project completion report (pcr) · 3 c. project objective and logical framework 1. state the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT (PCR)
A. PROGRAMME DATA AND KEY DATES
I. BASIC INFORMATION
Project Number:
Project Name: ADB Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative – Start-Up Sub-Programme
Country(ies): Senegal
Lending Instrument(s): ADF Loan No. 2100150010694
Sector: Water and Sanitation
Environmental Classification: II
Original Commitment: UA 25,000,000.00
Amount Cancelled: UA 78,411.21
Amount Disbursed: UA 24,921,588.79
Percent Disbursed: 99.54%
Borrower: Republic of Senegal
Executing Agency(ies): Ministry of Housing, Construction and Water Management and Ministry of Town Planning and Sanitation PEPAM Coordination Unit (PCU)
Other Sources of Financing: UA 4 million Beneficiary Populations: UA 0.882 million Government of the Republic of Senegal: UA 3.118 million
II. KEY DATES
Project Concept Note Cleared by Ops. Com.: NA
Appraisal Report Cleared Ops. Com: NA Board Approval: 21 September 2005
Restructuring(s): Not Applicable
Original Date Actual Date Difference in Months
EFFECTIVENESS 23 January 2006 23 January 2006 0
WAIVER OF FIRST DISBURSEMENT CONDITIONS
23 January 2006 23 January 2006 0
MID-TERM REVIEW Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
CLOSING 31 December 2009 31 December 2010 12 months
III. RATINGS SUMMARY
CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA RATING
PROJECT OUTCOME
Achievement of Outputs 3
Achievement of Outcomes 3
Timeliness 3
OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME 3
BANK PERFORMANCE
Design and Readiness 3.3
Supervision 3
OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE 3.15
BORROWER PERFORMANCE
Design and Readiness 2
Implementation 2.6
OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE 3.1
2
IV. BANK STAFF RESPONSIBLE
1. résume des notes
B. PROJECT CONTEXT
Summarize the rationale for Bank assistance. State: - what development challenge the project addresses, - the Borrower's overall strategy for addressing it, - Bank activities in this country (ies) and sector over the past year and how they performed, and-
ongoing Bank and other externally financed activities that complement, overlap with or relate to this project.
Please cite relevant sources. Comment on the strength and coherence of the rationale. [300 words maximum. Any additional narrative about the project's origins and history, if needed, must be
placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]
The major challenge facing Senegal in the water and sanitation sector generally is to improve the people‟s access to drinking water and sanitation services. The water and sanitation sub-sector development strategy was set in the context of the Millennium Development Goals with the implementation of the Millennium Drinking Water and Sanitation Programme (PEPAM) and was approved by Government and donors. Significant outputs are expected in the sector by 2015. The goal is to raise access to water and sanitation in rural areas respectively to 82% and 63% by 2015 compared with 64% and 26% in 2005. The Bank‟s Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sub-Programme (DWSSS, Phase 1) in Senegal sought to address this major challenge of the Government. It is in line with the Bank‟s Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Initiative. Before that, the Bank had financed several water /sanitation sector projects in Senegal including the Dakar Clean-up Project (PAVD) which closed on 31 December 2008.
POSITIONS AT APPROVAL AT COMPLETION
Regional Director J.M GHARBI, Director ORWB
F. PERRAULT, Director, ORWB
Sector Director M.G MBESHERUBUSA (OCIN)
SERING JALLOW, Director, OWAS OIC
Sector Manager M.M DOUMBIA (OCIN 2) AWA BAMBA, Division Manager, OWAS.1
Task Manager EL A. MBAYE (OCIN2) M. EL ARKOUBI, Water and Sanitation Engineer, OWAS.1
PCR Team Leader
Mahécor NDIAYE Water and Sanitation Engineer, OWAS.1/SNFO
PCR Team Members Samba Diakhaté SARR, Disbursement Assistant, SNFO
3
C. PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
1. State the Project Development Objective(s) (as set out in the appraisal report)
The sector objective of the Start-up Sub-programme is to help to improve the socio-economic and health conditions of
the rural populations.
The specific objective of the project is to: (i) improve coverage in terms of family drinking water and household sanitation
services in 240 rural localities in three (3) regions (Louga, Ziguinchor and Kolda) and; (ii) improve the supply of
community sanitation services in 64 out of 114 rural communities in the three (3) regions.
2. Describe the key project components and how each will contribute to achieving the project development objectives
Component A: Development of basic DWSS infrastructure: this component has the following three dimensions:
- supply of drinking water in the target villages of the sub-programme: aimed at improving the drinking water coverage and living surroundings of rural dwellers in 3 regions, entailing construction of drinking water supply (DWS) structures and systems;
- construction of family and community sanitation facilities in target villages: aimed at providing adequate
sanitation services to the rural populations. - control and supervision of IEC work and campaigns under the sub-programme: comprising: (i) the control
and supervision of the construction of DWS and sanitation structures and (ii) training, sensitization and coordination of the populations.
Component B: Institutional support for departments involved in the sub-programme implementation: it seeks to support the sub-programme‟s executing agencies namely: (i) DHR and DEM, for the drinking water dimension, and (ii) DAS, for the sanitation dimension. For its part, DGPRE will focus on its tasks of monitoring, management and quality control of water resources to be harnessed. The regional Divisions of these Directorates at Louga, Ziguinchor and Kolda (which closely monitor the sub-programme outputs) are supported. Component C: Sub-programme management. This component has the following activities: (a) general coordination of the sub-programme; and (b) accounts audit.
3. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the project objectives along the following 3 dimensions. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING
SCORE
RELEVANT a) Relevant to the country's development priorities.
The sub-programme‟s objectives are relevant, since they are in line with the Poverty Reduction Strategy particularly through PRSP 2. As the first project to be implemented after the Donor Round Table on the Millennium Drinking Water and Sanitation Programme‟s investment plan, it is a major contribution.
4
ACHIEVABLE b) Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs
The programme objectives were attained within the planned 4-year period. Performances were outstanding (6 months) in terms of implementation
3
4
and in the expected timeframe.
period and commitments. However, a one-year extension was requested by the Senegalese authorities and granted by the Bank, thereby making it possible to achieve the goals of the sanitation sub-component and especially exceed those of the drinking water sub-component.
CONSISTENT
c) Consistent with the Bank's country or regional strategy.
The objectives of the sub-programme are in line with the Bank‟s sub-regional strategy, especially through the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative (RWSSI) aimed at improving access to drinking water and sanitation in rural areas. RBCSP for the same period.
4
d) Consistent with Bank corporate priorities.
The sub-programme is consistent with Bank‟s overall priorities focused on reducing poverty and meeting the water and sanitation-related Millennium Development Goals.
4
4. Lay out the log. frame. If a log. frame does not exist, complete the table below, indicating the overall project development objective, the major components of the project, the major activities of each component and their expected outputs, outcomes, and indicators for measuring the achievement of outcomes. Please add more rows for components, activities, outputs or outcomes, if needed.
Comment: Some log. frame indicators were revised based on the recommendations of successive supervision missions and during the review of the list of goods and services
OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES EXPECTED OUTPUTS
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
INDICATORS TO BE MEASURED
Sector objective
-Improvement of the socio-economic and health conditions of rural dwellers.
-One modern borehole drilled for 250 rural dwellers and rural localities have at least one modern borehole.
The poverty index falls from 60% in 2005 to 30% in 2015 ;
- Number of additional persons with access to drinking water – reasonable access - Rate of increase in exchanges
Efficient sanitation system is built in all rural localities (family latrines and/or semi-community compartmentalized latrines)
Attainment of the MDGs for water (82%) and sanitation (59%)
-Number of additional people with access to drinking water – optimum access
Project Objectives
- Improved coverage of family drinking water and sanitation services in 240 rural localities in 3 regions (Louga, Ziguinchor and
Kolda)
Water and sanitation systems management structures exist in all localities and are viable
The drinking water coverage of the sub-programme‟s target population rises from 64% in 2005 to 73%, 68% and 67% in Louga, Ziguinchor and Kolda, respectively
-Number of additional people served for individual sanitation
-Improvement of community sanitation facilities in 60 out of 114 rural communities of 3 regions.
- Access to basic social services improved
Rate of autonomous sanitation coverage rises from 17% in 2005 to 26%, 20% and 21% respectively in Louga, Ziguinchor and Kolda;
-Number of additional people with access to public lavatories
5
COMPONENTS ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS EXPECTED OUTCOMES
INDICATORS TO BE MEASURED
- A. Development of basic DWSS infrastructure.
Drinking water
supply in the sub-
programme‟s target
villages
-Drilling of new boreholes and rehabilitation of old boreholes
- 32 new boreholes drilled 39 old boreholes rehabilitated; -
- 183,000 additional people have access to drinking water – reasonable access
- Number of additional people with reasonable access to drinking water -Construction of
new DWS systems including water tanks to serve about 240 villages; -
-87 new DWS systems constructed including water tanks to serve about 240 villages; -
- 90,500 additional people with optimum access to drinking water.
Installation of individual connections and distribution metres; -
-9,389 individual connections made; 1,547 distribution and 178 production metres installed -
- 171,000 additional people with access to individual sanitation facilities
Number of additional people with access to drinking water
-Setting up of the Borehole Users‟ Association (ASUFOR) and training of their members
-178 ASUFOR boreholes drilled
Family and
community sanitation
facilities in the target
villages of the sub-
programme.
-Construction of family latrines (VIP or TCM) and laundry tubs equipped with wash-hand devices
- 16,162 new family latrines and laundry tubs equipped with wash-hand devices built and functional
- 171,000 additional people with access to individual sanitation facilities - 47,700 additional people with access to public toilets
- Number of people with individual sanitation facilities
-Construction of 477 multi-compartment and ventilated institutional latrines.
422 new multi-compartment latrines constructed inside village public facilities.
- Number of additional people with access to public toilets
- Training of bricklayers and school teachers
- 151 bricklayers and 151 school teachers are trained
-151 bricklayers and 151 school teachers are trained
- Number of craftsmen and school teachers trained
Control and
supervision of sub-
programme‟s IEC
works and
campaigns.
- Works control and supervision (consultancy firms)
- Control firms recruited and monitored
- Work is properly monitored on the ground; - Works are carried out according to standard
Quality of works; Availability of field data
- Monitoring of works
- Monitoring system established
- -
6
Component B: Institutional support for structures involved in the sub-programme
Vehicles and fuel placed at the disposal of executing agencies; IT equipment supplied to executing agencies; Office equipment supplied; Mission and training costs paid for; Documents Designing is supported; Putting in place of Senegal‟s counterpart contribution is supported; Regional and annual reviews are coordinated.
All executing agencies functional
Contracts signed Quarterly progress reports of PCU Aides-memoires of supervision missions
Provision of executing agencies with logistics and IT and technical equipment; Provision of IT training modules;
- Component E: Project management
PEPAM donor coordination; Ensure compliance with commitments of State and executing agencies;
PEPAM PCU is the „Coordination Unit‟ set up under PSE and PLT to build on experience acquired. Audits conducted and reports submitted before 30 June every year
Coordination Unit is functional and has qualified experts and a conducive working environment.
Signed contracts, Supervision missions, Quality of technical services, Number of audit reports submitted on time and accepted by the Bank.
Track audits and ensure that audit reports are deposited within the required timeframes
Audits conducted and reports submitted before 30 June every year
Audits conducted on time
5. For each dimension of the log. frame, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the extent to which the log. frame achieved the following. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1. If no log. frame exists, score this section as a 1 (one).
LOG. FRAME DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE
LOGICAL - a) Presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives.
The logical causal chain is highlighted in the various components as seen in a coherent chain of outputs. For additional people to have access to drinking water and sanitation, the activities listed under the different components of the sub-programme must be effectively implemented.
4
MEASURABLE - b) Expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable.
The objectives and outcomes were stated in the log. frame featuring in sub-programme appraisal document in a way that is measurable and quantifiable with very clear, objectively verifiable indicators.
4
THOROUGH - c) States the risks and key assumptions
At various relevant levels of the log. frame, risks and key assumptions are stated clearly and precisely. For example, the stability situation in the south of the country was clearly stated at the level of outputs. This risk stood out clearly and the sub-programme‟s management team applied corrective measures by
4
7
readjusting the sub-zonal distribution of expected outcomes to avoid delays and improve physical and financial performance.
D. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES
In the table below, assess the achievement of actual vs. expected outputs for each major activity. Import the expected outputs from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outputs were achieved. Weight the scores by the activities' approximate share of project costs. Weighted scores are auto-calculated by the computer. The overall output score must be calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. Override the calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.
MAJOR ACTIVITIES
Working Score
Share of Project Costs
in percentage (as stated in
Appraisal Report)
Weighted Score
Expected Outputs Actual Outputs
17,100 new family latrines and laundry tubs equipped with wash-hand devices are installed and functional
16,162 new family latrines and laundry tubs equipped with wash-hand devices are built and functional
3 0.18 0.54
477 new multi-compartment latrines constructed in village public facilities (markets, schools, health centres and other public places)
422 new multi-compartment latrines are constructed in village public facilities (markets, schools, health centre and other public places)
2 0.085 0.17
477 management committees of public toilets trained
408 management committees of public toilets trained
3
0.029
0.087 151 bricklayers and 169 school teachers trained
151 bricklayers and 151 school teachers trained
4
400 women hygiene relay s commissioned in the villages
169 women hygiene relay agents commissioned in villages
2
Monitoring-control of drinking water works
0.029 0.087
27 new boreholes drilled and 52 old ones rehabilitated
32 new boreholes are drilled and 39 old ones rehabilitated
4 0.173 0.68
85 new DWS systems, including water tanks, constructed for about 240 villages
87 new DWS systems, including water tanks, are constructed for about 240 villages
4 0.268 1.02
30 electrified boreholes constructed
39 electrified boreholes are constructed
4 0.023 0.092
86 pumping units (motors and pumps) supplied and installed
86 pumping equipment are installed
4 0.0648 0.24
9,050 individual connections 9,389 individual connections
4 0.125 0.5
750 distribution and 178 production metres installed
1,547 distribution and 178 production metres installed
4
8
178 ASUFOR constructed 178 ASUFOR are constructed
4 0.023 0.092
OVERALL OUTPUT SCORE [Score is calculated as the sum of weighted scores] 3.5
Check here to override the calculated score
Provide justification for over-riding the calculated score
Insert the new score or re-enter the calculated score 3.5
II. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES
1. Using available monitoring data, assess the achievement of expected outcomes. Import the expected outcomes from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outcomes were achieved. The overall outcome score will be calculated as an average of the working scores. Override the calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.
OUTCOMES Working Score
Expected Actual
183,000 additional people with access to drinking water – reasonable access
183,000 additional people have access to drinking water – reasonable access
4
90,500 additional people with access to drinking water – optimum access
93,890 additional people have optimum access to drinking water
4
171,000 additional people with access to individual sanitation facilities
161,620 additional people have access to individual sanitation facilities
3
47,400 additional people with access to public toilets.
42,200 additional people have access to public toilets. 3
Institutional support for different directorates ensured
Vehicles and fuel placed at the disposal of executing agencies IT equipment supplied to executing agencies (EXAGs) Office equipment supplied Mission costs paid for Document Designing supported Disbursement of Senegal‟s counterpart contribution supported Regional and annual review coordinated
4
The management and annual audit of PCU and sub-programme accounts ensured
Coordination Unit revived under PSE and PLT to capitalize on experience acquired Audits conducted and reports submitted before 30 June every year
4
OVERALL OUTCOME SCORE [Score is calculated as an average of the working scores]
3.66
X Check here to override the calculated score
Provide justification for over-riding the calculated score
Insert the new score or re-enter the calculated score
2. Additional outcomes. Comment on the project's additional outcomes not captured in the log. frame, including cross-cutting issues (e.g. gender).
9
Gender mainstreaming was respected during activities, as seen in (i) the choice of women relay workers for social
marketing of works, public sensitization on hygiene and sanitation, and the collection of sanitation applications; and (ii)
appointment of women as members to the ASUFOR Steering Committee.
Moreover, the sub-programme helped to considerably strengthen the principles of the reform of the management of
motorized rural boreholes in the project area by promoting the volumetric sale of water (installation of metres and
individual connections) and supporting the setting up of ASUFORs in all localities. It also helped in the rehabilitation of
boreholes and replacement of damaged or obsolete water-pumping devices and other operations.
According to the households interviewed, water causes diarrheal diseases (90% of respondents), stomach diseases
(87.5%) and skin diseases (71.5%). Over 95% of households believed that the fact of having an individual connection
helps to reduce cases of disease.
3. Risks to sustained achievement of outcomes. State the factors that affect, or could affect, the long-run or sustained achievement of project outcomes. Indicate if any new activity or institutional change is recommended to help sustain outcomes. The analysis should draw upon the sensitivity analysis in Annex 3, where appropriate.
The viability of outcomes obtained mainly rests on the proper operation and management of facilities. Therefore, it is
important to put in place a sound system for monitoring and maintaining structures and address the need for capacity-
building for officials of ASUFOR and public toilet management committees.
E. PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 1. State the extent to which the Bank and the Borrower ensured the project was commensurate with the
Borrower‟s capacity to implement by designing the project appropriately and by putting in place the necessary implementation arrangements. Consider all major design aspects, such as extent to which project design took into account lessons learned from previous PCRs in the sector or the country (please cite key PCRs); whether the project was informed by robust analytical work (please cite key documents); how well Bank and Borrower assessed the capacity of the implementing agencies and/or Project Implementation Unit; scope of consultations and partnerships; economic rationale of the project; and provisions made for technical assistance.
[250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative]
The Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sub-programme, Phase 1, is the first project financed under PEPAM
in rural areas. It will be recalled that the whole PEPAM design process was presented by the Senegalese Government
to its partners and validated during the Roundtable held in Dakar on 29 April 2005, but also during the consultations
conducted by the appraisal team.
Furthermore, the sub-programme was prepared and assessed in a participatory process involving several ministries,
all the „water and sanitation sector‟ donors in Senegal and representatives from the beneficiary populations. Its design
took into account lessons learned from previous or ongoing drinking water and sanitation operations in Senegal
(especially those of the World Bank and ADF) and remarks made during the review of the Bank‟s water and sanitation
experience in Africa, recommending: (i) the participatory approach and beneficiary involvement; and (ii) adequate
coverage of recurrent costs.
The Borrower and the Bank considered the capacity of the Coordination Unit, the organ responsible for coordinating,
managing and monitoring the sub-programme. Earlier, the PEPAM PCU had coordinated the Water Sector Project
(PSE) and Long-Term Water Programme (PELT) and its capacity was further strengthened with the establishment of
PEPAM.
10
2. For each dimension of project design and readiness for implementation, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences). Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.
PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS
ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE
REALISM
a) Project complexity is matched with country capacity and political commitment.
The sub-programme is in line with the Country Strategy for achieving the drinking water supply and sanitation-related MDGs. At the design stage, due regard was given to the fact that the water sector has a recognized tradition of implementing highly complex drinking water supply projects. Furthermore, the capacity of PEPAM PCU – the unified coordination platform – was adequately analysed.
4
RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION
b) Project design includes adequate risk analysis.
The sub-programme considered the key risks, at the political and institutional levels, and regarding the project managers/stakeholders‟ capacities and the popular support in view of the demand-based approach – the underlying principle of the intervention.
3
USE OF COUNTRY SYSTEMS
c) Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems are based on those already in use by government and/or other partners.
The systems used are those of the Bank which Government had already used for previous or other ongoing operations. This was mostly so because the reform of the Public Procurement Code was still in progress when the sub-programme was being prepared. PEPAM PCU also benefited from a wealth of experience in public procurements and financial management acquired over a ten-year period from various donors, including ADB.
3
For the following dimensions, provide separate working scores for Bank performance and Borrower performance:
Working Score
Bank Borrower
CLARITY d) Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined.
The appraisal report clearly defined how programme implementation would be organized. The organizational framework is in line with the mission letters of executing agencies and the PEPAM PCU.
4 3
PROCUREMENT READINESS
e) Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal.
All necessary documents for sub-programme implementation were prepared during implementation which comes after appraisal. 1 1
MONITORING READINESS
f) Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon before project launch.
The monitoring indicators are listed in the appraisal report. The fact that the PEPAM indicators manual and monitoring/evaluation procedures manual had already been
3 2
11
F. IMPLEMENTATION 1. State the major characteristics of project implementation with reference to: adherence to schedules, quality of
construction or other work, performance of consultants, effectiveness of Bank supervision, and effectiveness of Borrower oversight. Assess how well the Bank and the Borrower ensured compliance with safeguards.
[200 words maximum. [Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative.]
Works were generally implemented on time and to the established standards. Works supervision and control were
conducted normally and the Bank regularly undertook programme supervision missions and closely followed up the
different. The Borrower efficiently monitored sub-programme implementation, especially through the executing
agencies and PEPAM PCU. A one-year extension of the project, requested by the Senegalese Party and granted by
the Bank, helped to meet the “sanitation sub-component” objectives and particularly, to exceed the “drinking water
sub-component” goals (since savings were made from certain components).
The PCU‟s performance during implementation was good. It worked hard to carry through the sub-programme as soon
as the PCU team was mobilized. It also monitored and controlled the commitments of suppliers, contractors and
consultants and, with support from executing agencies and the implementation bodies (the Ministries in charge of
Water and Sanitation), ensured that all lending conditions were fulfilled. The PCU‟s performance is considered as very
satisfactory overall, as are those of the executing agencies.
2. Comment on the role of other partners (e.g. donors, NGOs, contractors, etc.). Assess the effectiveness of co-financing arrangements and of donor coordination, if applicable.
Several NGOs were involved in implementing the sub-programme, especially the IEC component, undertaking a great deal of sensitization on hygiene and the management of sanitation infrastructure. The services of works contractors were very efficient. In Louga region, the sub-programme worked closely with UNDP‟s Millennium Villages Project, which helped to achieve remarkable access rates. This experience was commended by all the sector stakeholders.
3. Harmonization. State whether the Bank made explicit efforts to harmonize instruments, systems and/or approaches with other partners.
All the key water-sector donors were involved in the implementation of the sub-programme, as evidenced by meetings during which progress reports on the project were regularly presented to these parties. Thematic group meetings were ideal moments for discussing programme implementation with the partners. Sector-based information collected, processed and reported by the PEPAM Coordination Unit helps donors avoid overlapping in their interventions. Also, PEPAM CU tries to harmonize donors‟ working methods, mostly in the preparation of short-lists.
4. For each dimension of project implementation, assess the extent to which the project achieved the following. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) and insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING
SCORE
TIMELINESS
a) Extent of project adherence to the original closing date. If the number on the right is: below 12, "4" is scored between 12.1 to 24, "3" is scored between 24.1 to 36, "2" is scored beyond 36.1, "1" is scored.
Difference in months between original closing date and actual closing date or date of 98% disb. rate.
3
12 months
validated made the monitoring exercise much easier.
BASELINE DATA g) Baseline data were available or are being collected
The appraisal report has baseline data on the specific objective of the sub-programme but not its socio-economic impact.
2 2
12
B A N K
P E R F O R M A N C E
b) Bank complied with:
Environmental Safeguards
The project is classified in Category 2. To combat temporary nuisance in the project neighbourhood due to construction activities, mitigative measures were built into the DCEs. The people were also empowered through the setting up and organization of environmental management and monitoring committees as part of IEC. However, the project has no ESMP.
3
Fiduciary Requirements
The sub-programme was managed using the financial and accounts management procedures of PEPAM, which also has financial and accounts management software (TOMPRO). Audit firms were regularly recruited to conduct annual audits.
4
Project Covenants
The Bank made the necessary arrangements for the rapid signing of the loan agreement, which occurred 3.5 months after Board approval of the loan.
3
Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix and practicality of solutions
The Bank undertook a start-up mission in November 2006 and regularly fielded supervision missions between November 2006 and December 2010. The composition of the missions was adequate.
Bank provided quality management oversight.
The Bank monitored sub-programme management and reviewed progress reports and audit reports. It also established effective lines of communication with the project implementation body by regular exchange of correspondence.
4
B O R R O W E R
P E R F O R M A N C E
c) Borrower complied with:
Environmental Safeguards
Mitigative measures were incorporated in the DCEs. The populations were also empowered through the setting up and management of environmental management and monitoring committees.
3
Fiduciary Requirements
The Borrower honoured its commitments since it mobilized and paid its entire counterpart contribution under the sub-programme. However, malfunctions were observed in the effective disbursement of the corresponding resources, due to cash-flow problems leading to sometimes significant delays in the payment of certain bills.
2
Project Covenants
Borrower complied with its commitments under the loan agreement. However, slippages were observed in Borrower compliance with the related timeframes.
2
13
f) Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations.
The Borrower was always responsive to Bank supervision and audit mission recommendations, ensuring that they were implemented. These recommendations were always listed as agenda items during quarterly coordination meetings organized to monitor the sub-programme.
3
g) Borrower collected and used monitoring information for decision-making.
Decisions were taken with reference to the indicators adopted in the project log. frame and based on information collected during the monitoring of project activities.
3
G. COMPLETION
1. Is the PCR delivered on a timely basis, in compliance with Bank policy?
Date project reached 98% disb. rate (or
closing date if applicable)
Date PCR was sent to [email protected]
Difference in months WORKING SCORE if the difference is 6
months or less, a 4 is scored. If the difference is 6.1 or more, a 1 is scored
31 December 2010 Above 6 1
Briefly describe the PCR Process. Describe the Borrower‟s and co-financiers' involvement in producing the document. Highlight any discrepancies concerning the assessments made in this PCR. Describe the team composition and confirm whether a site visit was undertaken. Mention any major collaboration from other development partners. State the extent of field office involvement in producing the report. Indicate whether comments from Peer Reviewers were received on time (provide names and positions of Peer Reviewers). [150 words maximum]
The PCR completion mission comprised one Water and Sanitation Engineer and one Financial Expert. The fact that
all the mission members came from SNFO allowed for the efficient conduct of operations as these persons were
familiar with all the institutions and the realities on the ground. The project coordinator participated fully in the PCR
design and the field visits of the mission. Discussions with beneficiaries help the mission to better understand realities
and outputs obtained, and highlighted the people‟s interest mostly in what was achieved with regard to the Reclaimed
lands. The PCR is the fruit of participatory endeavour involving all stakeholders, and incorporates the lessons learned
from various actors.
Peer Reviewers: Souleye KITANE, Environmentalist OSAN4/SNFO; Indira CAMPOS, Development Economist/OWAS; Ahmet ATTOUT, Financial Analyst/OWAS; Jean Michel OSSETE, Head of Operations /FAE; Patrice HORUGAVYE, Socio-Economist/OWAS.
H. LESSONS LEARNED
Summarize key lessons for the Bank and the Borrower suggested by the project‟s outcomes
[300 words maximum. Any additional narrative about lessons learned, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project
Narrative]
The key lessons learned from the project outputs are the following:
- the assessment of project costs must take into account real market prices to avoid scaling down the
project objectives at the time of implementation.
- the absence of environmental impact assessment makes it impossible to have an Environmental and
Social Management Plan (ESMP) and poses a problem for the project‟s environmental monitoring.
14
- adopting a common IEC design in the water and sanitation sector may make it easier for the population
to understand and support PEPAM.
- Properly measuring baseline data (health, education, gender, etc) for the project impact area prior to
implementation is indispensable, to ensure efficient assessment of project impacts at completion. .
- In implementing the sanitation component, it is necessary to target small and medium- sized enterprises
rather than large ones which are still not interested in the amounts of the contracts.
I. PROJECT RATINGS SUMMARY
CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA WORKING
SCORE
PROJECT OUTCOME
Achievement of outputs 3
Achievement of outcomes 3
Timeliness 3
OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME SCORE 3
BANK PERFORMANCE
Design and Readiness
Project Objectives are relevant to country development priorities. 4
Project Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected time frame.
3
Project Objectives are consistent with the Bank‟s country or regional strategy 4
Project Objectives are consistent with the Bank‟s corporate priorities 4
The log frame presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives 4
The log frame expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable. 4
The log frame states the risks and key assumptions. 3
Project complexity is matched with country capacity and political commitment. 4
Project design includes adequate risk analysis. 3
Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems are based on those already in use by government and/or other partners. 3
Responsibilities for project implementation are clearly defined. 3
Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) are ready at appraisal 3
Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan are agreed upon during design. 3
Baseline data are available or are being collected. 2
PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SUB-SCORE 3.3
Supervision:
Bank complied with:
Environmental Safeguards 3
Fiduciary Requirements 4
Project Covenants 3
Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix provided and practicality of solutions.
3
Bank provided quality management oversight. 4
PCR was delivered on a timely basis. 1
SUPERVISION SUB-SCORE 3
OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE 3.15
15
BORROWER PERFORMANCE
Design and Readiness
Responsibilities for project implementation are clearly defined. 3
Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) are ready at appraisal
1
Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan are approved. 2
Baseline data are available or are being collected 2
PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SCORE 2
Implementation
Borrower complied with:
Environmental Safeguards 3
Fiduciary Requirements 2
Project Covenants 2
Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations. 3
Borrower collected and used monitoring information for decision-making. 3
IMPLEMENTATION SUB-SCORE 2.6
OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE 2.3
J. PROCESSING STEP SIGNATURE AND COMMENTS DATE
Sector Manager Clearance Awa BAMBA
Regional Director Clearance F.J.M. PERRAULT
Sector Director Approval Sering JALLOW
16
APPENDIX
Scale for Working Scores and Ratings
SCORE EXPLANATION
4 Very Good Fully achieved with no shortcomings
3 Good Mostly achieved despite a few shortcomings
2 Fair Partially achieved. Shortcomings and achievements are roughly balanced
1 Poor Very limited achievement with extensive shortcomings
NA Not Applicable
Note: The formulas round up or down for decimal points. Only whole numbers are computed.
17
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1 : Project Costs and Financing, Difference in Costs at appraisal and at Completion Annex 2 : Bank‟s Inputs Annex 3 : Key Contracts Signed Annex 4 : List of Documents Consulted and Submitted to the Bank Annex 5 : Project Description – Determining Factors Annex 6 : Economic Analysis (ERR) and Financial Analysis
18
Annex 1
Project Cost and Sources of Financing, Differences at Appraisal and Completion.
a. Project Costs by Component (CFAF).
Components Appraisal Completion
A. Development of basic infrastructure
17,945,814,000 19,341,909,818 B. Institutional support for local structures
involved in the sub-programme
282,462,069 767,886,000
C. Sub-programme management
687,400,000 1,104,439,240
Total, excluding contingencies
19,401,100,000
Physical contingencies 1,798,722,000
Price escalation 1,068,785,000
Total 22,268,606,000 20,728,811,127
B: Exchange rate: at appraisal: UA 1 = CFAF 767.883; at completion: UA 1 = CFAF 726.8 Note: The costs at completion represent amounts disbursed.
b. Resources by Sources of Financing (UA)
Source Appraisal Completion
ADF 25,000,000 24,921,588.79
Government 3,118,000 2,820,683
Beneficiaries (Sanitation) 882,000
274,445
Beneficiaries (Individual connections) 213,540
TOTAL 29,000,000 28,230,436.8
c. Implementation by Category (in CFAF)
Heading Category Amounts
GOODS A 814,899,246
WORKS B 16,802,656,502
SERVICES C 1,759,981,778
OPERATING COSTS D 1,351,273,601
TOTAL AMOUNT 20,728,811,127
19
d. Project Costs at Appraisal and Completion
Comparative Table of Project Costs by Component Estimated and Actual (in CFAF)
Component
At Appraisal At Completion* Difference
Amount Percent
A. Development of basic infrastructure
17,945,814,000 19,341,909,818 -1,396,095,818 - 7 %
B. Institutional support for local departments involved in the sub-programme
767,886,000
1386,901,309** 68,384,091 4.7% C. Sub-programme management
687,400,000
Basic cost 19,401,099,000 20,728,811,127
Physical contingencies 1,798,722,000
Price escalation 1,068,785,000
Total cost of project 22,268,606,000 20,728,811,127
Note: Exchange rate: at appraisal: UA 1 = CFAF 767.883; at completion: UA 1 = CFAF 726.8 *Costs at completion include price escalation and physical contingencies, **The CFAF 1,386,901,309 at completion is compared to the sum of CFAF 767,886,000 + 687,400,000, corresponding to CFAF 1455,286,000.
Project Financing Plan at Appraisal and Completion
Comparison of Project Costs by Source of Financing,
(in UA) Sources of Financing
Source Estimated Costs at Appraisal Costs at Completion Difference
Amount Difference %
ADF 25,000,000 24,921,588.79 78,411.21 0.3 %
Government 3,112,000 2,820,683 291,317 9.36%
Beneficiaries (sanitation)
882,000
274,445
395,015 44.6 % Beneficiaries (individual connections)
213,540
Total 29,000,000 28,230,436.8 769,563 2.65%
Note: Exchange rate: at appraisal: UA 1 = CFAF 767.883; at completion: UA 1 = CFAF 726.8
20
Annex 2
Bank Inputs
Date Mission No. of pers. Composition
04 to 08 /12/2006 Preliminary Appraisal 1 Sanitary Engineer, 1 Financial Analyst, 1 Environmentalist
05 to 12/02/20006 Start-up 1 Financial Analyst, 1 Engineer, 1 Procurement Expert
June 2007 Supervision 1 Financial Analyst, 1 Engineer
13 to 27 /11/2007 Supervision 1 Financial Analyst, 1 Engineer
11 to 25/06/2008 Supervision 1 Financial Analyst, 1 Engineer
15 to 30/09/2008 Supervision 1 Financial Analyst, 1 Engineer
24 /11/ to 08/12/2008 Supervision 2 Engineers, 1 Operations Assistant
26 /09/ to 06/10/ 2009 Supervision 2 Water and Sanitation Engineer and 1 Financial Analyst
01 to 11 March 2010 Supervision 2 Water and Sanitation Engineers and 1 Gender Expert 1
06 to 13 /12/2010 Supervision 1 Engineer and 1 Procurement Expert
18 to 22 April 2010 PCR 1 Water and Sanitation Engineer and 1 Disbursement Expert
21
Annex 3
Key Contracts
No. Type of Contract Contract Amount
(CFAF) TI Name of Provider
Procurement Method
Start-up Date
DRINKING WATER MISSION
1 Monitoring and control of water works
581,282,160 GRESTEC-
BETER GROUP SL /SBQC 01/10/2006
2 Drilling works 1,428,349,413 CGC ICB 15/10/2006
3
Civil engineering works and networking
2,541,509,048 SADE ICB 30/04/2007
2,837,407,610 ESCI-CSTI
Group ICB 30/04/2007
2,624,604,577 CGC
ICB 30/04/2007
1,026,078,194 30/04/2007
4
Boreholes electrification works
210,815,629 SAHE LCB 21/11/2006
252,806,681 Equip Plus-Fass Electricité Group
LCB 21/11/2006
268,066,382 LCB 21/11/2006
5 Supply and installation of pumping equipment
1,023,825,086 Technital-SEHI ICB 21/02/2007
6 Laying of private connections 1,159,007,071 34 local
operators Community work
7 Drinking water IEC mission 561,351,960 MSA SL/SBQC 30/10/2006
SANITATION MISSION
8 Control/monitoring of construction of sanitation facilities and social engineering
832,556,349 EDE/MERLIN
Group SL/SBQC 05/09/2006
9 Construction of public toilets
216,569,800 ESMB (lot 1) LCB 17/01/2007
385,874,879 EGMBTV (lot 2) LCB 17/01/2007
283,773,017 COGECO (lot 4) LCB 17/01/2007
354,408,693 GENITE (lot 4) LCB 17/01/2007
358,144,000 GENITE (lot 5) LCB 17/01/2007
367,334,000 GEAUR (lot 6) LCB 17/01/2007
10 Construction of individual sanitation system
5,597,313,918 232 local operators
Community work 30/08/2006
SUPPORT FOR STRUCTURES AND PORJECT MANAGEMENT
11 Purchase of IT materials 41,704,669 BULL Senegal LCB 10/01/2007
12 Purchase of vehicles 129,600,000 SERA LCB 29/09/2006
13 Audit of 2006-2007 accounts 10,502,000 Cabinet Mamina
Camara SL/BLC
14 Audit of 2008-2009 accounts 10,655,400 Cabinet SEC
Diarra SL/BLC
15 Audit of 2010 accounts 5,327,700 Cabinet SEC
Diarra Direct
agreement
TOTAL 23,108,868,236
22
Annex 4
List of Key Documents Consulted
- ADB/PEPAM Sub-programme (Phase 1) Appraisal Report
- Loan Agreement for UA 25 Million to finance Phase 1 of the ADB/PEPAM Sub-programme
- Aide-memoires of Supervision Missions
- Exchange of correspondence among project stakeholders
- Quarterly Reports of the ADB/PEPAM Sub-programme (Phase 1)
- Reports of the audit and consultancy firms, EDE/MERLIN and MSA
- Reports of EDE/MERLIN Group (Sanitation) and MSA (drinking water), tasked with the IEC dimension
- Technical Reports of consultancy firms
- ADB/PEPAM Sub-programme, Phase 1, Accounts Audit Reports (Audit firms Mamina CAMARA and Société
d’Expertise Comptable Diarra).
- ADB/PEPAM Sub-programme 1 Socio-economic and Environmental Impact Assessment Mission Report:
Gender Mainstreaming and IEC Sector Report
- ADB/PEPAM Sub-programme 1 Socio-economic and Environmental Impact Assessment Mission Report:
Drinking Water and Sanitation Sector Report
- ADB/PEPAM Sub-programme 1 Socio-economic and Environmental Impact Assessment Mission Report:
Socio-economic Aspects Sector Report
- ADB/PEPAM Sub-programme 1 Socio-economic and Environmental Impact Assessment Mission Report:
Environmental Aspects Sector Report
23
Annex 5
Project Description – Determining Factors Policy Changes (or Contractual Issues)
Institutional changes were introduced during implementation of the sub-programme, as seen in the split of the Ministry
in charge of water and sanitation into two distinct ministries. The new Ministry of Sanitation took time to put its
structures in place, which caused delays in managing files.
Technical Issues
As the health situation had not been assessed before implementation of the sub-programme, it proved difficult to
assess the contribution of the health investments in the programme area.
Analysis of the social and health impact and its financial incidence on the populations
Health Impact
According to the populations met, the better health enjoyed by the people is a key impact of the availability of drinking
water. Access to drinking water (meaning less fetching of water from springs and lakes) means less standing water and
reduced hazards from fecal matter. Availability of water has led to better living conditions connected with water storage
methods. The populations also confirmed that cases of malaria and miscarriage had reduced.
For households interviewed, water causes diarrheal diseases (90% of respondents), stomach diseases (87.5%) and
skin diseases (71.5%). Over 95% of households believe that possessing a private connection helps to reduce cases of
illness.
Thus, according to 70% of respondents, health spending dropped from CFAF 460 monthly on average per household
to CFAF 240 for beneficiaries. This drop is significant for many households in areas known for high poverty levels.
Socio-economic Impact
Each borehole fosters local job creation. Generally, the following resource persons are involved for each borehole:
- A conductor is recruited and paid between CFAF 40,000 and 60,000 per month;
- 3 to 4 persons are responsible for reading metres and receive between CFAF 20,000 and 50,000;
- Presidents, treasurers and secretaries receive an incentive payment of between CFAF 15,000 and 20,000;
- Standpipe operators are paid at the rate of CFAF 50 per m3
- Plumbers are hired for small repairs
- Sub-contracting with certain local structures such as CETIDES in Louga region.
The sanitation-sector intervention helped to develop revenue locally: bricklayers, labourers, carpenters, ironsmiths,
relays agents etc.
24
Impact on Education
In Louga region, the base case in 2000 revealed that the school enrolment for girls aged 7 to 12 years was 24%. The
manpower needs for domestic production curtail the school enrolment of girls and favour absenteeism and even drop-
outs.
Between 2000 and 2008, the pupils‟ access rate increased both for entry into Form One and for BEFM.
The provision of water and latrines in schools has reduced the time lost by pupils, mostly girls, rushing back home to go
use toilets and looking for water.
Impact on Gender
With regard to gender, it is worth noting that the context is very favourable for women‟s involvement in the management of the water and sanitation service. Discussions around parity have led to heightened awareness of the need to empower women. The effects of gender-equality promotion activities include:
Women participate in decision-making and water-management centres even though they need better training to be able to properly assume their responsibilities;
They are no longer obliged to go far from the villages to look for water or spend much time on water queues;
Time gains are significant and many women take up income-generating activities, depending on their zones, which enable them to improve their personal comfort and that of their whole family;
Women engage in market gardening and make between CFAF 500 and 1,000 each day in three villages with the support of Japanese volunteers and PADV. Thus, women have grown their incomes and improved the nutritional quality of meals;
In predominantly Pular villages, women are increasingly more sedentary and have succeeded in improving the modalities for the sale of dairy products;
Impact on the environment The sub-programme has a summary Environmental Management Plan which defines environmental and social measures to be implemented. The following activities were envisaged in the summary Environmental and Social Plan. A positive social and health impact in areas with variable environmental realities and water access quality. A characteristic of this sub-programme is that it covers socio-cultural entities and agro-ecological zones that are highly disparate in terms of their ecosystems, production systems and the availability and use of and conditions of access to water resources. In the typical agro-sylvo-pastoral zone with widely dispersed boreholes, low rainfall and soil permeability, which makes long-term runoff retention impossible, the PEPAM/ADB sub-programme 1 raised the level of hygiene, and helped to protect the pastoral production system and reduce the burden and time consumption of household chores by increasing the water network, rehabilitating boreholes and improving water management by ASUFORs. Moreover, if the environment is considered not just as a physical and natural thing and individuals and groups take from or add to it elements contributing to their system of social reproduction, one will recognize that the PEPAM/ADB 1 Sub-component significantly made the environment better and lightened women‟s workload in Louga, especially by shortening the distance to boreholes, reducing the time taken to fetch water and improving conditions of hygiene, although this latter point still needs to be reviewed.
25
Annex 6 Economic Analysis (ERR) and Financial Analysis.
Analysis of the viability and sustainability of ASUFORs (Example of two ASUFORs: BOUDY SAKHO and DAROU NGARAFF in Louga Region The economic and financial analysis of the Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation (DWSS) sub-programme is mainly centred on analyzing the overall economic benefits generated by facilities constructed. Financial analysis, as habitually conducted for projects, proves to be restrictive inasmuch as the construction of family and/or community sanitation facilities does not generate the kind of cash-flow (expenditure and income) that makes financial analysis possible. The latter can only apply to drinking water production structures that generate cash-flow from the volume of water sold. The approach adopted for this sub-programme is to evaluate the financial returns of a multi-village ASUFOR prior to a broader analysis of economic gains, measuring the socio-economic impact of the sub-programme countrywide. For economic gains to be made, it is important to demonstrate that ASUFORs can be self-financing without additional financial support from the sub-programme, once drinking water facilities are constructed. To guarantee the financial viability of water service, operating revenue must cover operating costs and provisions for plant renewal. In other words, the price fixed must be higher than the cost of water. The financial profitability of management structures was calculated based on real data before making projections for the coming years. The cost of water was calculated considering the following elements:
Water consumption;
Provisions for renewal of pumping equipment;
Operating costs (power costs, incentives to conductors and other parties involved the service, maintenance of pumping equipment, civil engineering network, operation of the ASUFOR).
ASUFOR BOUDY SAKHO
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
1 Equipped flow 31 m3/hour
2 Water tank 150 m3/20m
3 Number of villages covered 17
4 Linear distance of the network 23.5 km
5 Pumping equipment GE+EPI
Data collected from the ASUFOR 2009 - 2010
1 Water consumption between 2009 and 2010
32% increase in consumption
2 Depreciation Renewal of pumping equipment every 5 years (linear depreciation)
3 Fuel The average cost of the first 2 years including transport is CFAF 64/m3
4 Maintenance of pumping equipment As from 2011, the annual cost of maintenance is 5% of the total cost of the pumping equipment. Next, a 5% rise in annual cost is considered.
5 Network maintenance As from 2011, the annual cost of maintenance taken is 5% of the total cost of the network, estimated at 6 million/km. Then a 5% rise in annual cost is considered
26
6 Civil engineering maintenance As from 2011, an annual amount equal to 1% of the investment cost is considered. Then a 5% rise is considered
7 Incentive to conductor CFAF 55,000/month (2011-2013), CFAF 65,000/month (2014-2018), CFAF75,000F: months beyond
8 Incentive to BF and ABV attendant 70% of consumption with remuneration of CFAF 25/m3
9 Incentive to metre readers CFAF30,000/month (2011-2013), CFAF 35,000/month (2014-2018), CFAF40,000/month beyond
10 Operation of ASUFOR Office allowances, delegates‟ allowances, cost of holding meetings, administrative expenditure, CFAF15/m3 is considered.
27
Financial Returns
Years 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Consumption (m3) 46,082 55,227 60,750 66,825 73,507 80,858 88,944 93,391 98,060 102,963 108,112 113,517
Investment
17,500,000
Pumping Equipment
17,500,000
Provision for renewal 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Pumping Equipment 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Operating costs in CFAF 9,474,135 10,304,610 10,699,335 11,919,892 13,310,219 15,062,194 16,869,530 18,220,592 19,384,503 20,630,467 21,993,124 23,413,830
Fuel 3,838,000 5,331,800 6,074,970 7,016,590 8,104,162 9,360,307 10,811,155 11,919,298 12,828,144 13,806,290 14,859,020 15,992,020
Maintenance, pumping equipment 378,000 734,700 875,000 918,750 964,688 1,000,000 1,050,000 1,102,500 1,157,625 1,215,506 1,125,000 1,181,250
Maintenance, network 169,100 515,650 705,000 740,250 777,263 816,126 856,932 899,779 944,767 992,006 1,041,606 1,093,686
Maintenance, civil engineering
50,000 52,500 55,125 57,881 60,775 63,814 67,005 70,355 73,873 77,566
Incentive to conductor 600,000 600,000 660,000 660,000 660,000 780,000 780,000 780,000 780,000 780,000 900,000 900,000
Incentive to BF and attendant 1,785,295 1,617,340 1,063,120 1,169,432 1,286,375 1,415,012 1,556,514 1,634,339 1,716,056 1,801,859 1,891,952 1,986,550
Incentive to metre readers 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 480,000 480,000
Operation of ASUFOR 2,343,740 1,145,120 911,246 1,002,370 1,102,607 1,212,868 1,334,155 1,400,862 1,470,905
Cost of water CFAF/m3 271 241 226 223 222 230 229 233 233 234 240 241
Revenue from water sold at CFAF 300/m3 with a 95% recovery rate
170,870,575 16,373,825 17,313,665 19,045,031 20,949,534 23,044,487 25,348,936 26,616,383 27,947,202 29,344,562 30,811,790 32,352,380
Balance in CFAF 4,613,440 3,069,215 3,614,329 4,125,139 4,639,315 4,482,293 4,979,406 4,895,791 5,062,699 5,214,095 4,818,666 4,938,550
Auto-financing capacity in CFAF 7,613,440 6,069,215 6,614,329 7,125,139 7,639,315 7,982,293 8,479,406 8,395,791 8,562,699 8,714,095 8,818,666 8,938,550
Cumulative cash-flow of ASUFOR in CFAF
7,613,440 13,682,655 20,296,984 27,422,123 35,061,438 25,543,732 34,023,138 42,418,929 50,981,628 59,695,723 48,514,390 57,452,940
28
Operational Analysis
The price of water is CFAF 300/m3. Initially, it was CFAF 400/m3 until 2009. For the first two years, field data collected from ASUFOR was presented. The cumulative cash-flow for these two years is CFAF 13,682,655 (bank + cash in hand) – an amount that is virtually equal to the ASUFOR‟s current savings. This means that provisions for renewal are being adequately constituted. The proposed price exceeds the cost of water, allowing for a profit margin that will enable ASUFOR to address certain cost variations (especially fuel) and, in some cases, undertake network extensions and promote private connections. The Boudy Sakho ASUFOR is financially viable, if the observed dynamism is maintained. It should be noted that the consumption beyond 2010 corresponds to an average daily pumping time of about 10h /day compared with 5 hours currently.
29
DAROU NGARAF ASUFOR
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
1 Equipped flow 35 m3/hour
2 Water tank 200 m3/20m
3 Number of villages covered 31
4 Linear distance of network 39 km
5 Pumping equipment GE+EPI
2010 data collected from the ASUFOR
1 Water consumption between 2009 and 2010
A 20% rise in consumption. A 10%/year rise is proposed between 2011 and 2015 and 5%/year between 2016 and 2020
2 Depreciation Renewal of pumping equipment every 5 years (linear depreciation)
3 Fuel The average cost, including transportation, is CFAF37/m3 consumed. A cost of CFAF70/m3 is proposed for 2011 and a 5% rise in yearly cost thereafter.
4 Pumping equipment maintenance As from 2011, the annual maintenance cost is 5% of the total cost of the pumping equipment. Thereafter, a 5% rise in the annual cost is considered.
5 Network maintenance As from 2011, the maintenance annual cost is 5% of the total cost of the network, estimated at 6 million/km. Thereafter, a 5% rise in the annual cost is considered.
6 Civil engineering maintenance As from 2011, an annual amount equal to 1% of the investment cost is considered. Thereafter, a 5%/year increase is considered.
7 Incentive to conductor CFAF65,000/month (2011-2013), CFAF75,000/month (2014-2020).
8 Incentive to metre readers CFAF50,000/month (2011-2013), CFAF60,000/month (2014-2020).
9 Operation of ASUFOR Office allowances, delegates‟ allowances, costs of holding meetings, administrative expenditure; CFAF 15/m3 consumed is considered.
30
FINANCIAL RETURNS
Years 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Consumption (m3) 97 717 104 189 114 608 126 068 138 675 152 543 160 170 168 178 176 587 185 417 194 687
Investment
17 500 000
Pumping equipment
17 500 000
Provision for renewal 3 000 000 3 000 000 3 000 000 3 000 000 3 000 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 4 000 000
Pumping equipment 3 000 000 3 000 000 3 000 000 3 000 000 3 000 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 4 000 000
Operating costs in CFAF 5 908 600 11 546 390 13 630 770 14 750 447 16 486 453 18 696 597 20 199 385 21 843 830 23 249 428 24 755 379 26 217 713
Fuel 3 550 000 7 293 209 8 423 656 9 266 022 10 702 255 12 361 105 13 628 118 15 025 000 16 170 657 17 403 669 18 730 699
Pumping equipment maintenance 176 800 734 700 875 000 918 750 964 688 1 000 000 1 050 000 1 102 500 1 157 625 1 215 506 1 125 000
Network maintenance 178 800 515 650 1 170 000 1 2258 500 1 289 925 1 354 421 1 422 142 1 493 249 1 567 912 1 646 307 1 728 623
Civil engineering maintenance
60 000 63 000 66 150 69 458 72 930 76 577 80 406 84 426 88 647 93 080
Incentive to conductors 635 000 780 000 780 000 780 000 780 000 900 000 900 000 900 000 900 000 900 000 900 000
Incentive to metre readers 490 000 600 000 600 000 600 000 600 000 720 000 720 000 720 000 720 000 720 000 720 000
Operation of ASUFOR 878 000 1 562831 1 719 114 1 891 025 2 080 127 2 288 140 2 402 547 2 522 674 2 648 808 2 781 249 2 920 311
Cost of water (CFAF/m3) 94 140 145 141 141 146 148 151 151 152 155
Revenue from water sold at CFAF300/m3 with 95% recovery rate
9 584 750 25 005 288 27 505 817 30 256 398 33 282 038 36 610 242 38 440 754 40 362 792 42 380 932 44 499 978 46 724 977
Balance in CFAF 676 150 10 458 899 10 875 047 12 505 952 13 795 585 14 413 645 14 741 370 15 018 962 15 631 504 16 244 599 16 507 264
Self-financing capacity in CFAF 3 676 150 13 458 899 13 875 047 15 505 952 16 795 585 17 913 645 18 241 370 18 518 962 19 131 504 19 744 599 20 507 264
ASUFOR‟s cumulative cash-flow in CFAF
3 676 150 17 135 049 31 010 095 46 516 047 63 311 632 63 725 278 81 966 647 100 485 609 119 617 113 139 361 712 139 868 976
31
Operational Analysis
The price of water is CFAF300/m3. For the first year, field data collected from ASUFOR was presented. In Year 1, the recovery rate of bills was low. For a fixed price of CFAF300/m3, recovery is about CFAF101/m3, slightly above the cost of water of CFAF93/m3. ASUFOR must strive, with the support of BPF Louga, to improve the recovery rate by keeping an eye on the substantial water losses noticed, as this will help to cut the price of water to CFAF200/m3, check losses and improve recovery. The price of water can be reduced while also ensuring provisions for renewal. It is also worth noting that ASUFOR spends much money as incentives paid to bureau members (on average CFAF 75,000/month distributed to the chairperson, treasurer and secretary). Despite this observation, the level of savings is commendable and provisions for renewal are being appropriately constituted. Although the Darou Ngaraff ASUFOR is financially buoyant, its management method should be improved and losses controlled more closely; otherwise, in the long run, expenditure will exceed revenue. The consumption 10 years hence is expected to reach an average daily pumping time of about 17 hours per day compared with 8 hours currently.