoirs.

Network of 62 km in Baran and 98 km in Chittorgarh rehabilitated/ constructed, and desired service level standards achieved.

Achieved. 57 km in Baran, 96 km in Chittorgarh and 45 km in Nagaur rehabilitated/ constructed as per detailed engineering design.

New property connections numbering 2,000 in Baran and 4,500 in Chittorgarh provided (25% of which are slum/ low income or women headed households);

Achieved. 1,913 new property connections in Baran and 2,834 in Chittorgarh were provided, of which 779 connections (41%) and 1,393 connections (49%), respectively, in these two ULBs are in slum/ low income or women-headed households.18

Old property connections numbering 10,600 out of total 11,425 old connections in Baran and 6,000 out of 11,500 old connections in Chittorgarh replaced on new distribution lines by good quality service pipes and ferule/saddle joints (25% of which are slum/ low income or women-headed households).

Achieved. Of the 8,626 old property connections replaced in Baran; and 7,575 old connections replaced in Chittorgarh, 4,894 connections (30%) are in slum/ low income or women-headed households.

Roadmap for 24x7 water supply prepared for Baran and Chittorgarh and implemented on pilot basis in one zone in Chittorgarh.

Not achieved.

Increased sewerage treatment coverage in 5 ULBs

Service area coverage with piped sewerage system increased from current negligible level to 47% in Churu; 70% in Karauli; 21% in Bharatpur; 15% in Chittorgarh; and 36% in Jaisalmer.

Achieved. Service area coverage with piped sewerage system increased from current negligible level to 48% in Churu; 42% in Karauli; 40% in Bharatpur; 21% in Chittorgarh; and 70% in Jaisalmer.

18 Chittorgarh’s targeted beneficiary population of 148,000 was significantly overestimated as the current population of

the ULB is only 133,000. Thus, new property connections of 4,500 in Chittorgarh was also grossly overestimated in the project 3 DMF.

Appendix 1 27


Sewage treatment capacity increased from current negligible level to 7 MLD in Churu; 5 MLD in Karauli; 8 MLD in Bharatpur; 5 MLD in Chittorgarh; and 10 MLD in Jaisalmer; and reuse and/or recycle of effluent of sewage treatment plant established on pilot basis in all towns.

Achieved.19 Sewage treatment capacity increased, as planned in the 5 ULBs; and reuse and/or recycle of effluent of STPs are ongoing in all ULBs with storage structured created to supply treated effluent for reuse, and is presently being used by farmers.

Laying of outfall, trunk, and lateral sewers of 86 Km in Churu connected to the STP, including electrical, mechanical and other works with first 5 years of O&M completed by September 2013, with desired service level standards achieved

Achieved. Sewer network of 83 km, including outfall, trunk, and lateral sewers were laid in Churu, and connected to STP, which operates at required service level standards.

Laying of outfall, trunk, and lateral sewers of 41 Km in Chittorgarh and 79 Km in Bharatpur, connected to the STPs, completed by September 2013, with desired service level standards achieved.

Achieved. Sewer network, including outfall, trunk, and lateral sewers were laid in Chittorgarh (36 km) and Bharatpur (74 km), and connected to STPs, which operate at required service level standards.

Laying of outfall, trunk, and lateral sewers of 34 Km in Karauli and 70 Km in Jaisalmer, connected to the STPs, completed by December 2013, with desired service level standards achieved.

Achieved. Sewer network, including outfall, trunk, and lateral sewers were laid in Karauli (30 km) and Jaisalmer (73 km), and connected to STPs, which operate at required service level standards.

Sewer connections numbering 5,600 in Churu, 5,000 in Chittorgarh, 13,000 in Bharatpur, 7,000 in Karauli and 7,000 in Jaisalmer provided and functional (25% of which are slum/low income or women headed households)

Partly achieved. Sewer connections of 18,018 have been provided and functional against target 37,600 sewer connections [Churu (6,304), Karauli (3,000), Chittorgarh (2,000) and Jaisalmer (6,714)], of which it is assumed that 25% connections are in slum/low income or women headed households (income of vulnerability segregated data on provision of sewer connections are not collected by ULBs).

STPs of capacity of 7 MLD in Churu, 5 MLD in Chittorgarh, 8 MLD in Bharatpur, 5 MLD in KarauIi and 10 MLD in Jaisalmer constructed

Achieved. However, 10 mld STP in Jaisalmer was constructed and commissioned under project 1 (footnote.19).

Reduced flooding through improved urban drainage in Sawai Madhopur.

Reduction in the incidence of street flooding from an average of 60 days per year to about 15 days per year.

Achieved. Incidences of flooding reduced from an average of 60 days per year to less than 1 day per year.

1.33 Km of existing storm-water drain upgraded

Achieved. 1.33 km drains upgraded in Sawai Madhopur

19 Only one STP of 10 mld was proposed in Jaisalmer under the facility DMF and included under project 1. The 10 mld

STP in Jaisalmer was thus developed under project 1 and was incorrectly included in the DMF of project 3.

28 Appendix 1


Rehabilitation and de-silting, strengthening and extension of the existing drains including constructing 1.10 Km of new drain constructed in Sawai Madhopur.

Achieved. 1.11 km drains constructed in Sawai Madhopur. Besides the above, 21.9 km storm water drains, 3 drainage pumping stations and associated facilities were constructed in Churu, and 12.0 km roadside drains were constructed in Churu, Dholpur and Nagaur under project 3.

Traffic flow improved as a result of construction of 2 minor bridges in Sawai Madhopur and one road work in Dholpur.

Reduction in travel time from an average of 1.5 hours to 30 minutes to get through one end of the city to the other end in the concerned two cities.

Achieved. Average travel time reduced from 1.5 hours to less than 20 minutes to get through one end of the city to the other end in the 2 ULBs.

About 3.97 Km of existing road in Dholpur widened and improved

Achieved. 23.1 km roads constructed in 4 ULBs [Dholpur (3.97 km), Barmer (6.90 km), Nagaur (4 km), Rajsamand (8.23 km)].

Two new minor bridges constructed in Sawai Madhopur, with EDCW friendly and safety features installed.

Achieved. 2 minor bridges in Sawai Madhopur and railway under bridge in Chittorgarh have been constructed with EDCW-friendly and safety features.

Increased solid waste collection and disposal in 10 ULBs.

Solid waste collected and transported to landfill sites as percentage of generation increased to at least 80% in all ULBs

Achieved. Over 90% of solid waste generated is collected and transported.

Development of sanitary landfill sites at Bharatpur, Chittorgarh, Churu, Bundi, Baran, Dholpur, Rajsamand, Nagaur, Karauli, and Sawai Madhopur and landfill sites fully functional with solid waste transported to the landfill site in desired quantities.

Not achieved. Sanitary landfill sites developed in Baran and Rajsmand but not functional due to GOR decision to withdraw landfill works under the MFF and handover to Rajasthan Awas Vikas Nigam.

Supply of equipment to strengthen the ULBs to handle the solid waste at Bharatpur, Churu, Bundi, Baran, Rajsmand, Nagaur, Barmer, Chittorgarh, Dholpur, Sawai Madhopur and Karauli; and solid waste collection and transportation systems fully functional.

Achieved. Equipment to strengthen ULBs’ capacity to handle the solid waste were supplied to 12 ULBs (Sikar additionally included) against target 11 ULBs, which along with the transportation systems are fully functional.

About 700 MT of solid waste collected and transported to landfill sites in 10 ULBs

Achieved. Of the 675 TPD waste generated in 12 ULBs, over 655 TPD (97%) is collected and transported.

Fire Fighting strengthened in at least 5 ULBs

Response time of fire tenders to reach fire- affected places reduced to acceptable levels in at least 10 ULBs.

Achieved. Response time of fire tenders to reach fire-affected places reduced to acceptable levels in 13 ULBs.

Construction of fire station in Alwar; fire station fully operational with staff and budget

Achieved. Two fire stations constructed in Alwar; and operational with staff and budget.

Construction of fire station in Chittorgarh and Bharatpur; fire station fully operational with staff and budget

Achieved. Fire stations constructed in Chittorgarh and Bharatpur; and are fully operational with staff and budget.

Appendix 1 29


Supply of equipment to strengthen the ULBs for firefighting at Churu, Jhalawar, Baran, Rajsamand, Nagaur, Barmer, Sikar, Dholpur, Sawai Madhopur and Karauli; fire station fully operational with staff and budget.

Achieved. Against target of 10 ULBs, fire-fighting equipment were supplied to 13 ULBs (Alwar, Churu, Chittorgarh, Jhalawar, Baran, Rajsamand, Nagaur, Barmer, Bharatpur, Sikar, Dholpur, Sawai Madhopur and Karauli), and are fully operational with staff and budget, strengthening respective ULBs’ fire-fighting capacities.

Heritage subprojects successfully implemented

Heritage sites in 7 ULBs conserved: Conservation/restoration of heritage sites implemented in 7 ULBs

Achieved. Conservation/restoration of heritage sites implemented in 6 ULBs (Baran, Bundi, Dholpur, Karauli, Jhalawar and Sawai Madhopur).

Implementing agencies and IAs effectively manage project financed assets.

At least 100 ULB staff, IA staff trained in social-inclusive and gender responsive O&M services, financial management.

Achieved. Over 90% of staff in the 15 ULBs were trained in social-inclusive and gender responsive O&M services, financial management, etc.

Community awareness campaigns on health, housing, sanitation, gender issues conducted in 15 ULBs.

Achieved. Over 30 different kinds of community awareness campaigns on health, housing, sanitation, gender issues were conducted in 15 ULBs.

Capacity Development Plan prepared and approved.

Achieved. Institutional and capacity development plan prepared, approved and implemented in 15 ULBs and concerned state level bodies/ line agencies.

Training of ULB and government officials initiated.

Achieved. Over 650 trainings were imparted to staff of 15 ULBs and state-level bodies in various aspects of management and delivery of municipal services.

Improved systems, processes and procedures developed and operationalized.

Achieved. A plethora of actions, from outsourcing to reallocation and professionalization of processes and services, towards improved delivery of municipal services operationalized.

EDCW friendly = elderly- disabled- children- and women- friendly; IA = implementing agency, km = kilometer; MFF = multitranche financing facility; mld = million liters per day; MT = metric tonne; O&M = operation and maintenance; OHSR = over head service reservoir; STP = sewage treatment plant; SWM = solid waste management; TPD = tonnes per day; ULB = urban local body; WTP = water treatment plant.

Source: Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan.

30 Appendix 2

MFF COST AT APPRAISAL AND ACTUAL ($ million)

Item

At Appraisal ($ Million) At Completion ($ Million)

ADB GOR

Total

ADB GOR

Total Foreign

Exchange Local

Currency Foreign

Exchange Local

Currency Foreign

Exchange Local

Currency Foreign

Exchange Local

Currency

A Base Cost 1 Urban Infrastructure Improvement

Civil Work 205.90 20.20 226.10 193.28 71.77 265.10

Equipment, Materials and Furniture 1.60 0.20 1.80 4.91 0.54 5.50

Consultants 1.00 1.00 -

Land - 2.50 2.50 0.03 4.11 4.10

Subtotal (A1) 1.60 207.10 22.70 231.40 198.20 76.40 274.60

2 Capacity Development and Implementation Support

Consultants 20.20 20.20 14.86 1.84 16.70

Incremental Administration 5.00 5.00 9.90

6.72

6.79 13.50

Preparation and Implementation Assistance 2.70 2.70 0.13 0.10

Subtotal (A2) 27.90 5.00 32.80 21.70 8.60 30.30

Subtotal Base cost 1.60 235.00 27.70 264.20 219.90 85.00 305.00

B Contingencies 0.20 36.20 3.60 40.00

C Tax and Duties 36.50 36.50 10.70 10.70

D Financing Charges During Implementation 49.30 49.30 8.10 8.10

Total 1.80 271.20 49.30 67.80 390.00 219.90 8.10 95.70 323.80

Total by Financier 273.00 117.10 219.90 103.90

Source: Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Government of Rajasthan (GOR)

Appendix 2 31

PROJECT 3 COST AT APPRAISAL AND ACTUAL ($ million)

Item

At Appraisal Actual

Foreign Exchange

Local Currency Total

Foreign Exchange

Local Currency Total Share (%)

A. Base Cost

1. Urban Infrastructure Improvement

Water Supply 13.6 13.60 12.89 12.89 16.96%

Sewerage and Sanitation

33.0 33.00 29.08 29.08 38.26%

Urban Drainage 0.8 0.80 6.13 6.13 8.06%

Urban Transport 1.9 1.90 13.96 13.96 18.37%

Solid Waste 5.1 5.10 2.17 2.17 2.85%

Fire Fighting 3.2 3.20 2.63 2.63 3.46%

Heritage

2.4 2.40 1.10 1.10 1.44%

Land Acquisition and Resettlement 1.7 1.70 0.05 0.05 0.06%

Unallocated 1.5 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Subtotal (1) 62.9 62.90 68.00 68.00

2. Capacity Development and Implementation Support

Incremental Administration 1.5 1.50 4.31 4.31 5.66%

Implementation Assistance 1.4 1.40 0.06 0.06 0.07%

Subtotal (2) 2.9 2.90 4.36 4.36 Subtotal 65.90 65.90 72.36 72.36

B. Contingency 13.0 13.00 0.00 0.00 Physical Contingencies 5.1

Price Contingencies

7.9

C. Tax and Duties 8.7 8.70 1.92 1.92 2.52%

D. Financing Charges During Implementation 8.5 8.50 1.74 1.74 2.28%

Grand Total 8.5 87.60 96.00 1.74 74.28 76.02 100.00%


Financing Charges during implementation period obtained from http://aaad.gov.in/LoanLedg/A2725_IND.HTM for the L-2725-IND

GOR Expenditure converted at the average exchange rate applicable for each package up to 30 June 2017 and thereafter considered at an average of ₹69.6049 (Dec 2018)

32 Appendix 3

MFF COST BY FINANCIER ($ million)

Item

At Appraisal At Completion

ADB Financing

% of Cost Category

GOR Financing

% of Cost Category Total

ADB Financing

% of Cost Category

GOR Financing


A. Base Cost

1 Urban Infrastructure Improvement

Civil Work 205.90 91% 20.20 9% 226.10 193.30 73% 71.80 27% 265.10

Equipment, Materials and Furniture 1.80 100% - 0% 1.80 4.90 89% 0.50 9% 5.50

Consultants 1.00 100% - 0% 1.00 - 0% - 0% -

Land - 0% 2.50 100% 2.50 0.03 1% 4.11 100% 4.10

Subtotal (A1) 208.70 90% 22.70 10% 231.40 198.20 72% 76.40 28% 274.60


Consultants 20.20 100% - 0% 20.20 14.86 89% 1.84 11% 16.70

Incremental Administration 5.00 51% 5.00 51% 9.90 6.72 50% 6.79 50% 13.50

Preparation and Implementation Assistance

2.70 100% -

0% 2.70 0.13 130% - 0% 0.10

Subtotal (A2) 27.90 85% 5.00 15% 32.80 21.70 72% 8.60 28% 30.30

Subtotal Base cost 236.60 90% 27.70 10% 264.20 219.90 72% 85.00 28% 305.00

B. Contingencies 36.40 91% 3.60 9% 40.00 - 0% - 0% -

C Tax and Duties - 0% 36.50 100% 36.50 - 0% 10.67 100% 10.70

D Financing Charges During Implementation

- 0% 49.30 100% 49.30 - 0% 8.14 100% 8.10

Total 273.00 70% 117.00 30% 390.00 219.90 68% 103.90 32% 323.80


Appendix 3 33

PROJECT 3 COST BY FINANCIER ($ million)

Item

At Appraisal At Completion

ADB Financing

% of Cost Category

GOR Financing


ADB Financing

% of Cost Category

GOR Financing


A Base Cost

1. Urban Infrastructure Improvement

Civil Work 52.60 80.00% 13.15 20.00% 65.75 47.48 74.11% 16.59 25.89% 64.06

Equipment, Materials and Furniture 4.80 80.00% 1.20 20.00% 6.00 3.56 91.53% 0.33 8.47% 3.89

Subtotal 1 57.40 80.00% 14.35 20.00% 71.75 51.04 75.11% 16.91 24.89% 67.95

2. Capacity Development and Implementation Support

Incremental Administration 0.85 44.04% 1.08 55.96% 1.93 1.52 34.83% 2.84 65.17% 4.35

Preparation and Implementation Assistance

1.75 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 1.75 0.05 87.89% 0.01 12.11% 0.06

Subtotal 2 2.60 70.65% 1.08 29.35% 3.68 1.57 35.49% 2.85 64.51% 4.41

Subtotal Base cost 60.00 79.54% 15.43 20.46% 75.43 52.60 72.69% 19.76 27.31% 72.36

B Contingencies

Physical Contingencies 1.20 88.24% 0.16 11.76% 1.36

Price Contingencies 1.80 89.55% 0.21 10.45% 2.01

Subtotal Contingencies 3.00 89.02% 0.37 10.98% 3.37 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tax and Duties 0.00 0.00% 8.70 100.00% 8.70 1.92 1.92

Financing Charges During Implementation

0.00 0.00% 8.50 100.00% 8.50 1.74 1.74

Total 63.00 70.00% 33.00 30.00% 96.00 52.60 69.20% 23.41 30.80% 76.02


Financing Charges during implementation period obtained from http://aaad.gov.in/LoanLedg/A2725_IND.HTM for the L-2725-IND

GOR Expenditure converted at the average exchange rate applicable for each package up to 30 June 2017 and thereafter GOR expenditure considered average at ₹ 69.6049 (Dec 2018)

34 Appendix 4

DISBURSEMENTS OF ADB LOAN PROCEEDS

Table 4.1: Annual and Cumulative Disbursement of ADB Loan Proceeds ($ million)

Year

Annual Projections Annual Disbursement Cumulative Disbursement

Amount % of Total Amount % of Total Amount % of Total

2011 4.27 6.4% 5.36 10.2% 5.36 10.2%

2012 8.57 12.8% 6.65 12.6% 12.01 22.8%

2013 8.00 12.0% 9.69 18.4% 21.7 41.3%

2014 14.60 21.9% 9.07 17.2% 30.77 58.5%

2015 14.30 21.4% 11.34 21.6% 42.11 80.1%

2016 14.00 21.0% 6.52 12.4% 48.63 92.5%

2017 3.00 4.5% 3.97 7.5% 52.6 100.0%

Total 52.60 100.0%

Source: Asian Development Bank.

Figure 4.1: Projection and Cumulative Disbursement of ADB Loan Proceeds

($ million)


-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Projections Annual Disbursement Cumulative Disbursement

Appendix 5 35

CONTRACT AWARDS OF ADB LOAN PROCEEDS

Table 4.2: Annual and Cumulative Contract Awards of ADB Loan Proceeds ($ million)

Year

Annual Projections Annual Contract Awards Cumulative Contract Awards

Amount % of Total Amount % of Total Amount % of Total

2011 28.20 34.64% 20.21 36.93% 20.21 36.93%

2012 20.10 24.69% 16.34 29.86% 36.55 66.78%

2013 18.00 22.11% 8.87 16.21% 45.42 82.99%

2014 14.60 17.94% 7.64 13.96% 53.06 96.95%

2015 0.40 0.49% 0.68 1.24% 53.74 98.19%

2016 0.00 0.00% 0.7 1.28% 54.44 99.47%

2017 0.10 0.12% 0.29 0.53% 54.73 100.00%

Total 54.73 100.00%


Figure 4.2: Projection and Cumulative Contract Awards of ADB Loan Proceeds

($ million)


-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Projections Annual Contract Awards Cumulative Contract Awards

36 Appendix 6

SUMMARY OF CONTRACT DETAILS

PCSS No.

Contract Amount

($)

ADB Financing

($) Disbursed

($) Contract Package Contract Description Cont Name

Contract Award

Actual Completion

01A – Urban Infra Improvement-Civil Works

Water Supply 0002 3,946,148 3,946,148 3,946,148 BRN/WS/01 Construction of intake well and WTP including supply

erection and commissioning of equipment, OHSRS Megha engineering & infrastructures Ltd

25-Feb-11 17-May-17

0014 5,026,072 5,026,072 5,026,072 CHT/WS/01 Construction of intake well arrangement & WTP including water supply, erection, commissioning of equipment

Megha engineering & infrastructures Ltd

23-Mar-11 29-Sep-17

0042 909,158 909,158 909,158 NGR/WS/02 Additional water supply works in Nagaur M/S GCKC project and works Pvt. Ltd.

5-Aug-14 28-Feb-17

Wastewater

0013 4,842,013 4,842,013 4,842,013 BPR/WWW/01 LOT 1

Supply, laying, jointing. testing & com. of various trunck sewers & lateral sewers

Laxmi narayan agarwal

24-Feb-11 13-Nov-17

0015 596,564 596,564 596,564 CHT/WW-01 LOT 2

Design, construction, supply, erection, testing, commissioning & 5 years O&M of 5 mld STP

Dynamic electropower Pvt Ltd

28-Apr-11 13-Nov-17

0026 2,238,681 2,238,681 2,238,681 CHT/WW/01 LOT 1

Supply, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of outfall sewer, various trunk and lateral sewers

A2Z services and Satya builders joint venture

16-Nov-11 19-Nov-12

0029 1,009,226 1,009,226 1,009,226 BPR/WW/01 LOT 2

Design, construction, supply, erection, testing, commissioning, and 5 yrs O&M

Doshion water solution Pvt. Ltd.

6-Mar-12 27-Feb-17

0031 4,433,051 4,433,051 4,433,051 CHU/WW/01 Design, construction, supply, erection, testing, commissioning & 5yr O&M of STP 7mld WSP & sewage

Deem construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

16-Mar-12 24-Nov-17

0037 878,092 878,092 878,092 KRL/WW/04 Design, cons., supply, erection, testing commissioning and 1st 5 yrs O&M

Aquafil polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd.

13-Oct-12 13-Oct-16

0039 348,982 348,982 348,982 JSL/WW-06 Providing, constructing, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of sewerage network system

m/s Shri mohangarh construction Company

1-Feb-13 17-May-17

0040 2,523,914 2,523,914 2,523,914 KRL/WW/05 Supply, laying, jointing, testing, and commissioning of outfall sewer, trunk sewers

Vichitra prestressed concrete udyog Ltd.,

13-May-13 09-Mar-17

0043 3,329,961 3,329,961 3,329,961 NGR/WW/05 Supply, laying, jointing, testing & commissioning of additional sewer lines in Nagaur

M/s R.S. Const. sudhakara infra JV

31-Jul-14 29-Sept-17

Urban Drainage 0001 488,810 488,810 488,810 SMD/DR/01 Rehabilitation and desilting, strengthening and

extension of the existing drains at Sawai Madhopur Laxmi narayan agrawal, Jaipur

22-Dec-10 21-Jun-12

Appendix 6 37

PCSS No.

Contract Amount

($)

ADB Financing

($) Disbursed


Contract Award

Actual Completion

0038 2,183,300 2,183,300 2,183,300 CHU/DR/03 Construction of drain works and pumping stations at Churu

Shri mohangarh construction Company

9-Apr-13 15-Sep-17

0041 2,174,923 2,174,923 2,174,923 CHU/DR/04 Construction of drain works and pumping stations at Churu

M/s Lahoti buildcon Ltd., jaipur

27-May-13 14-Nov-17

Urban Roads and Transport 0030 953,598 953,598 953,598 SMD/BR/03 Construction of minor bridges on Latia Nala near

Shamshan on NH and another near polytechnic Shree gautam construction Company

27-Apr-12 30-Sept-13

0036 210,601 210,601 210,601 CHT/BR/03 Construction of approach road and allied work for RUB near railway culvert no. 226 towards Chanderia

Suresh chandra dhakar

28-Sep-12 04-Apr-16

0020 785,349 785,349 785,349 DLP/ST/01 Widening, strengthening & improvement of existing roads at Dholpur town

K. P. Singh bhadoriya

18-Aug-11 28-Jun-13

0032 1,876,233 1,876,233 1,876,233 DLP/ST/02 Widening, strengthening and improvement of existing roads.

Laxmi narayan agarwal, Jaipur

26-Jun-12 26-Sep-14

0033 1,586,486 1,586,486 1,586,486 DLP/ST/03 Widening, strengthening and improvement of various roads at Dholpur

m/s KPS-JBB construction (JV)

26-Jul-12 15-May-16

0034 1,637,750 1,637,750 1,637,750 RSM/ST/01 Widening and strengthening of roads NH-8 junction to Taledi Tiraha

m/s Ravi infrabuild projects Pvt. Ltd

19-Jul-12 09-Feb-17

0035 885,652 885,652 885,652 BMR/ST/01 Work for widening and strengthening of road from Barmer by-pass to Uttarlai

Mayur construction Co.

3-Aug-12 04-Apr-16

0044 1,567,774 1,567,774 1,567,774 VARIOUS Improvement of city roads in Churu M/s Deem construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

25-Jul-14 15-Sep-17

0045 1,205,426 1,205,426 1,205,426 NGR/ST/01 Four laning of bypass road, renovation and reconstruction of drain and road widening in Nagaur,

M/s Deem construction Co. Pvt. Ltd JV

16-Jul-14 15-Aug-16

Solid Waste Management 0024 152,988 152,988 152,988 BRN/SW/01 Development of sanitary land fill site in Baran D'silva enterprises 1-Nov-11 21-Dec-15 0025 542 542 542 BDN/SW/01 Development works of landfill site in Bundi Vijay galav

contractor, Kota 2-Nov-11 23-Dec-15

0027 127,792 127,792 127,792 RSM/SW/01 Development of sanitary landfill sites at Rajsamand town

Durga impex in JV with Hema construction

23-Nov-11 14-Nov-17

Fire Stations 0004 360,935 360,935 360,935 ALW/FR/01 Construction of two fire fighting stations at Ambedkar

Nagar and Budh Vihar in Alwar Laxmi narayan agarwal

18-Mar-11 25-Aug-15

0009 156,110 156,110 156,110 BPR/FR/1 Construction of fire fighting station at Mukherzi Nagar in Bharatpur

M.K. Constructions 1-Apr-11 06-Aug-14

38 Appendix 6

PCSS No.

Contract Amount

($)

ADB Financing

($) Disbursed


Contract Award

Actual Completion

0017 85,261 85,261 85,261 CHT/FR/01 Construction of fire fighting station at Chittorgarh Suresh chandra dhakar

22-Jul-11 13-Nov-17

Heritage Conservation 0010 201,408 201,408 201,408 KRL/HS/01 Restoration of city wall gates in Karauli town Ravi brothers 24-Mar-11 13-Mar-14 0011 47,087 47,087 47,087 DLP/HS/1 Development of surroundings of Chopra temple in

Dholpur town Murari lal singhal, Dholpur

4-Apr-11 18-Jan-12

0012 26,036 26,036 26,036 SMD/HS/01 Restoration of Bheru Darwaja in Sawai Madhopur town Durga impex, Udaipur

31-Mar-11 11-Apr-12

0016 333,524 333,524 333,524 JHL/HS/01 Restoration of city wall gates, Chandrabhaga temple& Gadh palace in Jhalawar town

Rajputana construction Pvt. Ltd.

25-Jul-11 13-Nov-17

0021 251,379 251,379 251,379 BND/HS/01 Restoration of 7 heritage gates/baories 84 Khambo Ki Chattari in Bundi town

Rajputana construction (P) Ltd.

29-Jul-11 13-Nov-17

0023 96,254 96,254 96,254 BRN/HS/01 Development of Dholmela Talab and restoration of city wall gates (Shahbad) in Baran town

Rajputana construction (P) Ltd.

13-Sep-11 01-Oct-15

01B – Equipment, Materials, Vehicle and Furniture 0003 617,448 617,448 617,448 PMU/FR/03 Supply of fire tenders (capacity 4500 liters) for 10

towns Kamal Coach Works Pvt. Ltd. 15-Feb-11

09-Dec-11

0005 411,733 411,733 411,733 PMU/SW/04 Supply & delivery of loader backhoe machine for 12towns

L&T - Case Equipment Private Limited 28-Dec-10

08-Oct-12 0006 131,697 131,697 131,697 PMU/SW/02 Supply and delivery of bin carrier (cap. 1.1. cum)auto

rickshaw for baran, barmer, bharatpur, bundi, Ensol multiclean equipments Pvt. Ltd.

28-Dec-10

17-Feb-13 0007 160,760 160,760 160,760 PMU-FR/04 Supply of water bouser capacity 12000 litres for alwar

and bharatpur towns Kamal coach works Pvt. Ltd 15-Feb-11

27-Feb-12

0008 534,886 534,886 534,886 PMU/SW/05 Supply and delivery of truck mounted refuse (cap 14 cum) with garbage collection container (cap 1.1

Prabh dayal om prakash JV Technic fabrication 21-Feb-11

10-Dec-13 0018 459,872 459,872 459,872 PMU/SW/07 Supply and delivery of 8 units of trucks w/ hydraulic lift,

10 cum capacity & 13 units of trucks Ensol multiclean equiment Pvt. Ltd.

12-Aug-11

17-Oct-13 0019 211,463 211,463 211,463 PMU/SW/06 Supply & delivery of rickshaw trolly (8) bins handcarts

(6 bins) and litter bin (twin bin) Nilkamal Ltd.

18-Jul-11

10-Dec-13 0022 486,739 486,739 486,739 PMU/FR/02 Supply of fire tenders capacity 4500 litres Alwar,

Jhalawar, Barmer, Bharatpur, Rajasmand, Dholpur, Standard castings Pvt. Ltd.

22-Aug-11

21-Aug-12 0028 547,600 547,600 547,600 PMU/FR/05 Supply of fire tenders capacity 2000 litres Alwar,

Jhalawar, Baran, Barmer, Bharatpur, Chittorgarh, Rajsamand

Ensol multiclean equipment Ltd JV Jaipur 16-Nov-11

06-Oct-16

Appendix 6 39

PCSS No.

Contract Amount

($)

ADB Financing

($) Disbursed


Contract Award

Actual Completion

02A – Incremental Administration 0046 685,815 685,815 685,815 VARIOUS Incremental expenditure for the period 1 Nov 14 to 30

June 15 Various 1-Nov-14 21 Dec-16

0047 541,330 541,330 541,330 VARIOUS Incremental expenditure for the period 1 Dec 15 to 31 July 16

Various 1-Dec-15 05-Dec-16

0049 289,488 289,488 289,488 VARIOUS Incremental expenditure for the period 1 Aug 16 to 30 June 17

Various 12-Sep-17 15-Sep-16

02B – Consulting Services 0048 48,549 48,549 48,549 IPPMS Investment program performance & monitoring system

consultants (IPPMS) ICF consulting services India Pvt. Ltd.

27-Mar-16 22-Sep-16

40 Appendix 7

SAFEGUARDS ASSESSMENT

1. Safeguards categorization. The MFF and its three tranches were classified as category B for environment and involuntary resettlement as per ADB’s safeguard policies; and for indigenous peoples, MFF, project 1 and project 2 are classified as category B and project 3 as category C.1 2. Safeguards implementation arrangements. An (i) officer of the rank of superintending engineer was designated as project officer (environment), (ii) executive engineer rank officer was designated as the project officer (social) at the investment project management unit (IPMU), and (iii) assistant engineer or junior engineer at the investment program implementation unit (IPIU) level in each urban local body (ULB) under the MFF, were responsible for safeguards implementation. Adequate support for effective implementation and monitoring of safeguards requirements was provided by safeguard experts of investment program management consultants (IPMC), three design and supervision consultants (DSCs) and community action and participation program (CAPP) consultants. The overall institutional arrangements for the management of safeguards under the MFF, including project 3, are assessed as adequate and the overall assessment of safeguard implementation, monitoring and reporting is assessed as satisfactory. 3. Compliance with Loan Covenants: The MFF, including project 3, complied with all loan covenants related to safeguards, except for continued renewal of consents to operate (CTO) after project closure for some of the sewage and water treatment plants developed under the MFF. A. Social Safeguards: 4. Resettlement management followed ADB’s social safeguards requirements for the MFF, including project 3. ADB approved resettlement framework, Indigenous Peoples development framework, and sample sector-specific short resettlement plans (SRPs) during loan processing (project 1: 4 SRPs for 3 ULBs; project 2: 6 SRPs for 4 ULBs; and project 3: 4 SRPs for 3 ULBs), which served as the template for additional resettlement plans prepared during project implementation (none under project 1, 20 under project 2 and 11 under project 3) with the objective of minimizing land acquisition and resettlement impacts. In all, ADB approved 45 resettlement plans during MFF implementation, of which 33 resettlement plans were implemented while 12 resettlement plans were not required to be implemented as the anticipated impacts were avoided in nine subprojects and three subprojects were dropped. Under project 3, four resettlement plans were not required to be implemented as anticipated impacts in the wastewater subprojects at Chittorgarh and Bharatpur were avoided while solid waste management subproject in Sikar and heritage subproject in Chittorgarh were dropped from the project scope; and 11 resettlement plans were finally implemented. All 33 resettlement plans implemented under the MFF were in compliance with applicable social safeguards requirements of ADB and government legislation. There was no change in impacts during the implementation of the resettlement plans other than variation in number of affected households, which were regularly updated and reflected in the revised resettlement plans. 5. Land acquisition was not involved in project 1, while 0.33 hectares of land was acquired in project 2. Under the MFF, four affected households were compensated with ₹7.15 million for

1 For project 1 and project 2, policies applicable are (i) ADB. 2002. Environment Policy. Manila. (ii) ADB. 1995.

Involuntary Resettlement. Manila. and (iii) ADB. 1998. The Bank’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples. Manila. For project 3, the policy applicable is ADB. 2009. Safeguards Policy Statement. Manila.

Appendix 7 41

0.9 hectare of land, and 719 affected households were compensated ₹7.03 million for temporary loss of livelihood and shifting assistance. This includes 0.57 hectares land acquired from two households for construction of approach road to the road under bridge subproject at Chittorgarh and 205 households that suffered temporary livelihood loss during project 3 implementation. IPMU records indicate payment of ₹3.41 million as land compensation to two households; ₹1.15 million as compensation for livelihood and crop loss to 197 households; six households were not present during the execution of works; and two households were not interested in receiving compensation, despite information provided by IPMU and the state government’s Revenue Department.2 The implementation of MFF, including project 3, caused temporary loss of livelihood of owners or businesses operating out of non-titled movable structures like push-carts, etc. on the right of way, which were not significant in nature. 6. Indigenous People were not impacted during the implementation of the MFF, including project 3. Three households belonging to the scheduled tribe category suffered temporary income loss during the implementation of project 2 under the MFF, and were provided additional assistance as being vulnerable. The affected households did not bear any distinct characteristics with that of the mainstream population, hence no additional Indigenous Peoples safeguard documents such as Indigenous Peoples’ Plan were required to be prepared or implemented. 7. Information disclosure and Grievance redress. Information disclosure, participation, and consultation activities for the implementation of social safeguards were effectively carried out throughout during MFF implementation, including project 3. Such activities included: (i) distribution and dissemination of resettlement information among affected households in local language (Hindi); (ii) regular consultative meetings with affected households and other stakeholders during project implementation; (iii) publicizing actual resettlement impacts and compensation to affected households; (iv) carrying out monitoring activities; and (v) disclosure of social safeguards documents (SRPs and monitoring reports) on project website. A grievance redress mechanism was set up in accordance with the agreed resettlement frameworks under the MFF to address any project-related grievances of affected persons. The IPMU confirmed that no grievances related to social safeguards were received during the implementation of the MFF, including project 3. 8. Monitoring and reporting. The internal social safeguards monitoring reports adequately capturing the status of safeguard implementation were periodically submitted. External monitoring of social safeguards requirements was also undertaken during MFF implementation. IPMU confirmed that there are no outstanding issues and/or any court cases related to social safeguards at completion of the MFF. Overall, involuntary resettlement and indigenous peoples safeguard compliance was assessed to be satisfactory. All loan covenants under the three projects were complied with. 9. Conclusion and lessons learnt. The resettlement impacts were reduced during the implementation, based on the key ADB principle to avoid and minimize land acquisition and resettlement impacts through detailed technical design such as revision in pipeline alignments or selection of alternative sites for project facilities. The information dissemination regarding resettlement impacts, compensation entitlements and advance notices regarding civil works during the extensive consultations with affected persons and support by the project urban local bodies (ULBs) enabled the successful implementation and completion of the resettlement plans. All the affected households were appropriately and timely compensated. The suggestions and

2 The absence of the six households was verified with other affected households and elected local self-government

representatives, and documentary evidence had been provided in the monitoring reports.

42 Appendix 7

guidance provided by the Missions were implemented by the project authorities which ensured the proper implementation and documentation of safeguard policy requirements.3 B. Environmental Safeguards: 10. Environmental safeguards. Environmental assessment and review frameworks were prepared in April 2007, and later updated in November 2010 to reflect SPS 2009, to guide selection and evaluation of additional sub-projects under each project of the MFF. Initial environmental examination (IEE) reports for 101 subprojects in 15 ULBs were developed during MFF implementation, including IEE reports for 36 sub-projects spread over 14 ULBs under project 3. The requisite environmental permissions as per India’s environmental regulatory framework such as environmental and forest clearances, permissions to cut trees, no objection certificates, consents, etc. were obtained from the respective regulatory agencies. None of the subprojects financed under the MFF were located within the boundaries of national parks, sanctuaries or biosphere reserves, except for (i) one subproject that indirectly sourced water from the National Chambal Sanctuary, and (ii) one heritage subproject involved a Rajasthan Department of Archaeology and Museum listed monument (Chaurasi Khambon Ki Chhatri). However, the continued renewal of CTOs after loan closure for some of the sewage and water treatment plants developed under the MFF, including project 3, was not being obtained from the state pollution control board. The IPMU has agreed to expedite the process of achieving regulatory compliance latest by 30 September 2019. 11. Heritage works. All six heritage works undertaken in project 3 were identified in accordance with the defined subproject selection criteria and guidelines. Subproject appraisal reports were prepared and implemented after ADB’s review and approval. Heritage subproject included works such as (i) widening and reconstruction of approach roads, damaged boundary walls and fort walls, (ii) drains with slabs, (iii) provision of street furniture like benches, dustbins, flood lights and signages, (iv) construction of walkways, toilet facilities, drinking water stations, rain water disposal, platforms for temporary kiosks, and parking stands for vehicles and animals, (v) removal of damaged plaster on fort wall and city gates and re-plastering and its painting, (vi) lime and surkhi works and lime plaster work as finishing coat; (vii) removal of the trees/roots, terracing and plinth protection works, (viii) repair of stone works, rubble masonry, steps, chaukhat, walls and platforms, (ix) shifting of utility cables, (x) desilting of the lake and restoration of existing ghats (series of steps leading down to the lake), (xi) re-construction of the damaged lake wall, and (xii) restoration and preservation of city gates and step wells. The heritage works were sited and designed to preserve and restore, stabilize the site, retard deterioration and maintain current status while excluding adaptation. State archeological agencies and qualified heritage experts were consulted, and their recommendations were incorporated. Regulatory approval was obtained from Archeological Survey Department for the state protected monument. Requirements of safeguard policy statement were fully met with during implementation by (i) adequate consultations with the local communities besides those with archeological agencies and qualified heritage experts, (ii) strengthening of physical cultural resources by preservation works related to retarding deterioration and maintaining current status, and (iii) physical cultural resources were not removed or damaged so as to require salvage and documentation. Chance finds were not met with during implementation of heritage works.

3 Mission suggestions included: (i) Inclusion of schedule caste as vulnerable, and (ii) procedure for handling

resettlement cases where households could not be compensated due to their absence or refusal to receive compensation.

Appendix 7 43

12. Information disclosure and grievance redress: A grievance redress mechanism was set up wherein the city level committees chaired by district collectors also functioned as the grievance redress committees. Routine grievances were mainly related to removal of debris, backfilling of open pits, restoration of roads and footpaths, choking of drains, etc. The Project staff responded to these grievances in a reasonable time frame and obtained feedback from the complainants about resolution prior to closing the grievance log. In 2012, ADB responded to a complaint from an agency, Gharial Conservation Alliance, claiming regulatory non-compliance and inadequate environmental assessment in the IEE report for Dholpur. ADB investigated the complaint by obtaining additional information from IPMU, which confirmed that the intake works (not an ADB-financed subproject), being executed by the Public Health and Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan in Dholpur, was located within the boundaries of National Chambal Sanctuary. The ADB-financed water treatment plant at Dholpur sources raw water from a ground level storage reservoir, which receives water from the intake works. During ground truthing, ADB found that all requisite regulatory compliances had been obtained by Public Health and Engineering Department and were in order. Accordingly, the IEE reports were updated to include the National Chambal Sanctuary. Within a reasonable time, ADB consulted and obtained feedback from the complainant about resolution prior to closing the grievance log. 13. The MFF, including project 3, contributed towards improved environmental conditions in the 15 ULBs. The commissioned treatment plants are reported to be performing to the desired standards. The project inventions contributed towards improvement in environmental conditions, such as, (i) greater availability and access to safe potable water for over 93% population of project ULBs reducing time for water collection and for productive use of saved time for economic opportunities; (ii) reduced flooding in urban areas thereby saving periodic asset and income losses; (iii) wastewater and drainage interventions reduced breeding grounds for vectors and reduced incidences of water borne diseases by around 38% and improved health conditions besides improving water quality in water bodies receiving untreated wastewater; (iv) improved riding quality of urban roads with less traffic congestion, and fuel consumption, and (v) the solid waste collection and transportation interventions significantly improved the health conditions of the residents in all 15 ULBs, thus contributing to improved urban environment and quality of life. In the absence of environmental data on the baseline conditions or from the implementation and operation phases, the precise quantification of environmental health and safety benefits accrued cannot be arrived at. 14. Monitoring and reporting: The contract documents under the MFF, including project 3, included the environmental monitoring and management plans (EMMPs). The contractors’ staff were provided training to understand the requirements elaborated in the EMMPs. The overall implementation of EMMPs was improved through systematic execution of action plans identified during the review missions and semi-annual environmental monitoring reports. The areas of concern such as safety measures at sites, provision of basic amenities to laborers, housekeeping practices, etc. improved with increased monitoring and coordination. The environmental parameter test reports adequately captured the test results of air, water qualities and noise levels parameters and submission of semi-annual environmental monitoring reports were regular. These monitoring reports captured the status of regulatory compliances and implementation of EMMPs, etc. adequately, and were disclosed on ADB website. The project authorities confirmed that there are no outstanding issues and/or any court cases related to environmental safeguards at completion. Overall, environmental safeguard compliance, except for continued renewal of CTOs post-loan closure, was assessed to be satisfactory. 15. Conclusion and lessons learnt. Timely and full compliance to environmental safeguards requirements needs dedicated resources till the closure of the project, and beyond to ensure

44 Appendix 7

compliance with statutory requirements (continued CTO renewal after loan closure). The presence of environmentally sensitive areas that was overlooked during appraisal needs to be addressed through appropriate and continued due diligence involving a systematic and continuous approach in developing awareness, periodic capacity enhancement regarding environmental statutory requirements, and its application.

Appendix 8 45

GENDER EQUALITY RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

A. Introduction 1. Project 3 aimed to improve urban infrastructure and services, and institutional capacity for sustainable management of urban services in the 15 urban local bodies (ULBs). Community and gender-specific elements were mainstreamed in project design, with a focus on prioritizing access to slums, low income households and households headed by women (FHH). B. Gender Issues 2. The project preparatory phase included social, poverty and gender analysis to design gender mainstreaming activities. A socio-economic survey including gender-specific parameters was conducted for 1,650 sample households in three ULBs, and baseline data from primary and secondary sources was collected and collated. 1 Focus group discussions and structured interviews with women, FHH, in slums and low-income households were conducted to include specific concerns of vulnerable population. It was assessed that the existing basic services were of poor quality, and there was a wide gap in access to the basic services particularly for the poor and in slums. Further, the complex ecological factors, long spells of dry season with drought-like conditions resulting in migration further exacerbated the condition of women. The following gender issues were identified pre-project through the socio-economic and poverty assessment:

(i) Women were largely responsible for water collection and management, and lack of access and poor quality of water supply put an additional burden on women, especially the poor and those living in slums;

(ii) Women spent about 3-4 hours every day in collecting water, which increased during summers;

(iii) ULBs did not have a proper solid waste collection and disposal mechanism and women had an additional burden for disposal of solid waste;

(iv) There was prevalence of water-borne diseases such as diarrhoea, enteric fever and viral hepatitis. About 41% households in Jaisalmer and 46% in Alwar reported diarrhoea cases, which increased the burden on women vested with care of sickness in family; and

(v) Despite women playing a primary role in collection, transportation, and management of water resources and promotion of sanitary practices, their participation in decision-making in the sector was negligible.

3. Project 3 was originally categorized “effective gender mainstreaming”. In 2013, the Regional and Sustainable Development Department (now Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department) undertook a one-off bank-wide exercise to confirm the gender categorization of ADB projects, in line with some revisions to the ADB Gender Categorization adopted in 2012 after which the categorization of Project 3 was revised to “some gender elements”.2 Despite the revision of gender categorization, the gender action plan was revised in October 2016 in consultation with the investment program management unit (IPMU) to include specific, measurable, and time-bound indicators, and fully implemented.

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

Facility to India for the Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program. Manila. Appendix 9. 2 ADB. 2009. Project Classification System. Manila. Updated version: ADB. 2012. Guidelines for Gender

Mainstreaming Categories of ADB Projects. Manila.

46 Appendix 8

C. Gender Design Features and Relevance 4. The project aimed to address the gender issues with improved water supply, sanitation facilities and solid waste management especially in slums, low income households and women headed households that will result in multiplier benefits especially for women. The project incorporated community participation for enhanced awareness on basic urban infrastructure service management; and household sanitation, health and hygiene. It ensured that these activities promote gender equality by enabling community women to actively participate and benefit. The project also included a capacity building program to address the training needs of the implementing agencies specifically for staff of urban local bodies for socially inclusive and gender-responsive urban services. 5. The agency delivered on all gender activities, these were timely implemented and systematically reported. The activities have contributed significantly to the implementation of project outputs. Table 1 provides the gender equality results and achievements.

Table 1: Gender Equality Results and Achievements 3

Gender Equality Activities/actions Results and Achievements

Part A-Structured interview with selected urban local bodies (ULB) staff to identify slum and low-income households and households headed by women (FHHs) for improved access to urban services in project ULBs

1.1 Structured interview with selected ULB staff to identify slums, low-income households and FHHs for improved access to urban services in project ULBs

Slums, low-income households and FHHs identified in project ULBs

The number of households in slums, low-income households, and FHH were estimated for all 15 ULBs.

1.2 Ensure slums, low-income households and FHHs have improved access to basic urban services (water supply and solid waste management)

At least 25% of the 12,600 water meters installed in Baran and 10,500 water meters installed in Chittorgarh are in slums, low-income households and FHHs

10,539 consumer water meters installed or replaced in Baran of which 39% (4,113 are in slums, low-income households and FHHs, while 28% (2,953) of the 10,409 water meters installed in Chittorgarh are in target households.

At least 90% population provided with individual piped water connection in service areas and 95% population provided with individual piped water connection in slum/low income in Baran and Chittorgarh

Beneficiary population increased to 148,876 (95%) in Baran and 126,357 (95%) in Chittorgarh.

86% households in Baran and 84% households in Chittorgarh have access to individual piped water connections.

At least 25% of the total HHs covered with house to house municipal solid waste collection in all ULBs are from slums, low-income households and FHHs

As a practice, all ULBs have started door to door collection of solid waste.

Nearly 100% households have been covered with house-to-house collection including slums, low-income households and FHHs in 15 ULBs.

1.3 Engage community members and CBOs to identify issues and concerns on basic urban infrastructure services

At least two consultations held in each project ULBs with 33% women participation

370 consultations were organized across 15 ULBs to identify issues and concerns on basic urban infrastructure services, and water and sanitation management.

13,548 community members participated of which 53% were women. Women members expressed benefits as enhanced awareness on water and sanitation issues, institutional provisions, urban reforms, water conservation and management.

3 Consolidated progress report on gender activities submitted by EA

Appendix 8 47

Gender Equality Activities/actions Results and Achievements

1.4. Ensure that contract documents include relevant clauses on gender and core labor standards (including equal wages for work of equal value and prohibition of hiring child labor)

Provisions included with relevant clauses on gender and national core labor standards in 100% contract documents.

All bidding documents and ensuing contract agreements included provisions with relevant clauses on gender and national core labor standards.

Part B – Capacity Development and Investment Program Management

2.1. A gender focal point is designated in IPMU and assigned the responsibility of quarterly progress reporting of gender action plan

Gender focal point designated and assigned responsibility

A senior technical officer, Project Officer (coordination) was designated as gender focal Point to oversee and guide implementation, monitoring and reporting on gender activities.

2.2 Project ULB staff, implementing agency staff trained in socially inclusive and gender-responsive O&M services and financial management

At least 100 ULB and IA staff trained

26 trainings to over 90% staff of 15 ULBs and implementing agency were organized on gender issues in the sector, strategies for gender mainstreaming, gender activities in the project and on socially inclusive, and gender-responsive O&M services, and financial management.

1,419 staff including all (146) women project staff were trained. Benefits expressed include better understanding of gender issues and strategies to address the same through project interventions. These trainings resulted in improved implementation and reporting of gender activities, including maintaining of sex-disaggregated data.

2.3 Conduct community awareness campaigns on water, housing, sanitation and gender issues in all 15 ULBs; and on the need for preservation of historical and heritage sites in 6 ULBs

At least two community awareness campaigns held in each project ULBs with 33% women participation

3,418 awareness campaigns were conducted for 58,097 participants, of which 24,176 (42%) were women.

Four awareness campaigns were conducted in schools for preservation of heritage sites in four ULBs (Bundi, Dhaulpur, Karauli and Sawai Madhopur), in which 565 students participated, including 472 girls (83%). Students expressed benefits as enhanced awareness on heritage sites, details about the monuments, its historical and cultural importance and the need for their preservation.

D. Gender Equality Elements and Results 6. Key gender equality and social inclusion results and good practices under project 3 include:

(i) Identification of priority households for inclusion: Ward-wise identification of slums, low-income households, and FHH were undertaken in 15 ULBs to prioritize access to water and sanitation facilities to the low-income and marginalized households.

(ii) Reduced time poverty: The improved piped water supply benefitted 148,876 population (95%) in Baran and 126,357 population (95%) in Chittorgarh, helping women and girls with reduced burden and time involved in management of household water requirements. The saved time is utilized for other economic activities and skill-enhancement thereby increasing incomes of slum and low-income households and FHHs, besides increasing time for leisure, domestic and care activities.

48 Appendix 8

(iii) Reduced safety risks for women and girls: Augmentation of water supply and sewerage network facilitated improved sanitation conditions with sanitary toilets connected to sewer network. Households had little motivation to build toilets within their premises pre-project due to lack of proper sewerage system, forcing women and girls to open defecation that involved fear of violence and harassment. Improved sanitation facilities women and girls has resulted in felt dignified and safe.

(iv) Reduced expenses on household health care: With proper sewerage system, improved disposal of wastewater and nearly 100% coverage of door-to-door solid waste collection, women reported (a) cleaner environs in and around their houses, (b) reduced burden of solid waste disposal, (c) reduction in breeding of disease vectors, and (d) decrease in water-borne diseases like diarrhoea and hepatitis, especially in slums and low lying areas. Households have reported savings on health expenses and reduced expenses on cleaning septic tanks.

(v) Resource allocation for implementation of gender activities: IPMU designated an officer as the gender focal point responsible for overall supervision and implementation of gender activities. Community development officers in the project implementation units (IPIUs) in 15 ULBs were responsible for implementation, monitoring, data collation and reporting on gender activities. Quarterly updates were routinely provided. Having dedicated agencies, community action participation program (CAPP) and local NGOs for community-based interventions strengthened the capacity of the IPMU and IPIUs to conduct community mobilization activities effectively. These agencies were instrumental in generating social acceptability of sewerage services, motivating the community for house sewer connections, conducting awareness-raising activities on key water and sanitation issues, and strategies for water management and conservation.

(vi) Enhanced awareness and participation in decision making: Project 3 placed specific focus on consultation and community engagement, working collaboratively with communities especially the low-income households and in slums to prioritise their needs and develop a consensus on accepting the new water and sanitation options. Active participation of women in awareness-raising activities, community meetings, workshops, training and capacity building programs was ensured.

(vii) Human capital development with strengthened institutional capacity: Project 3 provided opportunities for capacity building of various stakeholders on gender issues and sensitivity. A total of 26 orientation workshops for IPMU, IPIUs and ULB staff were organized focusing on gender issues in the sector, strategies for gender mainstreaming and on socially inclusive and gender-responsive operations and maintenance of municipal services and financial management. Capacity building on gender issues resulted in improved implementation and monitoring of gender-based benefits. Activity wise sex-disaggregated quantitative data and qualitative information was systematically maintained and periodically reported.

E. Evidences of Project Outcomes on Women 7. Presented here are testimonies on the gender results of the project. These stories were collected by the IPMU and IPIUs through interviews with women beneficiaries and focus group discussion with the women during field visits. These experiences provide foresight into how the project has improved the quality of life of the community especially women and poor in the slums.

Appendix 8 49

Table 2 – Testimonies of Beneficiaries

Skill enhancement and income opportunities: Reflections of a woman plumber

While working as unskilled labor, wages were low. I got the opportunity to learn plumbing4 and started working in laying sewer connections. There are not many women plumbers, and I motivate other women to take skilled work. My income has increased, this would help in financing higher education for my daughter. ─ Kausalya, 36 years old, Churu

Enhanced safety and security Experiences of women in slums

We faced greater risks when we used to go out in the dark, either early in the morning or in the evening. Often, we had to wait for long hours to relieve ourselves which resulted in health problems. There was a fear of harassment too. Now with in-premises toilets, we feel safe and more dignified. ─ Draupadi and Madhu Nayak, Ambedkar Nagar, Sawai Madhopur

Cost and time savings: Experience of a woman bread winner

I am the sole bread winner after my husband passed away 10 years ago. Now there is clean drinking water in the house and the toilet is also connected with sewerage network. Earlier I spent long hours collecting water, that too of poor quality. I had a Kacchi Kuyi (sewage soak pit) but that was rarely used as I had to pay for its cleaning frequently which was above my means. I feel relieved and can devote more time for work. ─ Kalsum, 45 years, widow, Churu, Rajasthan

Increase in income: Experience of a woman shopkeeper

Earlier the wastewater from the kitchen and bathrooms used to flow in open drains, overflowing the road near my house and shop. This was a direct loss to my business as customers avoided my shop for purchasing daily needs. Now with improved sewer network the locality has become cleaner and approachable which has increased my sales and income. ─ Sharda, 44 years old, Indra colony, Jaisalmer

Household savings through improved sanitation facilities With proper sewerage system, improved disposal of wastewater and door-to-door solid waste collection the environment around the basti (neighborhood) is clean and hygienic. Now we do not have to go to the municipality dustbins to dispose household waste. The breeding of mosquitoes has become less; and there is decrease in frequency of illness like diarrhoea and hepatitis in the family especially among children. We save on health care bills and there is less absence from work. ─ Discussions with women beneficiaries in Churu, Chittorgarh and Jaisalmer

8. Overall the gender activities under project 3 have improved women’s access to safe potable water and sanitation facilities. Identification of low-income households and slums by ULBs at the outset facilitated in prioritizing improved access to safe drinking water. Improved sewerage system motivated households to build toilets within their premises; thereby reducing risks for women and girls during water collection, bathing, washing, and open defecation in unsafe places. 9. The community awareness sub-component was strategic as these activities not only facilitated in motivating the community for availing house connections in slums and low-income households but also oriented the community, especially women, about importance of water conservation and management for optimizing their household water bills, and thus improving the overall sustainability of the services. 10. Project 3 contributed towards enhancing capacities of ULBs’ and project staff in understanding of poverty mapping, gender and social inclusion issues, strategies for inclusion, participatory planning processes and management for socially-inclusive and gender-responsive municipal services.

4 Local plumbers were trained to expedite the sewer property connections efficiently. This provided opportunity to

plumbers to further enhance their skills with latest equipment and consecutively augment their incomes. Kaushalya was trained as plumber under the project.

50 Appendix 9

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES

Assurance Reference in

FFA Status of Compliance

Institutional and Financial Improvement Action Plan: The Facility funds are utilized effectively and efficiently to implement the Investment Program and achieve the objectives. State through LSGD will ensure compliance with the Institutional and Financial Improvement Action Plan, which are identified in Table 2 of Schedule 1.

For each ULB the institutional and financial improvement action plan that includes water, sewerage, solid waste tariffs and replacement substitute for property tax [Table 2, Schedule 1 to the FFA] is implemented on schedule.

Page No.6 Partly complied with. Funds have been effectively and efficiently utilized (paras.23, 34 and 41). Each ULB has implemented the IFIAP, and all tariffs are being levied, except for solid waste, which is charged by the outsourced agencies for door-to-door waste collection service but do not accrue to the respective ULBs.

Fiduciary Oversight. Accounts for each project will be audited by independent auditors whose qualifications, experience and terms of reference are acceptable to ADB and audit reports will be submitted to ADB within 9 months of the end of the fiscal years.

Page No.6 Partly complied with. Annual audits were conducted by statutory auditors and timely furnished to ADB, except for three fiscal years when it was delayed by up to 2.6 months (but within 6 months grace period). However, separate accounts for each project were not maintained and reconciled with LFIS, and the statutory auditor’s opinions were unclear.

Counterpart Funds. The State will ensure that sufficient counterpart funds are available from its budget for each fiscal year, in a timely manner, for the efficient implementation of the Projects under the Facility.

Page No.6 Complied with. $103.86 million counterpart funds were expended by the Government of Rajasthan (GOR) from the State budget, in a timely manner during the fiscal years of project implementation, under the Facility.

Sub-project Selection. All ULBs and subprojects therein are selected and processed for approval, the criteria and procedures included under Schedule 4 of this FFA, as agreeable to ADB, India and the State. The State will post the criteria for subproject selection and details of sanctioned contracts/subprojects on the State’s Investment Program office bulletin board and its website.

Page No.6 Complied with. All ULBs and subprojects were selected as per the criteria and procedures included under Schedule 4 of this FFA, which were reviewed and approved by ADB. All subprojects were publicly disseminated for bidding on office bulletin boards, local and national newspapers and IPMU website.

Safeguards. The projects under the Facility will be carried out in accordance with safeguard policies of ADB; and the Indigenous Peoples Development Framework, Resettlement Framework and Environmental Assessment and Review Framework and India’s and State laws as applicable to the Facility.

Page No.7 Complied with. The projects under the Facility were implemented in accordance with safeguard policies of ADB and laws of the land, as detailed in Appendix 7 of the FCR.

Appendix 9 51

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOAN COVENANTS OF PROJECT 3

Covenant

Reference in Loan or Project

Agreement Status of Compliance

Implementation Arrangements

The Borrower and the State through LSGD shall ensure that the Project is implemented in accordance with the detailed arrangements set forth in the PAM. Any subsequent change to the PAM shall become effective only after approval of such change by the Borrower and ADB. In the event of any discrepancy between the PAM and this Loan Agreement, the provisions of this Loan Agreement shall prevail.

LA, Schedule 5,

para. 1

Complied with. LSGD ensured that the Project is implemented in accordance with the detailed arrangements set forth in the PAM, with an inter-ministerial empowered committee, works finalization committee (WFC), city-level committees (CLCs), IPMU, IPIUs, IPMC and DSCs. Also refer para.27 of the FCR.

The Borrower shall procure that the State through LSGD shall ensure that the IPMU and IPIUs established for the Project employ sufficient staff with adequate and relevant expertise in the field of engineering, project management, financial management, procurement, and environmental and social safeguards assessment and implementation. The Borrower shall procure that the State through LSGD shall keep the IPMU and IPIUs equipped with the necessary office space, facilities, equipment, support staff and management information systems for the entire duration of the Project.

LA, Schedule 5,

para. 2

Complied with. IPMU and IPIUs established in Jaipur and 15 ULBs employed sufficient staff with adequate and relevant expertise in the field of engineering, project management, financial management, procurement, and environmental and social safeguards assessment and implementation. IPMU and IPIUs were equipped with necessary office space, facilities, equipment, support staff and management information systems for the entire duration of the Project. Also refer para.22 of the FCR.

Counterpart Funds

The Borrower shall make available to the State the proceeds of the Loan and shall on-lend such proceeds to the concerned ULBs under the Financing Arrangements as agreed.

LA, Schedule 5,

para. 3

Complied with. On-lending agreements were signed between the GOR and each of the 15 ULBs as per the agreed financing arrangements.

The Borrower and/or the State shall make available, through budgetary allocations or other means, all counterpart funds required for timely and effective implementation of the Project, Subprojects and Components, including any funds required (a) to meet any shortfall between cost and revenues for the operation and maintenance of the facilities created or rehabilitated under the Subprojects, during and after Subproject completion, (b) to mitigate unforeseen environmental and social impacts, and (c) to meet additional costs arising from design changes, price escalation in construction costs and/or unforeseen circumstances. The Borrower and/or the State shall make the resources thus required available on an annual basis for each fiscal year.

LA, Schedule 5,

para. 4

Complied with. All counterpart funds, including budgetary allocations and other means, required for timely and effective implementation of the project, including funds required to (a) meet any shortfall between cost and revenues for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the facilities created or rehabilitated under the subprojects, during and after subproject completion, (b) mitigate unforeseen environmental and social impacts, and (c) meet additional costs arising from design changes, price escalation or unforeseen circumstances, were made available on an annual basis for each fiscal year. Please refer paras.24, 40 and 42 of FCR.

Subproject selection and implementation

The State through LSGD shall ensure that all ULBs participating in the Project and Subprojects therein are selected, processed, and implemented in accordance with the Selection Criteria. The State through LSGD shall ensure that civil works for all Subprojects are synchronized with civil works for sewerage, water supply pipe laying, and drainage, as appropriate.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 5

Complied with. All ULBs participating in the project and subprojects therein were selected by the WFC and CLCs, processed, and implemented in accordance with the selection criteria. All civil works were synchronized with civil works for sewerage, water supply pipe laying, and drainage, as appropriate.

52 Appendix 9

Covenant



Institutional Reforms and Sustainability

The State through LSGD shall ensure compliance by all ULBs participating in the Project with the institutional and financial improvement plan (IFIAP), and for each of the concerned ULBs shall ensure that the IFIAP including water, sewerage, solid waste tariffs and replacement for property tax, is implemented on schedule in accordance with the FFA, including without limitation (a) that the water tariff collection rate in the concerned ULBs shall be at or above the level of 85% by the end of 3 years of the Effective Date; (b) that 90% of total population is connected to the piped water supply system and 100% of the connected customers are metered in the ULBs undertaking water supply Subprojects within 4 years of the Effective Date; and (c) for urban solid waste management Subprojects, that user charges are applied to cover no less than 50% of operation and maintenance costs within 1 year of Subproject completion in accordance with the IFIAP.


Partly complied. All tariffs, including replacement of property tax, is being levied (except solid waste management charges) in accordance with the FFA, including collection efficiency of more than 85% before the end of 3 years of the effective date; 95% of total population is connected to the piped water supply system and all customers connected under the project are metered within 4 years of the effective date. Solid waste management (SWM) charges were not levied by the ULBs as its residents did not benefit from SWM treatment and disposal facilities under the MFF (footnote 10 of main text), though door-to-door collection is being charged by the outsourced agencies. Also refer paras.21, 22, 33 and 39 of the FCR.

The State through LSGD shall ensure implementation on a timely basis of the key milestones in the Water Tariff Revision Roadmap in order to ensure that by December 2014 the water tariff level is sufficient to cover full operation and maintenance of the water operations for each concerned ULB in accordance with the FFA and IFIAP and this Loan Agreement, and shall include updates on the progress of such implementation in the quarterly progress reports to ADB as described in the PAM.


Complied with. A roadmap for water tariff revision was prepared, and revised water tariffs were notified on 5 November 2015, in accordance with the FFA and IFIAP and this Loan Agreement. Please refer paras.33 and 47 of the FCR. The status of its implementation is reported in the quarterly progress reports.

The State through LSGD shall ensure that the State Committee to be formed by September 2011 to establish and implement the planned water tariff, specified in the Water Tariff Revision Roadmap, shall give consideration to cost of operations and maintenance schemes in the concerned ULBs and to other social and economic factors specific to the concerned ULB.


Complied with. O&M cost and other social and economic factors specific to concerned ULBs were considered by State committee while revising water tariff. The State committee, formed for project 1 and project 2, was also entrusted with the responsibilities of project 3, in June 2011. Please refer paras.33 and 46 of the FCR.

For urban solid waste management Subprojects, the State through LSGD shall ensure that the concerned ULB shall make its best efforts to ensure that house to house collection is implemented in at least 50% of households served, and the State through LSGD shall initiate pilot programs in selected ULBs for establishment of segregation at source practices.


Complied with. Door-to-door collection is implemented in nearly 100% households and pilot programs for source segregation were taken up by select ULBs. Also refer para.21 of FCR.

For urban sewerage Subprojects involving sewerage networks, treatment plants and pumping stations, the concerned ULBs shall carry out, in pilot areas, a willingness to connect survey through consultants of potential sewerage beneficiaries to assess the willingness or constraint to take sewer connections.


Complied with. CAPP consultants were used to conduct surveys and mobilize community support for house sewer connections.

For urban sewerage Subprojects, the concerned ULB shall make all efforts to ensure individual

LA, Schedule Complied with. ULBs are providing house sewer connections in accordance with the

Appendix 9 53

Covenant



connections to sewerage facilities within the Subproject scope, as made mandatory in the relevant ULB in accordance with the IFIAP and the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

5, para. 11 IFIAP and the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. Over 60,000 house service connections have been provided.

For urban sewerage Subprojects where wastewater treatment plants are involved, IPMU will arrange a site visit by concerned ULB IPIUs to the tertiary wastewater treatment plant in Jaipur under Loan No. 1647 for the purpose of observing and assessing, in a report to ADB and the State, the replicability on a pilot basis in the concerned ULB of cost saving components of energy generation and tertiary water production


Complied with. Site visits to sewage treatment plant (STP) in Jaipur, developed under Loan No. 1647 were conducted for IPIU staff. Although energy generation was not undertaken under this project as STPs did not meet the required threshold, provisions for reuse of treated water were made.

Public Private Partnership Modalities

The EA shall ensure that the contractual documents under any PPP modality, in particular the extended O&M, build-operate-transfer (BOT), or performance-based management contracts, as applicable, are provided to ADB for prior review and approval, for use under individual Subprojects.

LA, Schedule 5, para. 13(a)

Complied with. ADB’s prior review and approval was accorded for all contractual documents, including those with PPP modality.

Following the practice established within ADB Loan No. 2366, the Project shall continue to adopt extended O&M contracts for sewage treatment plants, pursuant to which the contract for construction envisages and includes O&M by a private contractor for a period of 5 years after the date of completion of construction. PPP for other urban sub-sectors and of other modalities shall be further explored and developed in collaboration with the PPP cell established in the State under ADB TA No. 4890

LA, Schedule 5, para. 13(b)

Complied with. PPP modality and extended O&M contracts for a period of 5 years after the date of completion of construction were used for treatment plants.

Other Subproject specific requirements

The State through LSGD shall ensure that the specific subproject requirements set out in the PAM are complied with.


Complied with. Subprojects complied with specific requirements set out in the PAM and were approved by ADB.

Operations and Maintenance

The State through LSGD shall ensure that the concerned ULB staff shall be trained by the contractors and gradually take over the Subproject facilities. In this regard the IPMU and IPIUs shall ensure that an O&M plan will be developed for such Subproject facilities in each ULB. The O&M plan will also assess additional human and financial resources required by each ULB for smooth hand-over of Subproject facilities to the ULB


Complied with. O&M plan was developed and implemented wherein ULB staff were trained by contractors for gradual taking over of subproject facilities. Over 650 trainings were imparted to staff of 15 ULBs and state level bodies.

54 Appendix 9

Covenant



Safeguards and Social Issues

Environment

The State through LSGD shall ensure that

The Project is carried out and all Subproject facilities designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and monitored in compliance with the Safeguard Policy Statement, relevant national environmental laws and regulations, the IEE and the EARF for the Project and Subprojects; all mitigation and monitoring mechanisms set out in the IEEs or EIA and related EMP will be incorporated in the Subproject design and complied with throughout Project implementation; all environmental requirements are incorporated in bidding documents and civil works contracts, all environmental clearances required by applicable laws and regulations at Borrower, State or local levels shall be obtained prior to commencement of civil works for the relevant Subproject; and that environmental monitoring results are incorporated into quarterly progress reports;

LA, Schedule 5, para. 16(a)

Complied with. All subproject facilities were designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and monitored in compliance with the ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) and relevant national environmental laws and regulations. All subprojects were reviewed and approved by ADB. Please refer para.31 and Appendix 7 for details.

Subprojects encroaching any National Park or its buffer zone shall not be included in the Project; however, Subprojects in or close to wildlife sanctuaries or any other environmentally sensitive areas may be allowed subject to the State through LSGD obtaining all statutory clearances

LA, Schedule 5, para. 16(b)

Complied with. None of the subprojects encroaching any National Park or its buffer zone were included in the Project. All subprojects were reviewed and approved by ADB.

an IEE or EIA, as required, including an EMP with budget identifying the cost of its implementation as incorporated in the related bid document if any, with adequate public consultation for each Subproject, in accordance with the EARF and the Safeguard Policy Statement, shall be submitted to ADB for review and approval before award of any related contract; for any Subproject classified as A, this shall be subject to the 120 day public disclosure requirement under the Safeguard Policy Statement

LA, Schedule 5, para. 16(c)

Complied with. IEE or EIA, as required, including an EMP was prepared for each subproject with adequate public consultation, in accordance with the EARF and the SPS, and submitted to ADB for review and approval before award of related contract.

if there are any changes in specific locations or alignments of any Subproject facilities after completion of the IEE (or EIA) or due to detailed design or implementation that has an impact on the environmental assessment carried out thus far, then additional environmental assessment shall be carried out in accordance with environmental laws and regulations of the Borrower and the State, the Safeguard Policy Statement, and the EARF, and prior approval of ADB obtained before further physical implementation of the Subproject

LA, Schedule 5, para. 16(d)

Complied with. Additional environmental assessment was carried out in accordance with environmental laws and regulations of the Borrower and the State, the SPS, and the EARF, and prior approval of ADB obtained before further implementation of subproject in case of any changes in specific locations or alignments or environmental assessment.

all sewerage and sanitation Subprojects involving a sewage treatment plant under the Project shall be designed and implemented such that they include adequate effluent channels and a laboratory facility for effective monitoring of sewage treatment

LA, Schedule 5, para. 16(e)

Complied with. All STPs were designed and implemented with adequate effluent channels and laboratory facilities for effective monitoring of sewage treatment.

Appendix 9 55

Covenant



Land Acquisition, Resettlement

The State through LSGD shall ensure that (a) involuntary resettlement and land acquisition will be carried out in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of the Borrower, the State, the Safeguard Policy Statement and the RF; and to the extent possible, Subprojects will avoid and/or minimize land acquisition or involuntary resettlement; however, if land acquisition and/or involuntary resettlement are required for any Subproject, following actions will be ensured: the RPs and revised RPs based on detailed designs will be prepared, submitted to ADB for review and clearance prior to award of relevant contract(s), and disclosed to the public in accordance with the Safeguard Policy Statement; (b) sufficient funds to cover the costs of land acquisition and involuntary resettlement are made available in a timely manner and all land, rights of way and other land related rights required for the subprojects are acquired or made available in a timely manner; (c) all affected persons are compensated and/or resettled in accordance with the Borrower’s and State’s laws and regulations and the RP before physical or economic displacement occurs; (d) ensure that efficient grievance redress mechanisms are in place in accordance with the related RP to assist affected persons resolve queries and complaints if any, in a timely manner; and (e) implementation of RPs will be reported in the quarterly progress reports.


Complied with. Involuntary resettlement and land acquisition were carried out in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of the Borrower, the State, the SPS and the RF, with necessary prior approvals, clearances and disclosure as per SPS. Details are in para.31 and Appendix 7.

Indigenous Peoples

The State through LSGD shall ensure that all Subprojects will, as far as possible, have a minimal impact on indigenous peoples. If any impact is anticipated, the State will ensure that an IPP or integration of specific actions for the indigenous people in the RP is prepared in accordance with the Safeguard Policy Statement and the IPF and that the same is further (i) approved by ADB before award of related civil works contract, and (ii) implemented before commencement of related civil works contract and that the Subprojects shall further comply with related laws and regulations of the Borrower and State as agreed upon among the Borrower, State, and ADB.


Complied with. Indigenous People were not impacted during the implementation of the project.

Gender and Development

The State through LSGD shall ensure that Subprojects shall comply with and incorporate measures in accordance with applicable laws, policies and regulations on gender, the Policy on Gender and Development, and the Gender Action Plan.


Complied with. All gender activities were successfully completed and reported. The gender equality results and achievements are in Appendix 8.

56 Appendix 9

Covenant



Labor Law, Health and Social Protection

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


Complied with. Civil works contracts and bidding documents under the Project follow all applicable labor laws of the Borrower and the State, and reviewed and approved by ADB for compliance to provisions of loan agreement.

If any Project related facilities are located within the premises of a public school, the State through LSGD shall ensure that the concerned ULB shall construct and/or rehabilitate the existing toilet facilities with separate and adequate provision for female and male students.


Complied with. Provision of separate toilets in schools where project facilities are constructed is not applicable as all schools already had said facilities.

Procurement

The Borrower, the State through LSGD, the IPMU and IPIUs shall ensure that in all bidding documents and contracts, the anticorruption provisions mutually acceptable to ADB and the State acting through LSGD, are included including the right of ADB to audit and examine the records and accounts of the executing and implementing agencies and all contractors, suppliers, consultants, and other service providers as they relate to the Project


Complied with. ADB’s anti-corruption provisions, including ADB’s right to audit and examine records and accounts of executing and implementing agencies and all contractors, suppliers, consultants, and other service providers under the Project, were included in all bidding documents and contracts.

Grievance Redress and Project Website

Within 3 months after the Effective Date, the State shall ensure that IPMU shall expand the website established for the Facility (projects 1 and 2) to accommodate the Project and to disclose information about Project activities and procurement as set out in detail in the PAM.


Complied with. The website was functional for project 1 and project 2 and was expanded by IPMU within 3 months of the effective date for inclusion of project 3 and disclosure of information about project activities and procurement as set out in detail in the PAM.

Within 3 months after the Effective Date, the IPMU shall prepare a grievance redress mechanism, acceptable to ADB, and ensure that there is appointed an officer, with the requisite capacity, in each IPIU to receive, resolve or act upon, both independently and expeditiously, complaints, grievances or reports from stakeholders on misuse of funds and other irregularities relating to the Project or the specific Subprojects in the concerned ULBs, including but not limited to grievances due to resettlement. Each IPIU shall inform stakeholders of their right to submit complaints or grievances relating to the Project.


Complied with. With CLCs as the grievance redress committee with appropriately empowered designated officer, the grievance redress mechanism was functional in each project town before the effective date of the project.

Appendix 9 57

Covenant



The relevant Vigilance Commission may investigate any irregularities in the Project. This includes financial irregularities, as well as corruption of government officials and officers and employees of autonomous bodies.


Complied with. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), the relevant vigilance commission in Rajasthan, is the empowered agency, which reportedly did not receive any such complaints or cases pertaining to the project.

Use of Proceeds of the Loan

The Borrower shall make the proceeds of the Loan available to the State upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to ADB and the Borrower and shall cause the State to apply such proceeds to the financing of expenditures on the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Loan Agreement and the Project Agreement.

LA, Article III, Section 3.01

Complied with. Loan proceeds were applied to the financing of expenditures on the Project in accordance with the provisions of the Loan Agreement and the Project Agreement. Please refer paras.24, 40 and 42 of the FCR.

The Goods, Works and consulting services to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan and the allocation of amounts of the Loan among different categories of such Goods, Works and consulting services shall be in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 to this Loan Agreement, as such Schedule may be amended from time to time by agreement between the Borrower and ADB.


Complied with. All procurement financed out of loan proceeds and allocations among different categories were in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 of Loan Agreement and were approved by ADB.

Except as ADB may otherwise agree, all Goods, Works and consulting services to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan shall be procured in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 to this Loan Agreement. ADB may refuse to finance a contract where Goods, Works or consulting services have not been procured under procedures substantially in accordance with those agreed between the Borrower and ADB or where the terms and conditions of the contract are not satisfactory to ADB.


Complied with. All procurement financed out of loan proceeds and allocations among different categories were in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of Loan Agreement and were approved by ADB.

Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the Borrower shall cause all Goods, Works and consulting services financed out of the proceeds of the Loan to be used exclusively in the carrying out of the Project.


Complied with. All procurement financed out of loan proceeds were used exclusively in the carrying out of the Project and were approved by ADB.

The Loan Closing Date for the purposes of Section 9.02 of the Loan Regulations shall be 30 June 2015 or such date as may from time to time be agreed between the Borrower and ADB.


Complied with. The loan closing date was extended to close on 30 June 2017, as mutually agreed between the Borrower and ADB.

Particular Covenants in Loan Agreement

The Borrower shall cause the State to carry out the Project with due diligence and efficiency and in conformity with sound applicable administrative, technical, financial, business, engineering, environmental and urban development and public utility practices

LA, Section 4.01(a)

Complied with. The Project was carried out with due diligence and efficiency and in conformity with sound administrative, technical, financial, engineering, environmental and urban development practices, which were reviewed and approved by ADB.

58 Appendix 9

Covenant



In the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities, the Borrower shall perform, or cause to be performed, all obligations set forth in Schedule 5 to this Loan Agreement.

LA, Section 4.01(b)

Complied with. All obligations in Schedule 5 of Loan Agreement were carried out in implementation and operation of Project facilities and were reviewed and approved by ADB.

The Borrower shall make available to the State, promptly as needed, the funds, facilities, services and other resources which are required, in addition to the proceeds of the Loan, for the carrying out of the Project

LA, Section 4.02

Complied with. All requisite funds, facilities, services and other resources, besides loan proceeds, for the carrying out of the Project, were made available to the State.

The Borrower shall cause the State to ensure that the activities of its departments and agencies with respect to the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities are conducted and coordinated in accordance with sound administrative policies and procedures.

LA, Section 4.03

Complied with. Activities of concerned departments and line agencies were coordinated in accordance with sound administrative policies and procedures for project implementation.

The Borrower shall take all action which shall be necessary on its part to enable the State to perform its obligations under the Project Agreement, including the establishment and maintenance of tariffs as stipulated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 5 to this Loan Agreement, and shall not take or permit any action which would interfere with the performance of such obligations.

LA, Section 4.04

Complied with. The Borrower enabled the State to perform its obligations under the Project Agreement, including the establishment and maintenance of tariffs as stipulated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 5 to this Loan Agreement (discussed in preceding paragraphs), and did not interfere with the performance of such obligations.

The Borrower shall (a) maintain, or cause to be maintained, separate accounts for the Project; (b) 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; (c) 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 as well as on the use of the procedures for imprest account and statement of expenditures), all in the English language; and (d) 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.

LA, Section 4.05

Complied with. The Borrower enabled the LSGD to submit the requisite reports to ADB (discussed under PA, Section 2.09).

In relation to the Project, the Borrower shall exercise its rights under the Financing Arrangements in such a manner as to protect the interests of the Borrower and ADB and to accomplish the purposes of the Loan

LA, Section 4.06(a)

Complied with. The Borrower protected the interests of the Borrower and ADB to accomplish the purposes of the loan.

In relation to the Project, no rights or obligations under the Financing Arrangements shall be assigned, amended, abrogated or waived without

LA, Section 4.06(b)

Complied with. No rights or obligations under the Financing Arrangements were assigned, amended, abrogated or waived.

Appendix 9 59

Covenant



prior notice to ADB

Particular Covenants in Project Agreement

The State through the LSGD shall carry out the Project with due diligence and efficiency, and in conformity with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental and urban development and public utility practices

PA, Section 2.01(a)

Complied with. The Project was implemented with due diligence and efficiency, and in conformity with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental and urban development practices and was reviewed and approved by ADB.

In the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities, the State shall and shall cause the LSGD and other agencies to perform all obligations set forth in the Loan Agreement to the extent that they are applicable to the State, LSGD and other agencies referred therein.

PA, Section 2.01(b)

Complied with. All obligations set forth in the Loan Agreement to the extent that they are applicable to the State, LSGD and other agencies referred therein, were met.

The State through the LSGD, shall make available, promptly as needed, the funds, facilities, services, equipment, land and other resources which are required, in addition to the proceeds of the Loan, for the carrying out of the Project

PA, Section 2.02

Complied with. All requisite funds, facilities, services, equipment, land and other resources, in addition to loan proceeds, were made available for carrying out the Project.

In the carrying out of the Project, the State through the LSGD, shall employ competent and qualified consultants and contractors, acceptable to ADB, to an extent and upon terms and conditions satisfactory to ADB

PA, Section 2.03(a)

Complied with. Competent and qualified consultants and contractors, acceptable to ADB, to an extent and upon terms and conditions satisfactory to ADB, were employed to implement the project.

Except as ADB may otherwise agree, all Goods, Works and consulting services to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan shall be procured in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 to the Loan Agreement. ADB may refuse to finance a contract where Goods, Works or consulting services have not been procured under procedures substantially in accordance with those agreed between the Borrower and ADB or where the terms and conditions of the contract are not satisfactory to ADB.

PA, Section 2.03(b)

Complied with. All procurement financed out of the loan proceeds was in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of Loan Agreement. All procurement were reviewed and approved by ADB.

The State through the LSGD, shall carry out the Project in accordance with plans, design standards, specifications, work schedules and construction methods acceptable to ADB. The State through the LSGD, shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to ADB, promptly after their preparation, such plans, design standards, specifications and work schedules, and any material modifications subsequently made therein, in such detail as ADB shall reasonably request.

PA, Section 2.04

Complied with. The LSGD carried out the project in accordance with plans, design standards, specifications, work schedules and construction methods acceptable to ADB.

The State through the LSGD, shall take out and maintain with responsible insurers, or make other arrangements satisfactory to ADB for insurance of Project facilities to such extent and against such risks and in such amounts as shall be consistent with sound practice.

PA, Section 2.05(a)

Complied with. Insurance and other arrangements satisfactory to ADB for insurance of Project facilities to such extent and against such risks and in such amounts as was consistent with sound practice was ensured by LSGD.

60 Appendix 9

Covenant



Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the State through the LSGD, undertakes to insure, or cause to be insured, the Goods to be imported for the Project and to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan against hazards incident to the acquisition, transportation and delivery thereof to the place of use or installation, and for such insurance any indemnity shall be payable in a currency freely usable to replace or repair such Goods

PA, Section 2.05(b)

Complied with. Insurance against hazards incident to the acquisition, transportation and delivery thereof to the place of use or installation, and for such insurance any indemnity payable in local currency to replace or repair Goods procured out of loan proceeds was ensured by LSGD.

The State through the LSGD, shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, records and accounts adequate to identify the Goods, Works and consulting services financed out of the proceeds of the Loan, to disclose the use thereof in the Project, to record the progress of the Project (including the cost thereof) and to reflect, in accordance with consistently maintained sound accounting principles, its operations and financial condition.

PA, Section 2.06

Complied with. Detailed accounts and records of Goods, Works and consulting services financed out of loan proceeds, were maintained to disclose the use thereof in the Project, to record project progress (including financial) and to reflect, in accordance with consistently maintained sound accounting principles, its operations and financial condition.

ADB, and the State through the LSGD, shall cooperate fully to ensure that the purposes of the Loan will be accomplished

PA, Section 2.07(a)

Complied with. ADB and LSGD fully cooperated to ensure that the purposes of the Loan were accomplished.

The State through the LSGD, shall under intimation to the Borrower, promptly inform ADB of any condition which interferes with, or threatens to interfere with, the progress of the Project, the performance of its obligations under this Project Agreement or the financing arrangements, or the accomplishment of the purposes of the Loan

PA, Section 2.07(b)

Complied with. LSGD executed its obligations under the financing arrangements, Project Agreement, and to accomplish of the purposes of the Loan.

ADB and the State through the LSGD, shall from time to time, at the request of either party, exchange views through their representatives with regard to any matters relating to the Project, the State, and the Loan

PA, Section 2.07(c)

Complied with. ADB and LSGD exchanged views regularly during missions and tripartite portfolio review meetings to ensure that the purposes of the Loan were accomplished.

Insofar as it relates to the Project, the State through the LSGD, shall furnish to ADB all such reports and information as ADB shall reasonably request concerning (i) the Loan and the expenditure of the proceeds thereof; (ii) the Goods, Works and consulting services financed out of such proceeds; (iii) the Project; (iv) the administration, operations and financial condition of the LSGD; and (v) any other matters relating to the purposes of the Loan.

PA, Section 2.08(a)

Complied with. LSGD furnished to ADB all requisite reports and information, as agreed to or requested.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the State through the LSGD, shall furnish to ADB quarterly reports on the execution of the Project and on the operations and management of the Project facilities. Such reports shall be submitted in such form and in such details and within such a period as ADB shall reasonably request, and shall indicate, among other things, progress made and problems encountered during the quarter under review, steps taken or proposed to be taken to remedy these problems, and proposed program of activities and

PA, Section 2.08(b)

Complied with. Quarterly progress reports in such details and format on the operations and management of the Project facilities, progress made and problems encountered during the quarter under review, steps taken or proposed to be taken to remedy these problems, and proposed program of activities and expected progress during the following quarter, were submitted to ADB.

Appendix 9 61

Covenant



expected progress during the following quarter.

Promptly after physical completion of the Project, but in any event not later than three (3) months thereafter or such later date as ADB may agree for this purpose, the State through the LSGD, shall prepare and furnish to ADB a report, in such form and in such detail as ADB shall reasonably request, on the execution and initial operation of the Project, including its cost, the performance by the State through the LSGD, of its obligations under this Project Agreement and the accomplishment of the purposes of the Loan

PA, Section 2.08(c)

Complied with. Project completion report was submitted by LSGD within three months of physical completion of the Project.

The State through LSGD, shall (i) maintain separate accounts for the Project; (ii) have such accounts and related financial statements (balance sheet, statement of income and expenses, and related statements) audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing standards consistently applied, by independent auditors whose qualifications, experience and terms of reference are acceptable to ADB; and (iii) furnish to ADB, promptly after their preparation but in any event not later than 6 (six) months after the close of the fiscal year to which they relate, certified copies of such audited accounts and financial statements and the report of the auditors relating thereto (including the auditor’s opinion on the use of the Loan proceeds and compliance with the covenants of the Loan Agreement as well as on the use of the procedures for imprest account/statement of expenditures), all in the English language. The State through LSGD, shall furnish to ADB such further information concerning such accounts and financial statements and the audit thereof as ADB shall from time to time reasonably request.

PA, Section 2.09

Partly complied with. Annual audits were conducted by statutory auditors and timely furnished to ADB, except for three years when it was delayed by few months (but within 6 months grace period). However, separate accounts for each project were not maintained and reconciled with LFIS, and the statutory auditor’s opinions were unclear. Also refer paras.34, 50 and 51.

The State through the LSGD, shall enable ADB's representatives to inspect the Project, the Goods and Works financed out of the proceeds of the Loan, all other plants, sites, properties and equipment of the State, and any relevant records and documents.

PA, Section 2.10

Complied with. LSGD enabled ADB's representatives to inspect the Project during missions and whenever requested for, as also any relevant records and documents.

In so far as it relates to the Project, the State through the LSGD, shall promptly as required, take all action within its powers to maintain its corporate existence, to carry on its operations, and to acquire, maintain and renew all rights, properties, powers, privileges and franchises which are necessary in the carrying out of the Project or in the conduct of its business.

PA, Section 2.11(a)

Complied with. LSGD took all action necessary for carrying out of the Project or in the conduct of its business.

In so far as it relates to the Project, the State through the LSGD, shall at all times conduct its business in accordance with sound administrative, financial, environmental and urban development and public utility practices, and under the supervision of competent and experienced management and personnel

PA, Section 2.11(b)

Complied with. LSGD, at all times, conducted its business in accordance with sound administrative, financial, environmental and urban development practices, and under the supervision of competent and experienced management and personnel.

In so far as it relates to the Project, the State through PA, Complied with. All plants, equipment and

62 Appendix 9

Covenant



the LSGD, shall at all times operate and maintain its plants, equipment and other property, and from time to time, promptly as needed, make all necessary repairs and renewals thereof, all in accordance with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental, urban development and public utility, and maintenance and operational practices

Section 2.11(c) other property were operated and maintained in accordance with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental, urban development, and maintenance and operational practices.

Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the State shall cause LSGD, not to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any of its assets which shall be required for the efficient carrying on of its operations or the disposal of which may prejudice its ability to perform satisfactorily any of its obligations under this Project Agreement

PA, Section 2.12

Complied with. LSGD carried out its obligations under this Project Agreement satisfactorily.

Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the State through the LSGD, shall apply the proceeds of the Loan to the financing of expenditures on the Project in accordance with the provisions of the Loan Agreement and this Project Agreement, and shall ensure that all Goods, Works and consulting services financed out of such proceeds are used exclusively in the carrying out of the Project.

PA, Section 2.13

Complied with. All Goods, Works and consulting services financed out of such proceeds were used exclusively in the carrying out of the Project and were reviewed and approved by ADB.

Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the State shall duly perform all its obligations under the financing arrangements, and shall not take, or concur in, any action which would have the effect of assigning, amending, abrogating or waiving any rights or obligations of the parties under the financing arrangements

PA, Section 2.14

Complied with. None of the State’s obligations under the financing arrangements were assigned, amended or abrogated; and none of the rights or obligations of the parties under the financing arrangements were waived.

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

Source: ADB.

Appendix 10 63

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS A. Re-evaluation Scope, Methodology and Data Input

1. The economic internal rates of return (EIRR) to ascertain project efficiency for water supply, wastewater, urban drainage, and urban transport components were assessed upon project completion and compared with appraisal estimates. At appraisal, EIRR was computed for four sample interventions in three urban local bodies (ULBs) viz. (i) water supply in Chittorgarh, (ii) sewerage in Bharatpur, (iii) urban drainage in Sawai Madhopur, and (iv) urban transport in Sawai Madhopur. At completion, economic evaluation for all subprojects were undertaken, due to the economic significance of the interventions. The EIRR was not computed for the solid waste management component in Bundi as the intervention was dropped. Economic reevaluation also includes sensitivity analysis, at a 20% reduction of future benefits.

2. Financial analysis assessed the ability of the ULBs and line agencies to meet its operation and maintenance (O&M) costs out of its revenue streams and was undertaken for five sample ULBs (including Karauli, where water-supply facility has been handed over to the ULB).

3. The Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Rajasthan (GOR) operates the water supply system in the State, except for eight ULBs where the system had been transferred to the respective ULBs (which includes 2 project 3 ULBs of Nagaur and Karauli).1. The components of sewerage2 and urban drainage had been transferred to respective ULBs. Road-over-bridges (ROBs) have been transferred to Public Works Department (PWD), GOR. As the project 3 was not designed for capital cost recovery, operating ratios were calculated for the ULBs, and a review of the overall finances of Urban Development Department (UDD), PHED and PWD were undertaken.

4. The economic and financial analysis was based on ADB’s Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects (2017), Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Water Supply Projects (1998) and Financial Management and Analysis of Projects (2005). Detailed assumptions for the analyses has been narrated separately. Data from GOR, PHED, investment program management unit (IPMU), investment program implementation units (IPIUs) and ULBs were used for analyses. Census 2011 data, published by Government of India, were used for population projections. Project costs were derived from the disbursement summary for each package by ADB and GOR.

5. At the end of the project 3 and the MFF, interventions in multiple sectors resulted in increased economic benefits from availability of regular water supply (mostly migrated from ground water to surface water), linking of house septic tanks to sewer network (though house service connections were financed by the GOR), time savings in using the ROBs over the railway crossings benefitted the citizens and commuters and rehabilitation of some heritage structures. ULBs were given SWM, firefighting and sewer cleaning equipment, all of which were utilized, and some had outlived their economic life at the end of the project 3 and the MFF.

1 The staffs though transferred to ULBs, but their salaries and administrative costs are booked under the PHED, GOR. 2 All sewage treatment plants (STPs) transferred to ULBs are under operation and maintenance (O&M) contract with

the contractor for five years from the date of completion and payments for maintenance are the responsibility of the ULBs. ULBs supervise the O&M contract and the services.

64 Appendix 10

6. The project 3 costs (in $ million) include the disbursements made by ADB and the local costs incurred by GOR until 30 June 2017. The costs were converted to US Dollars at the exchange value on the date of disbursement and local costs incurred between 01 July 2017 and 30 November 2018 were converted at an average exchange value of ₹69.6049 = $1. The project costs at appraisal and at completion are in Table 10.1 below:

Table 10.1: L2725: Project Cost at Appraisal and Actual (By Sector) (in $ million)

Item

At Appraisal Actual

Foreign Exchan

ge

Local Curren

cy Total

Foreign Exchan

ge

Local Curren

cy Total Share

A Base Cost

1 Urban Infrastructure Improvement

Water Supply 13.60 13.60 12.89 12.89 16.96%

Sewerage and Sanitation 33.00 33.00 29.08 29.08 38.26%

Urban Drainage 0.80 0.80 6.13 6.13 8.06%

Urban Transport 1.90 1.90 13.96 13.96 18.37%

Solid Waste 5.10 5.10 2.17 2.17 2.85%

Fire Fighting 3.20 3.20 2.63 2.63 3.46%

Heritage 2.40 2.40 1.1 1.1 1.44%

Land Acquisition and Resettlement 1.70 1.70 0.05 0.05 0.06%

Unallocated 1.50 1.50 0 0 0.00%

Subtotal (1) 62.90 62.90 68.00 68.00


Incremental Administration 1.50 1.50 4.31 4.31 5.66%

Implementation Assistance 1.40 1.40 0.06 0.06 0.07%

Subtotal (2) 2.90 2.90 4.36 4.36

Subtotal 65.90 65.90 72.36 72.36

B Contingency 13.00 13.00

Physical Contingencies 5.10 5.10

Price Contingencies 7.90 7.90

C Tax and Duties 8.70 8.70 1.92 1.92 5.66%

D Financing Charges During Implementation

8.50 - 8.50 1.74 1.74 0.07%

Grand Total 8.50 87.60 96.00 1.74 74.28 76.02 100.00%


Financing Charges during implementation period obtained from http://aaad.gov.in/LoanLedg/A2725_IND.HTM for the Loan 2725-IND

7. At the end of the MFF, the total cost as estimated at appraisal and at completion of the three different projects were analyzed (refer Table 10.2). The cost of sector interventions were higher than that was estimated at appraisal, however, the total program cost was lower than the estimate mainly due to contingencies, higher allocations for taxes and duties as well as financing charges.

Appendix 10 65

Table 10.2: RUSDIP: MFF COST AT APPRAISAL AND ACTUAL

Item

At Appraisal Actual

Total Tr 1 (L 2366)

Total Tr 2 (L 2506)

Total Tr 3 (L 2725)

MFF Total

Total Tr 1 (L 2366)

Total Tr 2 (L 2506)

Total Tr 3 (L 2725)

MFF Total

A. Base Cost

Urban Infrastructure Improvement

Water Supply 20.60 53.10 13.60 87.30 24.66 53.30 12.89 90.85

Sewerage and Sanitation 4.50 45.30 33.00 82.80 16.05 48.07 29.08 93.20

Urban Drainage 1.40 4.40 0.80 6.60 0.88 2.46 6.13 9.47

Urban Transport 3.90 17.00 1.90 22.80 3.55 51.86 13.96 69.37

Solid Waste 3.20 - 5.10 8.30 1.47 - 2.17 3.64

Fire Fighting - - 3.20 3.20 - - 2.63 2.63

Heritage - - 2.40 2.40 - - 1.10 1.10

Land Acquisition and Resettlement

0.60 3.50 1.70 5.80 4.05 0.08 0.05 4.19

Unallocated - - 1.50 1.50 - - - -

Subtotal (1) 34.20 123.30 62.90 220.40 50.66 155.77 68.00 274.44

Capacity Development and Implementation Support

Incremental Administration 4.40 6.20 1.50 12.10 1.07 8.09 4.31 13.46

Implementation Assistance 12.10 10.20 1.40 23.70 5.30 11.12 0.06 16.48

Capacity / Institutional Development

1.00 2.20 - 3.20 - 0.09 - 0.09

CAPP / IEC 0.90 - - 0.90 0.43 - - 0.43

Investment Program Performance Monitoring System

0.20 - - 0.20 0.04 - - 0.04

Subtotal (2) 18.60 18.60 2.90 40.10 6.84 19.29 4.36 30.49

Subtotal 52.80 142.00 65.80 260.50 57.50 175.07 72.36 304.93

Contingency

Physical Contingencies 3.20 13.40 5.10 21.70 - - - -

Price Contingencies 5.80 26.90 7.90 40.60 - - - -

Tax and Duties 4.70 19.70 8.70 33.10 4.07 4.69 1.92 10.67

D. Financing Charges During Implementation

8.50 17.00 8.50 34.00 1.97 4.44 1.74 8.14

Grand Total 75.00 219.00 96.00 390.00 63.54 184.19 76.02 323.75

Source: Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Government of Rajasthan (GOR) – at close of all three individual projects/tranches

B. Economic Evaluation 8. For the purpose of economic analysis, the financial cost has been converted into economic costs by applying prescribed conversion rates, adjusting for contingencies, taxes and duties but excluding the financing costs (interest during construction and commitment charges).

I. At Appraisal 9. The selection criteria for the subprojects under project 3 considered an economic internal rate of return (EIRR) exceeding economic opportunity cost of capital (EOCC) of 12% for

66 Appendix 10

investments under project 3. The economic net present value (ENPV) for select subprojects, assessed during loan appraisal in 2010, were positive, applying discount rates of 12%. Sensitivity analysis indicated that EIRR was most sensitive to delays in realization of benefits, though EIRR remained above 12% in all sensitivity analyses. Negative impact on competing water uses during drought conditions were also considered while computing EIRR. The project life was assumed at 30 years. The shadow wage factor of 0.75 and the shadow exchange factor of 1.04 are applied to convert financial values to economic values. 10. At appraisal, the sample towns and sectors that were considered for the economic evaluation and the resultant EIRR were (i) 17.8% for water supply in Chittorgarh, (ii) 13.2% for sewerage in Bharatpur, (iii) 14.0% for urban transport in Sawai Madhopur, (iv) 16.4% for urban drainage in Sawai Madhopur, and (v) 25.2% for solid waste in Bundi.

II. At Completion

11. The approach used during appraisal was applied for the recalculation of the EIRR and compared with EOCC of 12%. However, the selection of the project towns was widened considering the economic significance of the interventions across the project towns, which also includes the towns and sectors evaluated during appraisal. For calculating population growth, the compounded annual growth rate of the population between Census 2001 and Census 2011 was used for projecting the population until 2038. 12. The economic viability of the project is evaluated over a period of 25 years, with no salvage value assumed thereafter. Cost benefit analyses were undertaken from completion of each subproject considering the actual cost of interventions. A shadow wage rate factor of 1.11 and shadow conversion factor of 1.0 were applied to convert financial cost to economic cost. The shadow exchange rate factor was taken at 1.03.3 Parameters assumed are drawn from the end-term evaluation report of the Investment Program Performance and Monitoring System Consultants, public surveys, field visits (during the project completion report Mission) and discussions with officials and local residents.4 Additional details of assumptions and summary of calculations are in Annexure 1 of Appendix 10.

13. Water supply: EIRR evaluation considered (i) the economic cost of interventions; (ii) average cost of procuring water from alternate sources; (iii) annual cost incurred for procuring water from alternate sources to meet the demand supply gap; and (iv) savings from water resource cost and health costs. Based on these assumptions the water supply interventions of Baran and Chittorgarh were assessed for economic viability.

14. Wastewater and urban drainage: EIRR evaluation considered (i) the economic cost of interventions, (ii) savings due to avoidance of flooding and attendant loss of livelihood; (iii) amount

3 Note: calculation method based on ADB. 2004. Shadow Exchange Rate for Project Economic Analysis. ERD

Technical Note Series No. 11. Manila. Average from 2012-2016 was 1.03. Source: Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy, 2016; Table:127; Table:100. SWRF is 1.11 = Casual Agricultural Labour Cost (₹ Per Day) or L = ₹213 / National Minimum Wage of Unskilled Labour (₹ per Day) or M = ₹192.00; (Source: Wage Rate for Rajasthan, NREGA and Minimum wage for unskilled labour in Rajasthan (2018), http://www.paycheck.in/main/salary/minimumwages/rajasthan)

4 During the PCR Field Missions spread over November 2018 to April 2019; the mission team held consultations with officials of PHED, ULB, and the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project and with local residents impacted by the project interventions

Appendix 10 67

of loss avoided in managing wastewater, (iv) savings in health costs. 5 Based on these assumptions the wastewater interventions of Bharatpur and urban drainage of Sawai Madhopur were assessed for economic viability.

15. Urban transport: Economic evaluation considered avoidance of income loss due to time savings. Data on time savings, movement of vehicles, and avoidance of accidents at crossings after completion of the transport interventions were sourced from the end-term evaluation report of the Investment Program Performance and Monitoring System consultants for evaluating the economic viability of transport interventions. Stakeholder interaction during the project completion reports mission also revealed the satisfaction with the transport interventions. Based on these assumptions the urban transport intervention in Sawai Madhopur was assessed.

16. Other sectors: The economic evaluation of the solid waste management intervention in Bundi was not undertaken at completion, as the component was dropped. Evaluation was also not carried out for firefighting and heritage components, as quantification and valuation of benefits (recreational and livelihood impact of people living nearby) is subjective.

III. Analysis and Re-evaluation of Findings 17. The EIRR to ascertain project efficiency for water supply, wastewater, urban drainage and urban transport components for all project 3 ULBs were assessed upon project completion along with the total intervention cost of the component at the close of the project, and is rated as efficient for the project 3. EIRR calculated at completion is higher than the benchmark value of 12%, justifying project 3 investments. Several indirect and direct benefits could not be quantified and hence have not been captured in the analysis, though qualitative assessments demonstrate their contribution in improving urban environment and quality of life of project 3 ULBs. The summary of EIRR for executed project components at completion is in Table 10.3. Table 10.3. Summary of EIRR at completion (all towns and components)

Component ENPV at

Completion EIRR at

Appraisal

EIRR at Completion

(Base)

EIRR at Completion (20% Reduction of

Benefits)

Water supply

Baran 5.13 Not assessed 19.6% 15.7%

Chittorgarh 12.78 17.8% 29.6% 24.5%

Nagaur 4.55 Not assessed 39.4% 34.6%

All Towns Combined 18.22 Not assessed 26.4% 21.9%

Wastewater

Bharatpur 3.21 13.2% 15.9% 13.1%

Churu 0.53 Not assessed 12.8% 10.2%

Chittorgarh 2.86 Not assessed 21.2% 15.2%

Jaisalmer 0.57 Not assessed 24.1% 19.7%

Karauli 0.84 Not assessed 13.8% 10.5%


Sawai Madhopur 1.00 Not assessed 27.3% 21.6%

5 Avoidance of septic tank construction cost ignored as it was found that sewer connections were given from the

existing septic tanks and all residents prefer to construct the septic tanks outside the house;

68 Appendix 10

Component ENPV at

Completion EIRR at

Appraisal

EIRR at Completion

(Base)


Benefits)


Urban Drainage

Sawai Madhopur 0.14 16.4% 14.5% 10.0%

Urban Transport

Sawai Madhopur 0.23 14.0% 14.2% 11.3%

Barmer 3.27 Not assessed 25.9% 22.9%

Chittorgarh 1.32 Not assessed 20.8% 18.3%

Churu 0.77 Not assessed 14.8% 12.9%

Dholpur 0.48 Not assessed 12.7% 10.9%


Rajsamand 1.26 Not assessed 16.4% 14.4%


Total Project 37.69 18.0%

EIRR = economic internal rate of return, ENPV = Economic net present value

18. EIRR at completion for water supply component in Chittorgarh was considerably higher than appraisal estimates, as beneficiaries’ welfare increased significantly beyond appraisal estimates, as also the resultant health benefits. In case of wastewater component in Bharatpur, EIRR is higher than appraisal estimates and is likely to significantly increase upon completion of the ongoing house service connections (HSCs), being provided using government funds. For urban drainage, the EIRR is lower than appraisal estimates as benefits covered a part of the population. EIRR for urban transport in Sawai Madhopur is higher than the appraisal estimates as the number of vehicles and people using the bridges marginally increased during the period between appraisal and completion. 19. In addition, analysis was carried out for the components at the close of the facility and a separate analysis for all facility costs at completion. At the end of the MFF, the economic viability of the sector interventions was reviewed for the three different projects under the MFF. It was observed that for core interventions in all sectors, the returns were higher than the required 12%. While the EIRR for water and urban transport has been high, returns on wastewater would improve with the completion of HSCs to the system. The results shown in Table 10.4 below: Table 10.4. Summary of EIRR at completion (components and facility)

Component ENPV at

Completion EIRR at

Appraisal

EIRR at Completion

(Base)


Benefits)

Water supply

All Tranches Combined 183.72 Not assessed 24.5% 22.4%

Wastewater & Drainage


Urban Transport


Entire Facility

Appendix 10 69

All Tranches and all Components Combined

298.81 Not assessed 19.64% 17.4%

EIRR = economic internal rate of return, ENPV = Economic net present value

C. Financial Evaluation

I. At Appraisal

20. Financial viability evaluation of the projects was considered for the entire MFF and financial sustainability analysis for ULBs under project 3 were carried out during loan appraisal.6 The weighted average cost of capital (WACC) was considered at 3.17%. The financial evaluation was carried out for water supply and sewerage projects of two ULBs – Chittorgarh and Bharatpur, and for solid waste management of two ULBs – Bundi and Sawai Madhopur. Financial evaluation was not carried out for the urban drainage, urban transport, firefighting and heritage. 21. The financial evaluation at appraisal for water supply and sewerage interventions considered water tariffs, sewerage cess, water demand assessment, the number of connections, and the gradual reduction of non-revenue water. The base financial internal rate of return (FIRR) was assessed to be (i) 13.4% for water supply and -4.7% for sewerage in Chittorgarh; (ii) 23.0% for water supply and 2.6% for sewerage in Bharatpur; and (iii) 14.9% and 18.3% for solid waste management in Bundi and Sawai Madhopur respectively. The evaluation also considered sensitivity analysis under situations of (i) capital cost + 10%, (ii) O&M Cost + 10%, (iii) benefit -10% and (iv) the worst case. 22. The analysis at appraisal concluded that O&M costs for sewerage subprojects would be fully covered by the proposed sewerage tariff. The analysis further concluded that for the water supply systems in the sample ULBs, with the proposed water tariff increase, the target established in the institutional and financial improvement action plan in the FFA requesting that water tariff levels be sufficient to cover full operation and maintenance of the water operation of each ULB, would be achieved.

II. At Completion 23. Except for the water supply systems in Nagaur and Karauli, the PHED continues to manage the water supply systems in other project towns. Sewerage cess are being collected incrementally as and when HSCs are provided by ULBs. GOR’s notification in 2015 introduced tariffs for water supply and sewerage with a proviso for an automatic annual increment of 10%.7 GOR re-notified water tariffs with effect from 01 April 2019.8 ULBs’ finances are strengthened by compensation grants (in lieu of Octroi-tax on goods, since abolished, and other taxes subsumed under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017) and transfers from State Finance Commissions (SFCs) and Central Finance Commissions (CFCs), which account for about 30-40% of ULB finances, of which up to 90% may be used for O&M of municipal assets.

6 Source: Periodic Financing Request dated 10 November 2010 7 PHED, GOR Notification No. F/FA&CAO/RWSSMB/Mission/2014-15, dated 05 November 2015 detailed water tariffs

for domestic monthly consumption up to 8,000 litres (₹1.56/KL), for consumption exceeding 8,000 litres up to 15,000 litres (₹2.00/KL), and others.

8 PHED, GOR Notification Np. F/FA&CAO/RWSSMB/Mission/2018-19/1450-1466 dated 08 March 2019. The recent notification revised to levy no water charges up to monthly consumption of 15,000 litres using up to 15 mm diameter pipes (there would be application of nominal fixed charges). For consumers using pipes between 15 MM and 25 MM, monthly charges would be applicable for consumption of more than 15,000 litres and it would be a flat charge.

70 Appendix 10

24. The overall performance of five sample ULBs under project 3 were considered to assess the financial capacity to manage urban infrastructure, as exhibited in tables 10.5 to 10.9. The audited annual financial statements of the ULBs that were prepared as part of the accounting reforms and implementation of double-entry accounting system were used for undertaking the analysis.

Table 10.5 Financial Performance of Karauli (in $ Million)

Particulars FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Own Source Revenue

Income from taxes 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

Fees & User Charges 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03

Other Income 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03

Assigned Revenue, Compensation, Grants, & Subsidies 0.27 0.29 0.32 1.33

Total Revenue (A) 0.34 0.34 0.39 1.38

Expenditure

Establishment Expenses 0.47 0.40 0.41 0.70

General Admin Expenses 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02

Other Expenses (Public Works, O&M Expenses, Programme Expenses)

0.02 0.03 0.01 0.77

Total Expenses (B) 0.51 0.45 0.46 1.48

Revenue Surplus / (Deficit) (A) - (B) (0.17) (0.11) (0.07) (0.10)

Operating Ratio [Operating Expense or (B) / Revenue Receipts or (A)]

1.51 1.32 1.18 1.07

Share of Own Source Revenue of Total Revenue 20.51% 14.44% 17.74% 4.07%

Table 10.6 Financial Performance of Jaisalmer (in $ Million)


Own Source Revenue

Income from Taxes 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.01


Other Income 2.56 1.60 2.20 1.27


Total Revenue (A) 3.63 2.85 3.50 2.88

Expenditure




0.17 0.18 0.24 0.74

Total Expenses (B) 1.55 1.44 1.32 2.26

Revenue Surplus / (Deficit) (A) - (B) 2.08 1.41 2.18 0.62


0.43 0.51 0.38 0.78


Appendix 10 71

Table 10.7 Financial Performance of Chittorgarh (in $ Million)

Particulars FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Own Source Revenue



Other Income 1.00 0.50 2.34 3.32

Assigned Revenue, Compensation, Grants, & Subsidies 2.06 2.27 2.20 2.54 Total Revenue (A) 6.55 3.55 5.02 6.55

Expenditure




1.28 1.31 1.08 1.66

Total Expenses (B) 3.28 3.47 3.54 4.56



0.50 0.98 0.71 0.70


Table 10.8 Financial Performance of Barmer (in $ Million)


Own Source Revenue



Other Income 0.16 0.58 0.24 0.74


Total Revenue (A) 3.13 3.81 2.20 2.62

Expenditure




0.12 0.12 0.14 0.37

Total Expenses (B) 2.71 2.64 2.40 2.60

Revenue Surplus / (Deficit) (A) - (B) 0.42 1.18 (0.20) 0.01


0.87 0.69 1.09 0.99


Table 10.9 Financial Performance of Rajsamand (in $ Million)


Own Source Revenue



Other Income 0.09 0.28 0.37 0.39


Total Revenue (A) 2.49 1.98 2.88 2.90

72 Appendix 10


Expenditure




0.97 0.51 0.35 0.37

Total Expenses (B) 1.87 1.54 1.83 2.25



0.75 0.78 0.64 0.77


Source: Audited annual financial statements of ULBs and ADB Estimates; Conversion at an average exchange value of ₹69.6049 = $1.

25. For the ULBs, in most of the years analyzed the operating ratio is less than 1.0 indicating that the ULBs have the financial capacity to meet its operating expenses out of its internal revenue and assigned compensations. With the implementation of the Fourteenth CFC recommendations, the Centre is transferring 42% of the divisible pool as untied and non-conditional grants, while the share of ULBs from GOR has also increased. The introduction of fiscal reforms in the last two financial years, at Centre and State Government levels in the form of Goods and Service Tax, which subsumed many local body taxes like entry tax, octroi, and advertisement tax (most levied by the ULBs across India), is also being compensated by the Centre and GOR. 26. The financial performance of the Urban Development Department, GOR was considered (refer Table 10.10) to assess the expenditure capacity and the capacity of the Department to support ULBs out of the GOR’s budget allocation.

Table 10.10: Urban Development Department (in $ Million)

Particulars FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Revenue & Receipts

1. Revenue Receipts (0217) 0.73 0.76 1.14 0.78 2.63 1.01

2. Loans and Borrowings (6217) 0.37 0.91 5.61 0.38 1.66 0.65

1.10 1.68 6.75 1.16 4.30 1.65

Expenditure

3. Revenue Expenditure (2217) = A + B + C 357.03 350.43 368.92 460.84 680.18 603.86

A. Non-Plan Expenditure / Out of State Funds/a 206.50 231.08 226.23 297.95 325.06 544.97

B. Plan Expenditure / Out of Central Funds/b 150.44 119.24 142.68 162.89 355.12 58.89

C. Centrally Sponsored Schemes Expenditure 0.09 0.12 - - - -

4. Capital Expenditure (4217) = A + B + C 141.84 154.10 75.34 68.59 127.13 132.69

A. Non-Plan Expenditure / Out of State Funds/a - - - - 0.58 93.63



5. Expenditure out of Loans and Borrowings (6217) = A + B + C

5.95 12.26 38.69 26.66 25.21 17.76

A. Non-Plan Expenditure / Out of State Funds/a - 0.36 - - - 17.76

B. Plan Expenditure / Out of Central Funds/b 5.95 11.90 38.69 26.66 25.21 -

C. Centrally Sponsored Schemes Expenditure - - - - - -

Appendix 10 73

Source: GOR Annual Financial Statements, relevant budget codes are 0217, 2217, 4217 and 6217. /a, /b Federal and State Governments discontinued presentation of annual financial statements and budget documents showing "plan" and "non-plan" items and instead adopted presentation of "revenue" and "capital" expenditure, effective Fiscal Year 2017-18; hence, expenditures were reported under "Out of State Funds" and "Out of Central Funds"

Conversion at an average exchange value of ₹69.6049 = $1

27. The overall performance of the PHED as a whole was also analyzed (refer Table 10.11) to assess the capacity to manage all assets, created out of ADB funds and other funds across the State of Rajasthan. Table 10.11: Public Health Engineering Department (in $ Million)


Revenue & Receipts


2. Loans and Borrowings (6215) - - - - - -

Total Revenue 37.48 36.93 39.97 54.15 79.31 90.49

Expenditure

3. Revenue Expenditure (2215) = A + B + C 245.87 266.88 300.15 349.03 380.38 435.78


B. Plan Expenditure / Out of Central Funds/b (0.15) 0.62 (0.23) 0.84 1.81 0.10


4. Capital Expenditure (4215) = A + B + C 179.41 399.70 651.38 634.22 607.86 665.28

A. Non-Plan Expenditure / Out of State Funds/a 1.75 1.62 1.41 (0.22) 1.01 538.81



5. Expenditure out of Loans and Borrowings (6215) = A + B + C

- - - - - -

Source: GOR Annual Financial Statements, relevant budget codes are 0215, 2215, 4215 and 6215. /a, /b Federal and State Governments discontinued presentation of annual financial statements and budget documents showing "plan" and "non-plan" items and instead adopted presentation of "revenue" and "capital" expenditure, effective Fiscal Year 2017-18; hence, expenditures were reported under "Out of State Funds" and "Out of Central Funds"

Conversion at an average exchange value of ₹ 69.6049 = $1

28. The overall performance of the PWD as a whole was also analyzed (refer Table 10.12) to assess the capacity to manage all assets, created out of ADB funds and other funds across the State of Rajasthan. Table 10.12: Public Works Department (in $ Million)


Revenue & Receipts



3. Loans and Borrowings - - - - - -

8.81 10.63 11.43 15.09 13.17 16.82

Expenditure

3. Revenue Expenditure (2059, 3054) = A + B + C + D + E + F

195.07 218.84 235.21 207.26 225.93 239.48

74 Appendix 10

Code 2059


B. Plan Expenditure / Out of Central Funds/b 0.14 - 0.02 0.06 0.12 -


Code 3054

D. Non-Plan Expenditure / Out of State Funds/a 115.45 135.40 141.42 92.14 85.19 144.51

E. Plan Expenditure / Out of Central Funds/b 61.77 71.93 82.94 95.44 118.70 86.41

F. Centrally Sponsored Schemes Expenditure - - - - - -

4. Capital Expenditure (4059, 5054) = A + B + C + D + E + F

229.61 362.69 454.63 488.68 397.58 708.91

Code 4059

A. Non-Plan Expenditure / Out of State Funds/a 1.51 2.10 - - - -


C. Centrally Sponsored Schemes Expenditure 0.27 0.86 60.71 48.84 46.60 7.03

Code 5054

D. Non-Plan Expenditure / Out of State Funds/a - - - - - 526.29

E. Plan Expenditure / Out of Central Funds/b 190.14 307.05 392.22 439.74 350.85 131.58

F. Centrally Sponsored Schemes Expenditure 14.47 15.71 - - - -

5. Expenditure out of Loans and Borrowings = A + B + C

- - - - - -

A. Non-Plan Expenditure / Out of State Funds/a - - - - - -

B. Plan Expenditure / Out of Central Funds/b - - - - - -


Source: GOR Annual Financial Statements, relevant budget codes are 0059, 1054, 2059, 3054, 4059 and 5054.

/a, /b Federal and State Governments discontinued presentation of annual financial statements and budget documents showing "plan" and "non-plan" items and instead adopted presentation of "revenue" and "capital" expenditure, effective Fiscal Year 2017-18; hence, expenditures were reported under "Out of State Funds" and "Out of Central Funds"

Conversion at an average exchange value of ₹69.6049 = $1

I. Analysis and Re-evaluation Findings

29. The water supply, sewerage, urban transport, drainage and firefighting interventions have been necessary to provide basic services to the citizens and for environmental sustainability and protection by reducing (i) ground water depletion, (ii) discharge of untreated wastewater to water bodies, (iii) fuel consumption, travel time within ULBs and road traffic accidents, and (iv) fire hazards. With the recent changes in GOR policies (implementation of pro-poor water and sewerage tariffs) and introduction of Goods and Service Tax (unified indirect taxes) at the national level, the Centre and GOR duly fulfill their obligations mandated by the Article 243X of the Constitution of India, by consistent and timely support toward O&M of municipal assets, including project assets, and ensure citizens have continued access to basic urban services. Fiscal reforms and policies at both the GOR and ULB levels, and innovative taxes and charges at the ULB levels, such as value capture financing, destination-based charges on display of commercial and non-commercial hoardings/billboards, could be leveraged to strengthen municipal services delivery and governance.

Annexure Appendix 10 75

Summary of EIRR Calculations

1. Water Supply: The assumptions used for EIRR calculations were:

(i) Population coverage based on DMF/IPPMS/Field observation. (ii) Average cost of procuring safe water Estimated based on The World Bank (2017):

Waterlife - Improving Access to Safe Drinking Water in India (iii) Tariff on Additional Water (assumed based on consultation with officials during field

mission) (iv) Incidence of Water/Vector borne diseases estimated based on National Health Profile

(2016, 2017, 2018) published by Government of India and Saxena & Chabra (2004): A status survey of common water-borne diseases in desert city Bikaner (NW Rajasthan, India), Journal of Communicative Diseases, 36(1)

(v) Average Annual Income Loss of Households due to Sick Days estimated based on The World Bank (2017), KEIIP Study (2008), Government of India (2005): Burden of Diseases, National Commission on Macroeconomics and Health

EIRR: Chittorgarh Water Supply ($ million)

Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost:

CAPEX O&M Cost

Total Cost

Benefit: Resource

Cost Savings

Benefit: Avoidance of Income Loss

due to decreasing sick-days

Total Benefits

Net Benefits

1 2010 1.77

1.77

- -1.77 2 2011 1.77

1.77

- -1.77

3 2012 1.77

1.77

- -1.77 4 2013 1.77

1.77

- -1.77

5 2014

0.44 0.44 0.44 2.94 3.38 2.94 6 2015

0.44 0.44 0.66 3.00 3.66 3.22

7 2016

0.44 0.44 0.67 3.06 3.73 3.29 8 2017

0.44 0.44 0.68 3.11 3.80 3.36

9 2018

0.44 0.44 0.70 3.17 3.87 3.43 10 2019

0.44 0.44 0.71 3.23 3.95 3.51

11 2020

0.44 0.44 0.72 3.30 4.02 3.58 12 2021

0.44 0.44 0.74 3.36 4.10 3.66

13 2022

0.44 0.44 0.75 3.43 4.18 3.74 14 2023

0.44 0.44 0.77 3.49 4.26 3.82

15 2024

0.44 0.44 0.78 3.56 4.34 3.90 16 2025

0.44 0.44 0.80 3.63 4.42 3.98

17 2026

0.44 0.44 0.81 3.70 4.51 4.07 18 2027

0.44 0.44 0.83 3.77 4.60 4.16

19 2028

0.44 0.44 0.84 3.84 4.68 4.24 20 2029

0.44 0.44 0.86 3.91 4.77 4.33

21 2030

0.44 0.44 0.88 3.99 4.87 4.43 22 2031

0.44 0.44 0.89 4.07 4.96 4.52

23 2032

0.44 0.44 0.91 4.14 5.05 4.62 24 2033

0.44 0.44 0.93 4.22 5.15 4.71

25 2034

0.44 0.44 0.95 4.30 5.25 4.81 26 2035

0.44 0.44 0.96 4.39 5.35 4.91

27 2036

0.44 0.44 0.98 4.47 5.45 5.02 28 2037

0.44 0.44 1.00 4.56 5.56 5.12

29 2038

0.44 0.44 1.02 4.65 5.67 5.23 Total 7.10 10.99 18.08 20.30 93.28 113.58 95.49 ENPV 5.39 3.45 7.58 5.62 26.42 20.36 12.78 EIRR

29.59%

76 Appendix 10 Annexure

EIRR: Baran Water Supply ($ million)

Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost:

CAPEX O&M Cost

Total Cost

Benefit: Resource

Cost Savings



Total Benefits

Net Benefits

1 2010 1.54

1.54

- -1.54 2 2011 1.54

1.54

- -1.54

3 2012 1.54

1.54

- -1.54 4 2013 1.54

1.54

- -1.54

5 2014

0.35 0.35 0.26 1.33 1.59 1.24 6 2015

0.35 0.35 0.41 1.38 1.79 1.44

7 2016

0.35 0.35 0.42 1.44 1.86 1.51 8 2017

0.35 0.35 0.44 1.50 1.94 1.59

9 2018

0.35 0.35 0.46 1.56 2.02 1.67 10 2019

0.35 0.35 0.48 1.63 2.11 1.75

11 2020

0.35 0.35 0.50 1.70 2.19 1.84 12 2021

0.35 0.35 0.52 1.77 2.28 1.93

13 2022

0.35 0.35 0.54 1.84 2.38 2.02 14 2023

0.35 0.35 0.56 1.91 2.48 2.12

15 2024

0.35 0.35 0.58 1.99 2.58 2.22 16 2025

0.35 0.35 0.61 2.08 2.68 2.33

17 2026

0.35 0.35 0.63 2.16 2.80 2.44 18 2027

0.35 0.35 0.66 2.25 2.91 2.56

19 2028

0.35 0.35 0.69 2.34 3.03 2.68 20 2029

0.35 0.35 0.72 2.44 3.16 2.80

21 2030

0.35 0.35 0.75 2.54 3.29 2.93 22 2031

0.35 0.35 0.78 2.65 3.42 3.07

23 2032

0.35 0.35 0.81 2.76 3.57 3.21 24 2033

0.35 0.35 0.84 2.87 3.71 3.36

25 2034

0.35 0.35 0.88 2.99 3.87 3.51 26 2035

0.35 0.35 0.91 3.11 4.03 3.67

27 2036

0.35 0.35 0.95 3.24 4.19 3.84 28 2037

0.35 0.35 0.99 3.38 4.37 4.01

29 2038

0.35 0.35 1.03 3.52 4.55 4.19 Total 6.16 8.85 15.00 16.40 56.39 72.80 57.79 ENPV 4.67 2.78 6.44 4.04 14.17 11.57 5.13 EIRR

19.64%


2. Wastewater and Urban Drainage: The assumptions used for EIRR calculations were:

(i) Population coverage estimated based on DMF/field observations. (ii) Incidence of water/vector borne diseases estimated based on National Health Profile

(2016, 2017, 2018) published by Government of India and Saxena & Chabra (2004): A status survey of common water-borne diseases in desert city Bikaner (NW Rajasthan, India), Journal of Communicative Diseases, 36(1).

(iii) Average expenditure for treating water/vector borne diseases - estimated based on The World Bank (2017): Waterlife - Improving access to safe drinking water in India.

(iv) Number of days by which absence from work is reduced (assumption based on consultation).

(v) Percentage of Households Affected by Flooding/Water Logging - Assumption based on consultation.

EIRR: Bharatpur Wastewater ($ million)

Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost:

CAPEX O&M Cost

Total Cost

Benefit: Savings in Health Cost

Benefit: Avoidance of

Loss of Income Total

Benefits Net

Benefits 1 2010 1.97

1.97

- -1.97

2 2011 1.97

1.97

- -1.97 3 2012 1.97

1.97

- -1.97

4 2013 1.97

1.97

- -1.97 5 2014 1.97

1.97

- -1.97

6 2015

0.34 0.34 2.10 0.12 2.21 1.87 7 2016

0.34 0.34 2.14 0.12 2.26 1.92

8 2017

0.34 0.34 2.18 0.12 2.31 1.97 9 2018

0.34 0.34 2.23 0.13 2.36 2.01

10 2019

0.34 0.34 2.28 0.13 2.40 2.06 11 2020

0.34 0.34 2.32 0.13 2.45 2.11

12 2021

0.34 0.34 2.37 0.13 2.51 2.17 13 2022

0.34 0.34 2.42 0.14 2.56 2.22

14 2023

0.34 0.34 2.47 0.14 2.61 2.27 15 2024

0.34 0.34 2.52 0.14 2.67 2.33

16 2025

0.34 0.34 2.58 0.15 2.72 2.38 17 2026

0.34 0.34 2.63 0.15 2.78 2.44

18 2027

0.34 0.34 2.69 0.15 2.84 2.50 19 2028

0.34 0.34 2.74 0.15 2.90 2.56

20 2029

0.34 0.34 2.80 0.16 2.96 2.62 21 2030

0.34 0.34 2.86 0.16 3.02 2.68

22 2031

0.34 0.34 2.92 0.16 3.08 2.74 23 2032

0.34 0.34 2.98 0.17 3.15 2.81

24 2033

0.34 0.34 3.04 0.17 3.21 2.87 25 2034

0.34 0.34 3.10 0.17 3.28 2.94

26 2035

0.34 0.34 3.17 0.18 3.35 3.01 27 2036

0.34 0.34 3.23 0.18 3.42 3.08

28 2037

0.34 0.34 3.30 0.19 3.49 3.15 29 2038

0.34 0.34 3.37 0.19 3.56 3.22

30 2039

0.34 0.34 3.44 0.19 3.64 3.29 31 2040

0.34 0.34 3.51 0.20 3.71 3.37

32 2041

0.34 0.34 3.59 0.20 3.79 3.45 33 2042

0.34 0.34 3.66 0.21 3.87 3.53

34 2043

0.34 0.34 3.74 0.21 3.95 3.61 35 2044

0.34 0.34 3.82 0.21 4.03 3.69

Total 9.87 10.22 20.09 86.20 4.86 91.06 70.97 ENPV 7.12 2.74 8.67 19.83 1.12 11.89 3.21 EIRR

15.90%


EIRR: Churu Wastewater ($ million)

Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost:

CAPEX O&M Cost

Total Cost

Benefit: Savings in

Health Cost



Benefits Net

Benefits 1 2010 1.33

1.33

- -1.33

2 2011 1.33

1.33

- -1.33 3 2012 1.33

1.33

- -1.33

4 2013 1.33

1.33

- -1.33 5 2014 1.33

1.33

- -1.33

6 2015

0.23 0.23 1.16 0.07 1.23 1.00 7 2016

0.23 0.23 1.18 0.07 1.25 1.02

8 2017

0.23 0.23 1.20 0.07 1.27 1.04 9 2018

0.23 0.23 1.22 0.07 1.29 1.06

10 2019

0.23 0.23 1.24 0.07 1.31 1.08 11 2020

0.23 0.23 1.26 0.07 1.33 1.10

12 2021

0.23 0.23 1.28 0.07 1.35 1.13 13 2022

0.23 0.23 1.30 0.07 1.38 1.15

14 2023

0.23 0.23 1.32 0.07 1.40 1.17 15 2024

0.23 0.23 1.35 0.08 1.42 1.19

16 2025

0.23 0.23 1.37 0.08 1.45 1.22 17 2026

0.23 0.23 1.39 0.08 1.47 1.24

18 2027

0.23 0.23 1.42 0.08 1.49 1.27 19 2028

0.23 0.23 1.44 0.08 1.52 1.29

20 2029

0.23 0.23 1.46 0.08 1.55 1.32 21 2030

0.23 0.23 1.49 0.08 1.57 1.34

22 2031

0.23 0.23 1.51 0.09 1.60 1.37 23 2032

0.23 0.23 1.54 0.09 1.62 1.39

24 2033

0.23 0.23 1.56 0.09 1.65 1.42 25 2034

0.23 0.23 1.59 0.09 1.68 1.45

26 2035

0.23 0.23 1.61 0.09 1.71 1.48 27 2036

0.23 0.23 1.64 0.09 1.73 1.51

28 2037

0.23 0.23 1.67 0.09 1.76 1.53 29 2038

0.23 0.23 1.70 0.10 1.79 1.56

30 2039

0.23 0.23 1.73 0.10 1.82 1.59 31 2040

0.23 0.23 1.75 0.10 1.85 1.62

32 2041

0.23 0.23 1.78 0.10 1.88 1.65 33 2042

0.23 0.23 1.81 0.10 1.91 1.69

34 2043

0.23 0.23 1.84 0.10 1.95 1.72 35 2044

0.23 0.23 1.87 0.11 1.98 1.75

Total 6.64 6.87 13.50 44.70 2.52 47.22 33.71 ENPV 4.78 1.84 5.83 10.62 0.60 6.36 0.53 EIRR

12.79%


EIRR: Sawai Madhopur Urban Drainage ($ million)

Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost:

CAPEX O&M Cost

Total Cost

Benefit: Saving in

Health Cost



Benefits Net Benefits 1 2010 0.23

0.23

- (0.23)

2 2011 0.23

0.23

- (0.23) 3 2012 0.23

0.23

- (0.23)

4 2013

0.08 0.08 0.16 0.02 0.18 0.10 5 2014

0.08 0.08 0.16 0.02 0.18 0.10

6 2015

0.08 0.08 0.16 0.02 0.19 0.11 7 2016

0.08 0.08 0.17 0.02 0.19 0.11

8 2017

0.08 0.08 0.17 0.02 0.19 0.11 9 2018

0.08 0.08 0.17 0.02 0.20 0.12

10 2019

0.08 0.08 0.18 0.02 0.20 0.12 11 2020

0.08 0.08 0.18 0.03 0.20 0.12

12 2021

0.08 0.08 0.18 0.03 0.21 0.13 13 2022

0.08 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.21 0.13

14 2023

0.08 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.22 0.13 15 2024

0.08 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.22 0.14

16 2025

0.08 0.08 0.20 0.03 0.22 0.14 17 2026

0.08 0.08 0.20 0.03 0.23 0.15

18 2027

0.08 0.26 0.20 0.03 0.23 0.15 19 2028

0.08 0.08 0.21 0.03 0.23 0.15

20 2029

0.08 0.08 0.21 0.03 0.24 0.16 21 2030

0.08 0.08 0.21 0.03 0.24 0.16

22 2031

0.08 0.08 0.22 0.03 0.25 0.17 23 2032

0.08 0.08 0.22 0.03 0.25 0.17

24 2033

0.08 0.08 0.22 0.03 0.26 0.18 25 2034

0.08 0.08 0.23 0.03 0.26 0.18

26 2035

0.08 0.08 0.23 0.03 0.26 0.18 27 2036

0.08 0.08 0.24 0.03 0.27 0.19

28 2037

0.08 0.08 0.24 0.03 0.27 0.19 29 2038

0.08 0.08 0.24 0.03 0.28 0.20

30 2039

0.08 0.08 0.25 0.04 0.28 0.20 31 2040

0.08 0.08 0.25 0.04 0.29 0.21

32 2041

0.08 0.08 0.26 0.04 0.29 0.21 33 2042

0.08 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.30 0.04

Total 0.70 2.42 3.47 6.19 0.87 7.06 3.59 ENPV 0.56 0.65 1.05 1.46 0.21 1.19 0.14 EIRR

14.52%


3. Urban Transport: The assumptions used for EIRR calculations were:

(i) Time saved = 25 minutes (ii) No. of times using the bridge = twice (iii) Average annual income by passengers = ₹8.44/minute (iv) Proportion of passengers using the bridge more than twice = 75%

EIRR: Sawai Madhopur Urban Transport ($ million)

Sl. No. Year Economic Cost:

CAPEX O&M Cost

Total Cost


Total Benefits

Net Benefits

1 2010 0.34

0.34

- -0.34 2 2011 0.34

0.34

- -0.34

3 2012 0.34

0.34

- -0.34 4 2013 0.34

0.34

- -0.34

5 2014

0.05 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.22 6 2015

0.05 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.22

7 2016

0.05 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.22 8 2017

0.05 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.23

9 2018

0.05 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.23 10 2019

0.05 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.24

11 2020

0.05 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.24 12 2021

0.05 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.25

13 2022

0.05 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.25 14 2023

0.05 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.26

15 2024

0.05 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.26 16 2025

0.05 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.26

17 2026

0.05 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.27 18 2027

0.05 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.27

19 2028

0.05 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.28 20 2029

0.05 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.29

21 2030

0.05 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.29 22 2031

0.05 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.30

23 2032

0.05 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.30 24 2033

0.05 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.31

25 2034

0.05 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.31 26 2035

0.05 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.32

27 2036

0.05 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.32 28 2037

0.05 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.33

29 2038

0.05 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.34 30 2039

0.05 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.34

31 2040

0.05 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.35 32 2041

0.05 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.35

33 2042

0.05 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.36 Total 1.37 1.37 2.73 9.57 9.57 6.84 ENPV 1.04 0.38 1.28 2.37 1.51 0.23 EIRR

14.21%


4. The summary of the component analysis provided in tables below:

EIRR: All Towns Combined Water Supply ($ million)

Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost:

CAPEX O&M Cost

Total Cost

Benefit: Resource

Cost Savings

Benefit: Avoidance of Income

Loss due to decreasing sick days

Total Benefits

Net Benefits

1 2010 3.68 - 3.68 - - - -3.68

2 2011 3.68 - 3.68 - - - -3.68

3 2012 3.68 - 3.68 - - - -3.68

4 2013 3.68 - 3.68 - - - -3.68

5 2014 0.23 0.79 1.02 0.70 4.27 4.97 3.95

6 2015 0.23 0.79 1.02 1.06 4.38 5.45 4.42

7 2016 - 0.87 0.87 1.38 5.82 7.20 6.33

8 2017

0.87 0.87 1.42 5.95 7.37 6.50

9 2018

0.87 0.87 1.45 6.09 7.55 6.68

10 2019

0.87 0.87 1.49 6.24 7.73 6.86

11 2020

0.87 0.87 1.53 6.39 7.92 7.04

12 2021

0.87 0.87 1.57 6.54 8.11 7.24

13 2022

0.87 0.87 1.61 6.70 8.30 7.43

14 2023

0.87 0.87 1.65 6.86 8.51 7.63

15 2024

0.87 0.87 1.69 7.03 8.72 7.84

16 2025

0.87 0.87 1.73 7.20 8.93 8.06

17 2026

0.87 0.87 1.78 7.37 9.15 8.28

18 2027

0.87 0.87 1.83 7.55 9.38 8.51

19 2028

0.87 0.87 1.87 7.74 9.61 8.74

20 2029

0.87 0.87 1.92 7.93 9.86 8.98

21 2030

0.87 0.87 1.97 8.13 10.10 9.23

22 2031

0.87 0.87 2.03 8.33 10.36 9.49

23 2032

0.87 0.87 2.08 8.54 10.62 9.75

24 2033

0.87 0.87 2.14 8.76 10.90 10.02

25 2034

0.87 0.87 2.19 8.98 11.18 10.31

26 2035

0.87 0.87 2.25 9.21 11.47 10.59

27 2036

0.87 0.87 2.32 9.45 11.77 10.89

28 2037

0.87 0.87 2.38 9.69 12.07 11.20

33 2038

0.87 0.87 2.44 9.95 12.39 11.52

Total 15.17 21.66 36.83 44.49 185.12 229.61 192.78

ENPV

23.16

EIRR

26.42%


EIRR: All Towns Combined Wastewater ($ million)

Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost:

CAPEX O&M Cost

Total Cost

Benefit: Saving

in Health Cost



Benefits Net

Benefits 1 2010 7.93 - 7.93 - - - (7.93)

2 2011 7.93 - 7.93 - - - (7.93)

3 2012 7.93 - 7.93 - - - (7.93)

4 2013 7.70 0.08 7.78 1.59 0.08 1.68 (6.10)

5 2014 7.70 0.53 8.23 1.62 0.08 1.71 (6.52)

6 2015 2.01 1.51 3.52 5.88 0.32 6.20 2.69

7 2016 - 2.89 2.89 9.08 0.49 9.57 6.67

8 2017

2.89 2.89 9.25 0.50 9.74 6.85

9 2018

2.89 2.89 9.41 0.51 9.92 7.03

10 2019

2.89 2.89 9.59 0.52 10.10 7.21

11 2020

2.89 2.89 9.76 0.52 10.29 7.39

12 2021

2.89 2.89 9.94 0.53 10.47 7.58

13 2022

2.89 2.89 10.12 0.54 10.67 7.77

14 2023

2.89 2.89 10.31 0.56 10.86 7.97

15 2024

2.89 2.89 10.49 0.57 11.06 8.17

16 2025

2.89 2.89 10.69 0.58 11.26 8.37

17 2026

2.89 2.89 10.88 0.59 11.47 8.58

18 2027

2.89 8.84 11.08 0.60 11.68 2.84

19 2028

2.89 2.89 11.28 0.61 11.89 9.00

20 2029

2.89 2.89 11.49 0.62 12.11 9.22

21 2030

2.89 2.89 11.70 0.63 12.33 9.44

22 2031

2.89 2.89 11.92 0.64 12.56 9.67

23 2032

2.89 2.89 12.14 0.66 12.79 9.90

24 2033

2.89 2.89 12.36 0.67 13.03 10.14

25 2034

2.89 2.89 12.59 0.68 13.27 10.38

26 2035

2.89 2.89 12.82 0.69 13.51 10.62

27 2036

2.89 2.89 13.05 0.71 13.76 10.87

28 2037

2.89 2.89 13.29 0.72 14.02 11.12

29 2038

2.89 2.89 13.54 0.74 14.27 11.38

30 2039

2.89 2.89 13.79 0.75 14.54 11.65

31 2040

2.89 2.89 14.04 0.76 14.81 11.91

32 2041

2.89 2.89 14.30 0.78 15.08 12.19

33 2042

2.89 8.84 14.57 0.79 15.36 6.52

Total 41.21 80.21 133.32 322.57 17.44 340.01 206.69

ENPV

7.11

EIRR

14.31%


EIRR: All Towns Combined Transport ($ million)

Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost: CAPEX

O&M Cost

Total Cost


Income Loss due to Reduction in Waiting Time

Total Benefit Net Benefit

1 2009 3.33 - 3.33 - - -3.33

2 2010 3.33 - 3.33 - - -3.33

3 2011 3.33 - 3.33 - - -3.33

4 2012 3.33 - 3.33 - - -3.33

5 2013 2.44 0.12 2.57 0.73 0.73 -1.84

6 2014 0.76 0.41 1.17 1.52 1.52 0.35

7 2015 - 0.57 0.57 2.15 2.15 1.58

8 2016

0.57 0.57 2.59 2.59 2.02

9 2017

0.57 0.57 2.84 2.84 2.27

10 2018

0.57 0.57 3.13 3.13 2.56

11 2019

0.57 0.57 3.44 3.44 2.87

12 2020

0.57 0.57 3.79 3.79 3.22

13 2021

0.57 0.57 4.17 4.17 3.60

14 2022

0.57 0.57 4.59 4.59 4.02

15 2023

0.57 0.57 5.06 5.06 4.49

16 2024

0.57 0.57 5.58 5.58 5.01

17 2025

0.57 0.57 6.16 6.16 5.59

18 2026

0.57 0.57 6.80 6.80 6.23

19 2027

0.57 0.57 7.51 7.51 6.93

20 2028

0.57 0.57 8.29 8.29 7.72

21 2029

0.57 0.57 9.16 9.16 8.59

22 2030

0.57 0.57 10.12 10.12 9.55

23 2031

0.57 0.57 11.18 11.18 10.61

24 2032

0.57 0.57 12.36 12.36 11.79

25 2033

0.57 0.57 13.67 13.67 13.10

26 2034

0.57 0.57 15.12 15.12 14.55

27 2035

0.57 0.57 16.72 16.72 16.15

28 2036

0.57 0.57 18.50 18.50 17.93

29 2037

0.57 0.57 20.47 20.47 19.90

30 2038

0.57 0.57 22.66 22.66 22.09

31 2039

0.57 0.57 25.08 25.08 24.51

32 2040

0.57 0.57 27.76 27.76 27.19

38 2041

0.57 0.57 30.73 30.73 30.16

Total 16.53 15.94 32.47 301.87 301.87 269.40

ENPV

10.19

EIRR

16.68%


EIRR: All Tranches Combined Water Supply ($ million)

Sl. No. Year Economic

Cost: CAPEX O&M Cost

Total Cost

Benefit: Resource

Cost Savings



Total Benefits

Net Benefits

1 2008 13.05

13.05

- -13.05

2 2009 13.05

13.05

- -13.05

3 2010 13.05

13.05

- -13.05

4 2011 13.05

13.05

- -13.05

5 2012 13.05

13.05

- -13.05

6 2013 13.05

13.05

- -13.05

7 2014 13.05

13.05

- -13.05

8 2015 13.05

13.05

- -13.05

9 2016 13.05

13.05

- -13.05

10 2017

4.05 4.05 13.97 63.56 77.54 73.48

11 2018

4.05 4.05 14.27 64.93 79.21 75.16

12 2019

4.05 4.05 14.58 66.34 80.92 76.87

13 2020

4.05 4.05 14.90 67.77 82.67 78.62

14 2021

4.05 4.05 15.22 69.24 84.46 80.41

15 2022

4.05 4.05 15.55 70.74 86.30 82.24

16 2023

4.05 4.05 15.89 72.29 88.18 84.12

17 2024

4.05 4.05 16.24 73.86 90.10 86.05

18 2025

4.05 4.05 16.59 75.48 92.07 88.02

19 2026

4.05 4.05 16.96 77.13 94.09 90.04

20 2027

4.05 4.05 17.33 78.83 96.16 92.11

21 2028

4.05 4.05 17.71 80.57 98.28 94.22

22 2029

4.05 4.05 18.10 82.34 100.45 96.39

23 2030

4.05 4.05 18.50 84.17 102.67 98.62

24 2031

4.05 4.05 18.91 86.03 104.95 100.90

25 2032

4.05 4.05 19.33 87.95 107.28 103.23

26 2033

4.05 4.05 19.77 89.91 109.67 105.62

27 2034

4.05 4.05 20.21 91.92 112.12 108.07

28 2035

4.05 4.05 20.66 93.98 114.63 110.58

29 2036

4.05 4.05 21.12 96.09 117.21 113.16

30 2037

4.05 4.05 21.60 98.25 119.85 115.79

31 2038

4.05 4.05 22.09 100.47 122.55 118.50

32 2039

4.05 4.05 22.59 102.74 125.32 121.27

33 2040

4.05 4.05 23.10 105.07 128.17 124.11

34 2041

4.05 4.05 23.62 107.46 131.08 127.03

35 2042

4.05

24.16 109.91 134.07 134.07

36 2043

4.05

24.71 112.42 137.13 137.13

37 2044

4.05 4.05 25.28 114.99 140.27 136.22

38 2045

4.05 4.05 25.86 117.64 143.50 139.44

Total 117.48

226.91 25.28 114.99 3,100.89 2,873.98

ENPV

25.86 117.64

183.72

EIRR

24.50%


EIRR: All Tranches Combined Wastewater and Drainage ($ million)



Total Cost

Benefit: Saving in

Health Cost

Benefit: Avoidance of Loss of

Income Total

Benefits Net

Benefits 1 2008 14.09

14.09

- (14.09)

2 2009 14.09

14.09

- (14.09)

3 2010 14.09

14.09

- (14.09)

4 2011 14.09

14.09

- (14.09)

5 2012 14.09

14.09

- (14.09)

6 2013 14.09

14.09

- (14.09)

7 2014 14.09

14.09

- (14.09)

8 2015 14.09

14.09

- (14.09)

9 2016 14.09

14.09

- (14.09)

10 2017

4.37 4.37 38.52 2.17 40.69 36.32

11 2018

4.37 4.37 39.30 2.21 41.51 37.14

12 2019

4.37 4.37 40.09 2.26 42.35 37.97

13 2020

4.37 4.37 40.90 2.30 43.20 38.83

14 2021

4.37 4.37 41.72 2.35 44.08 39.70

15 2022

4.37 4.37 42.57 2.40 44.97 40.59

16 2023

4.37 4.37 43.43 2.45 45.88 41.50

17 2024

4.37 4.37 44.31 2.50 46.81 42.43

18 2025

4.37 4.37 45.21 2.55 47.75 43.38

19 2026

4.37 4.37 46.13 2.60 48.72 44.35

20 2027

4.37 4.37 47.06 2.65 49.71 45.34

21 2028

4.37 4.37 48.02 2.71 50.73 46.35

22 2029

4.37 4.37 49.00 2.76 51.76 47.39

23 2030

4.37 4.37 50.00 2.82 52.81 48.44

24 2031

4.37 4.37 51.02 2.87 53.89 49.52

25 2032

4.37 4.37 52.06 2.93 54.99 50.62

26 2033

4.37 4.37 53.12 2.99 56.12 51.74

27 2034

4.37 4.37 54.21 3.05 57.27 52.89

28 2035

4.37 4.37 55.32 3.12 58.44 54.07

29 2036

4.37 4.37 56.46 3.18 59.64 55.26

30 2037

4.37 4.37 57.62 3.25 60.86 56.49

31 2038

4.37 4.37 58.80 3.31 62.11 57.74

32 2039

4.37 4.37 60.01 3.38 63.39 59.02

33 2040

4.37 4.37 61.25 3.45 64.70 60.32

34 2041

4.37 4.37 62.51 3.52 66.03 61.66

35 2042

4.37 4.37 63.80 3.59 67.39 63.02

36 2043

4.37 4.37 65.12 3.67 68.79 64.41

37 2044

4.37 4.37 66.47 3.74 70.21 65.84

39 2045

4.37 4.37 67.84 3.82 71.66 67.29

Total 126.77 126.83 253.60 1,501.85 84.62 1,586.47 1,332.86

ENPV

42.27

EIRR

15.82%


EIRR: All Tranches Combined Urban Transport ($ million)



Total Cost

Benefit: Avoidance of Income Loss due to

Reduction in Waiting Time

Total Benefit

Net Benefit

1 2008 9.62

9.62

- -9.62

2 2009 9.62

9.62

- -9.62

3 2010 9.62

9.62

- -9.62

4 2011 9.62

9.62

- -9.62

5 2012 9.62

9.62

- -9.62

6 2013 9.62

9.62

- -9.62

7 2014 9.62

9.62

- -9.62

8 2015 9.62

9.62

- -9.62

9 2016 9.62

9.62

- -9.62

10 2017

2.99 2.99 16.28 16.28 13.29

11 2018

2.99 2.99 18.01 18.01 15.03

12 2019

2.99 2.99 19.97 19.97 16.98

13 2020

2.99 2.99 22.13 22.13 19.14

14 2021

2.99 2.99 24.53 24.53 21.54

15 2022

2.99 2.99 27.19 27.19 24.20

16 2023

2.99 2.99 30.14 30.14 27.15

17 2024

2.99 2.99 33.40 33.40 30.42

18 2025

2.99 2.99 37.02 37.02 34.04

19 2026

2.99 2.99 41.04 41.04 38.05

20 2027

2.99 2.99 45.49 45.49 42.50

21 2028

2.99 2.99 50.42 50.42 47.43

22 2029

2.99 2.99 55.88 55.88 52.89

23 2030

2.99 2.99 61.94 61.94 58.95

24 2031

2.99 2.99 68.65 68.65 65.67

25 2032

2.99 2.99 76.10 76.10 73.11

26 2033

2.99 2.99 84.34 84.34 81.36

27 2034

2.99 2.99 93.49 93.49 90.50

28 2035

2.99 2.99 103.62 103.62 100.63

29 2036

2.99 2.99 114.85 114.85 111.87

30 2037

2.99 2.99 127.30 127.30 124.32

31 2038

2.99 2.99 141.10 141.10 138.12

32 2039

2.99 2.99 156.40 156.40 153.41

33 2040

2.99 2.99 173.35 173.35 170.36

34 2041

2.99 2.99 192.14 192.14 189.15

35 2042

2.99 2.99 212.97 212.97 209.98

36 2043

2.99 2.99 236.06 236.06 233.07

37 2044

2.99 2.99 261.64 261.64 258.66

38 2045

2.99 2.99 290.01 290.01 287.02

Total 86.59 86.64 173.23 2,815.47 2,815.47 2,642.24

ENPV

71.77

EIRR

17.60%


EIRR: All Tranches and All Components under the Facility Combined ($ million)

Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost:

CAPEX (All costs)

O&M Cost

Total Cost

Economic Benefit:

Saving in Health Cost

due to improved

Sanitation & Drainage

Economic Benefit:

Avoidance of Loss of

Income due to Improved Sanitation &

Drainage

Economic Benefit:

Resource Cost Savings

due to Improved

Water Supply

Economic Benefit:


Income due to improved

Water Supply

Economic Benefit:

Avoidance of Income Loss

due to Improved

Urban Transport

Total Benefit

Net Benefit

1 2008 37.77 - 37.77 - - - - - - (37.77)

2 2009 37.77 - 37.77 - - - - - - (37.77)

3 2010 37.77 - 37.77 - - - - - - (37.77)

4 2011 37.77 - 37.77 - - - - - - (37.77)

5 2012 37.77 - 37.77 - - - - - - (37.77)

6 2013 37.77 - 37.77 - - - - - - (37.77)

7 2014 37.77 - 37.77 - - - - - - (37.77)

8 2015 37.77 - 37.77 - - - - - - (37.77)

9 2016 37.77 - 37.77 - - - - - - (37.77)

10 2017

11.73 11.73 38.52 2.17 13.97 63.56 16.28 134.51 122.79

11 2018

11.73 11.73 39.30 2.21 14.27 64.93 18.01 138.73 127.01

12 2019

11.73 11.73 40.09 2.26 14.58 66.34 19.97 143.23 131.51

13 2020

11.73 11.73 40.90 2.30 14.90 67.77 22.13 148.00 136.28

14 2021

11.73 11.73 41.72 2.35 15.22 69.24 24.53 153.07 141.34

15 2022

11.73 11.73 42.57 2.40 15.55 70.74 27.19 158.45 146.73

16 2023

11.73 11.73 43.43 2.45 15.89 72.29 30.14 164.19 152.46

17 2024

11.73 11.73 44.31 2.50 16.24 73.86 33.40 170.31 158.58

18 2025

11.73 11.73 45.21 2.55 16.59 75.48 37.02 176.85 165.12

19 2026

11.73 11.73 46.13 2.60 16.96 77.13 41.04 183.85 172.13

20 2027

11.73 11.73 47.06 2.65 17.33 78.83 45.49 191.36 179.63

21 2028

11.73 11.73 48.02 2.71 17.71 80.57 50.42 199.42 187.69

22 2029

11.73 11.73 49.00 2.76 18.10 82.34 55.88 208.09 196.36

23 2030

11.73 11.73 50.00 2.82 18.50 84.17 61.94 217.42 205.70

24 2031

11.73 11.73 51.02 2.87 18.91 86.03 68.65 227.49 215.77

25 2032

11.73 11.73 52.06 2.93 19.33 87.95 76.10 238.37 226.64

26 2033

11.73 11.73 53.12 2.99 19.77 89.91 84.34 250.13 238.41

27 2034

11.73 11.73 54.21 3.05 20.21 91.92 93.49 262.88 251.15

28 2035

11.73 11.73 55.32 3.12 20.66 93.98 103.62 276.69 264.97


Sl. No. Year

Economic Cost:

CAPEX (All costs)

O&M Cost

Total Cost

Economic Benefit:

Saving in Health Cost

due to improved

Sanitation & Drainage

Economic Benefit:


Income due to Improved Sanitation &

Drainage

Economic Benefit:

Resource Cost Savings

due to Improved

Water Supply

Economic Benefit:


Income due to improved

Water Supply

Economic Benefit:

Avoidance of Income Loss

due to Improved

Urban Transport

Total Benefit

Net Benefit

29 2036

11.73 11.73 56.46 3.18 21.12 96.09 114.85 291.70 279.97

30 2037

11.73 11.73 57.62 3.25 21.60 98.25 127.30 308.01 296.29

31 2038

11.73 11.73 58.80 3.31 22.09 100.47 141.10 325.77 314.04

32 2039

11.73 11.73 60.01 3.38 22.59 102.74 156.40 345.11 333.39

33 2040

11.73 11.73 61.25 3.45 23.10 105.07 173.35 366.21 354.49

34 2041

11.73 11.73 62.51 3.52 23.62 107.46 192.14 389.25 377.53

35 2042

11.73 11.73 63.80 3.59 24.16 109.91 212.97 414.43 402.71

36 2043

11.73 11.73 65.12 3.67 24.71 112.42 236.06 441.97 430.25

37 2044

11.73 11.73 66.47 3.74 25.28 114.99 261.64 472.13 460.40

38 2045

11.73 11.73 67.84 3.82 25.86 117.64 290.01 505.17 493.44

Total 339.90 340.07 679.98 1,501.85 84.62 558.84 2,542.05 2,815.47 7,502.82 6,822.85

ENPV

298.81

EIRR

19.64%

Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program ... · 3. Project title Rajasthan Urban...

Documents

Transcript of Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program ... · 3. Project title Rajasthan Urban...