DOCUMENT OF THE WORLD BANK FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 129798‐NP PROGRAM APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ON A PROPOSED CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 94.70 MILLION (US$133 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO NEPAL FOR A SECOND BRIDGES IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM August 29, 2018 Transport Global Practice South Asia Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.” Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Transcript
DOCUMENT OF
THE WORLD BANK
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No: 129798‐NP
PROGRAM APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
ON A
PROPOSED CREDIT
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 94.70 MILLION (US$133 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
TO
NEPAL
FOR A
SECOND BRIDGES IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
August 29, 2018
Transport Global Practice South Asia Region
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.”
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective July 31, 2018)
Currency Unit = Nepalese Rupee (NPR) NPR 109.88 = US$1
US$ 1.41 = SDR 1
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL FISCAL YEAR July 16 – July 15
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AF Additional Financing
BIMP Bridges Improvement and Maintenance Program
BMS Bridge Management System
BoQ Bill of Quantities
BSMS Bridge Site Monitoring System
CE Citizen Engagement
CIAA Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority
CMS Contract Management System
COM Communication and Outreach Mechanism
CPF Country Partnership Framework
DATC Design and Advanced Technology Cell
DLI Disbursement‐Linked Indicator
DOR Department of Roads
DRO Divisional Road Office
EA Environmental Assessment
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
ESSA Environmental and Social Systems Assessment
FMIS Financial Management Information System
GBV Gender‐Based Violence
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
GESU Geo‐Environmental and Social Unit
GLOF Glacial Lake Outburst Flood
GON Government of Nepal
GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism
GRS Grievance Redress Service
HMIS Highway Management Information System
IEE Initial Environmental Examination
INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contributions
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
IPF Investment Project Financing
LAPA Local Adaptation Plans for Action
LARRP Land Acquisition, Resettlement, and Rehabilitation Policy
MoF Ministry of Finance
MoPIT Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport
NPC National Planning Commission
NVC National Vigilance Center
OCHS Occupational and Community Health and Safety
PAT Performance Assessment Tool
PDO Program Development Objective
PforR Program‐for‐Results
PPMO Public Procurement Monitoring Office
RSDP Road Sector Development Project
RSSP Road Safety Support Project
SEA Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
SIA Social Impact Assessment
SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SORT Systematic Operations Risk Rating Tool
SRN Strategic Road Network
TOR Terms of Reference
UNCAC United Nations Convention against Corruption
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WIM Workers’ Influx Management
Regional Vice President: Hartwig Schafer Global Practice Vice President: Makhtar Diop
Country Director: Qimiao Fan Country Manager: Faris H. Hadad‐Zervos Practice Manager: Karla Gonzalez Carvajal
Task Team Leaders: Dominic Patella / Oceane Keou
NEPAL
Second Bridges Improvement and Maintenance Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................... 1
A. Country Context .................................................................................................................................. 1
B. Sectoral and Institutional Context ....................................................................................................... 2
C. Relationship to Country Partnership Framework (CPF) and Rationale for Use of Instrument ........... 4
II. Program Description ....................................................................................................................... 4
A. Government program .......................................................................................................................... 4
B. Program Development Objective (PDO) and Key Results ................................................................... 5
C. PforR Program Scope ........................................................................................................................... 5
D. IPF Component: Consultancy Support and Institutional Development .............................................. 6
E. Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs) and Verification Protocol ....................................................... 7
F. Key Capacity Building and Systems Strengthening Activities .............................................................. 7
III. Program Implementation ................................................................................................................ 8
A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements ............................................................................... 8
B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 9
C. Disbursement Arrangements .............................................................................................................. 9
D. Role of Development Partners .......................................................................................................... 10
IV. Assessment Summary ................................................................................................................... 10
A. Technical ............................................................................................................................................ 10
B. Fiduciary ............................................................................................................................................ 12
C. Environmental and Social Systems (including safeguards for IPF component) ................................ 13
D. Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 17
E. Program Action Plan .......................................................................................................................... 18
ANNEX 1. DETAILED PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 19
ANNEX 2. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND MONITORING ............................................................................ 25
ANNEX 3. DLIs, DISBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND VERIFICATION PROTOCOLS ............................... 29
To provide safe, resilient, and cost‐effective bridges on Nepal’s Strategic Roads Network
.
Compliance
Policy
Does the program depart from the CAS in content or in other significant respects?
Yes [ ] No [ X]
.
Does the program require any waivers of Bank policies applicable to Program‐for‐Results operations?
Yes [ ] No [ X]
Have these been approved by Bank management? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Is approval for any policy waiver sought from the Board? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Overall Risk Rating: High
Legal Covenants
Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Implementation Arrangements x
Description of Covenant
iii
Schedule 2 Section I.A.1: “The Recipient shall maintain a Bridge Branch and Geo‐Environmental and Social Unit under DOR, with technical social and environmental safeguards, fiduciary and other Program related responsibilities for implementing the Program, all with powers, functions, capacity, staffing, and resources appropriate to fulfil their respective functions under the Operation.”
Schedule 2 Section I.A. 3: “Recipient, through MOF, has maintained separate budget heads which shall provide for the expenditures under the Program.”
Schedule 2 Section I. B.1: “1. The Recipient, through its National Planning Commission, shall: (a) appoint and thereafter maintain, at all times during the implementation of the Program, independent verification agents under terms of reference satisfactory to the Association (“Verification Agents”), to verify the data and other evidence supporting the achievement of one or more DLRs as set forth in the table in Section IV.A.1 of this Schedule 2 and the table in Annex to this Schedule 2. (b) (i) ensure that the Verification Agents carry out verification and process(es) in accordance with a detailed DLR verification protocol jointly endorsed by the Recipient and the Association; and (ii) submit to the Association the corresponding verification reports in a timely manner and in form and substance satisfactory to the Association. (c) In the event there is a need for verification services prior to the appointment of the Verification Agents in accordance with sub‐paragraph (a) above, put in place adequate interim arrangement satisfactory to the Association and approved in writing by the Association for verification of the DLRs.”
Schedule 2 Section I.C: “1. The Recipient shall ensure that: (a) all consultancy support under the Project, the application of whose results would have environmental or social implications, shall only be undertaken pursuant to terms of reference reviewed and found satisfactory by the Association; and (b) such terms of reference ensure that the consultancy support takes into consideration, and calls for application of, the Association’s safeguard policies and the relevant Recipient’s own laws relating to the environment and social aspects. 2. The Recipient shall ensure that terms of reference for the feasibility studies, environmental and social studies and any other pertinent studies for the Potential Future Projects to be prepared under the Project, are prepared in a manner satisfactory to the Association, duly incorporate and take into consideration the requirements of the Association’s safeguard policies and environmental and health and safety guidelines and are disclosed to the Association and to the public through the Recipient’s DOR website for a duration of time satisfactory to the Association.”
.
Team Composition
Bank Staff
Name Title Specialization Unit
Dominic Patella Sr. Transport Specialist Transport GTD06
Oceane Keou Transport Specialist Transport GTD06
Vishnu Shrestha Consultant Bridges GTD06
Bijendra Bade Shrestha Consultant Bridges GTD06
Shubu Thapa Operations Analyst Operations GTD06
Bibash Shrestha Program Assistant Administration SACNP
NEPAL SECOND BRIDGES IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
A. Country Context
1. Over the past decade, Nepal’s economy has performed reasonably well. Growth averaged 4.3 percent (at market prices) over 2005–15. Although declining as a share in the economy, agriculture continues to play a large role, contributing 30 percent of value added. The service sector has grown in importance, accounting for half of value added in recent years. Industry, in general, and manufacturing, has grown more slowly and its relative share in the economy is falling. Similarly, exports continue to struggle, while imports are fueled by remittances. However, remittance as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) has recently been on a declining trend due to lower oil prices that have affected economic prospects in those countries with large Nepalese migrants. Inflation was in single digit for most of the past decade, with the peg of the Nepalese rupee to the Indian rupee providing a nominal anchor. Fiscal balances remained sustainable owing to strong revenue growth and modest spending. The incidence of poverty measured against the national poverty line fell by 19 percentage points between 2003/04 and 2010/11, and in 2010/111, 15 percent of the population was counted as poor. Most multidimensional indicators of poverty also showed improvements across regions in Nepal. However, these gains remain vulnerable to shocks and setbacks, as evidenced by the 2015 earthquakes which were followed by trade disruptions resulting in GDP growth of 0.6 percent in 2016, the lowest in 14 years.
2. Data released by the Central Bureau of Statistic (consisting of a revision of the FY2017 growth rate and an updated estimate for FY2018) show that growth has been strong, despite the external shock from floods. In mid‐August 2017, the worst flood in decades destroyed 64,000 ha of standing crop, contributing to an estimated reduction in the agriculture growth rate from 5 percent to 2.8 percent (in FY2017 and FY2018, respectively). This contributed to a reduction in overall GDP growth from 7.9 percent in FY2017 to 6.3 percent in FY2018. Government revenue continued to perform well. However, spending also picked up significantly in FY2017 compared to previous years. Nevertheless, ambitious expenditure targets envisioned in the budget have not been met and the quality of spending has not improved with 60 percent of the capital spending occurring in the last quarter. Also, spending pressures have increased in the first half of FY2018 due to fiscal transfers and spending on elections, capital goods, and federalism. High inflation in the past two years has moderated sharply due to moderating inflation in India and improving supply‐side constraints. Inflation slowed to 4.2 percent (y‐o‐y) in December 2017 but increased to 6 percent (y‐o‐y) in March 2018 owing to a sharp uptick in vegetable prices. Meanwhile, credit growth slowed in early 2018 to 16.7 percent (y/y) compared to its peak of 31.9 percent in 2017; but deposits growth continued to decline, pushing up interest rates. On the external side, the cumulative effect of a sharp trade balance deterioration and a slow growth of remittances, is putting significant pressure on the current account. Economic activity, has been affected by the worst floods in decades particularly affecting agriculture output. This contributed to a slowdown in growth from its peak of 7.9 percent in FY2017 to an estimated 6.3 percent in FY2018.
3. A new government, backed by a historic majority in Parliament, took up office on February 15, 2018. This follows elections for all three tiers (local, state, and federal) of the state architecture defined by the new constitution, marking a protracted but successful conclusion of a political transition that began with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in November 2006. State governments largely mirror
1 Poverty data were last updated in 2010. The World Bank will be collaborating with the Central Bureau of Statistics to update national poverty estimates using the Annual Household Survey data (2013/14 – 2016/17) and prepare the next Nepal Living Standard Survey.
2
the coalition at the center. At the subnational level, funds, functions, and functionaries hitherto managed by the central, district, and village authorities are moving to the seven new states and 753 local governments for which new legislation, institutions, and administrative procedures are being formalized as constitutionally prescribed. Meanwhile, the central‐level authority is being streamlined with a focus on oversight. These exercises at state restructuring are expected to result in improved outreach and service delivery but will likely take time before they become fully operational.
B. Sectoral and Institutional Context
4. Nepal’s physical and economic integration as a country depends on bridges along the Strategic Roads Network (SRN) that enable year‐round connectivity between the federal provinces. The SRN consists of 12,142 km of roads and 1,773 bridges. It carries the majority of passenger and goods transport throughout Nepal. It also provides critical connections to India, which is Nepal’s largest trading partner and primary conduit for third country trade. The bridges that stitch together different sections of SRN roads represent critical infrastructure for Nepal’s development given the number of river crossings and drainages that Nepal’s Himalayan topography creates. Where bridges have yet to be built, or prove vulnerable to climatic conditions such as flooding, communities and entire sections of Nepal can lose connectivity to other internal regions, social services, and markets. Absent or lost connectivity impedes poverty reduction—particularly in Nepal’s rural areas.
5. The SRN remains both incomplete and inadequate with respect to the transportation services that Nepal requires for poverty reduction and increasing shared prosperity. For example, only about 54% of SRN roads feature some form of bituminous surface. Similarly, there are 372 identified gaps (totaling approximately18,861 meters) on SRN roads that require new bridge construction for improved all‐weather connectivity. The geographical configuration of the SRN is significant to Nepal’s transport connectivity challenges and national integration under the new federal structure. Nepal’s busiest highway, known as the East‐West Highway traverses “Terai” districts and provides a transportation link that runs in parallel to Nepal’s southern border with India. This road crosses numerous large year‐round and seasonal rivers that drain hill and mountain catchments. As a result, approximately 40% of Nepal’s existing bridge stock (by meters) is found on the East‐West Highway. North‐south feeder roads branch off the East‐West Highway and provide access to the difficult topography of Nepal’s hill and mountain districts.
6. SRN roads and bridges that comprise Nepal’s national road network provide the physical links that integrate Nepal as a single country. The maintenance and replacement of aging bridges along Nepal’s East‐West Highway is particularly critical to the reliability of this connectivity. The proposed operation will thus focus on the maintenance, replacement, and new construction of bridges. The Government prioritizes interventions based on the Bridge Management System (BMS) that was mobilized under the IDA‐supported First Bridges Improvement and Maintenance Program (BIMP I). This system allows the Government to prioritize road links where bridge works are critical and expected to generate most impacts in terms of asset life, travel time, number of beneficiaries, and so on. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Association also supports the rehabilitation of the road network through other complementary projects that are under implementation.
7. Nepal’s Department of Roads (DOR) within the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport (MoPIT) develops and maintains roads and bridges along the SRN. The SRN and its management is a national concern with resources allocated from Nepal’s Consolidated Fund through the national budget. Implementation of SRN works is managed by 34 Divisional Road Offices (DROs) as well as Kathmandu‐based units that operate across divisions. A central Kathmandu‐based Bridge Branch within the DOR has overall jurisdiction over bridge assets and uses four regionally based Bridge Sectors to maintain field presence. It
3
directly manages complex bridge works using a dedicated engineering team. For less complex bridge works, DROs implement works under the Bridge Branch’s supervision and technical guidance.
8. Monsoon flooding during the summer of 2017 demonstrated that many bridges in Nepal, particularly along the East‐West Highway are vulnerable to natural events. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that Himalayan regions like Nepal will experience significant changes in weather patterns due to climate change. The World Bank’s Climate and Disaster Risk Screening tool also indicates high risks of extreme precipitation and landslides facing SRN roads and bridges. Strengthening the resilience of Nepal’s road and bridge network, particularly through greater consideration for resilient engineering designs will be important for adapting to whatever eventualities climate change will bring for Nepal. Strengthening maintenance systems is also essential for achieving greater resilience as well as cost effectiveness of Nepal’s SRN bridge investments. Regular bridge maintenance is critical to enhancing resilience and extending the useful life of assets at levels of costs that are typically well below bridge replacement. There is also a need to enhance the resilience considerations reflected in initial bridge designs that the DOR deploys in Nepal.
9. SRN roads and bridges suffer from insufficient road safety features and the rate of road transport‐related fatalities in Nepal is among the highest in the world. In part, this reflects a historical focus on prioritizing expansion of connectivity ahead of the quality and safety of that connectivity. Bridge rail, proper markings, approach barriers, and features to protect pedestrians and cyclists transport are typically basic and insufficient to provide for safety. The design and construction of bridges for inclusive and safe access is an area where Nepal can improve development results from bridge investments.
10. Nationally, of the total number of people employed in the transport, storage, and communications sector in Nepal, only 3.5 percent are women.2 This may in part reflect cultural norms and preferences. Women are similarly unrepresented in Nepal’s engineering professions and the ministries or departments that manage the road networks, which represents a clear gender gap in Nepal’s transport sector. While there are provisions to support female and minority inclusion in the public service in Nepal, such initiatives remain at nascent stages. For example, the quota/target for female civil servants for the public service as a whole is 33 percent. There is a need to increase both the level of participation and level of inclusiveness of underrepresented groups. Rough estimates suggest that female engineers comprise about 6 percent of the DOR’s technical staff (that is, around 25 female engineers out of approximately 430). Despite being a low proportion overall, this may be slightly more than other roads sector institutions in Nepal. For example, in 2013 the Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads reportedly employed only 7 female engineers (out of approximately 1,000).3 At present, there is only one female ‘class 1’ government officer4 assigned in the entirety of Nepal’s roads sector. A pilot survey of the DOR’s human resources that was conducted in March 2017 highlighted perceptions of gender bias with respect to promotion. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that female engineers within road sector institutions are often allocated organizational or administrative tasks rather than technical task which may reduce job satisfaction and limit opportunities for advancement. Sourcing more female engineers, enhancing their technical skills, and elevating their role in technical programs can help strengthen the road sector institutions of the Government of Nepal (GON) and their ability to engage with different segments of Nepal’s population. This will be a key objective of the new Design and Advanced Technology Cell (DATC) that the proposed operation will support. Hiring and training of female engineers through the DATC will indeed help develop role models
2 Based on International Labor Organization data, using a three‐year moving average. 3 https://blogs.adb.org/blog/meet‐nisha‐tripathee‐female‐engineer‐nepal. 4 ‘Class 1’ officers are able to hold the rank of Director General and Deputy Director General level posts. They are also potential candidates for Secretary‐level positions in Nepal’s ministries.
4
and bridge gender gaps, as DATC female engineers are later expected to hold various positions throughout their careers in the department.
C. Relationship to Country Partnership Framework (CPF) and Rationale for Use of Instrument
11. IDA’s support to the Program aligns with Nepal’s current FY2019‐FY2023Country Partnership Framework (CPF) dated July 10, 20185. The CPF prioritizes the following areas: (i) Strengthening public institutions for effective economic management, service delivery, and public investment not only at national level, but at sub‐national levels. (ii) Private sector led jobs and growth for generating more and better jobs through private sector‐driven growth, building on ongoing work to improve access to energy and connectivity, regulatory environment and financial sector stability. (iii) Inclusion and diversity to achieve greater inclusion for the poor, vulnerable, and marginalized groups, with greater resilience against climate change, natural disasters, and other exogenous shocks. The proposed operation will contribute to Focus Area 1 and 2, through: (a) the increase of transportation connectivity in the country and with India; (b) the improvement of maintenance, safety, and quality of the infrastructure; and (c) the capacity building
of key institutions in the transport sector. The proposed operation will also contribute to Focus Area 3 through the development of advanced bridge designs that provide for enhanced resilience and inclusion on non‐motorized modes.
12. The proposed operation is designed as a ‘hybrid’ operation, which includes both Program‐for‐Results (PforR) and Investment Project Financing (IPF) components. This choice of instruments reflects learnings from BIMP I and the Association’s long history of engagement in Nepal’s transport sector, which began in late 1970 (48 years ago). The PforR component of the hybrid operation (that is, PforR Program or Program) will continue to build on the successful use of government systems achieved under BIMP I. The complementary IPF component of the hybrid operation will provide consultancy support and institutional development to the Program and the DOR with an overall aim of advancing the DOR’s design capabilities and major project planning capabilities. Pioneering design capabilities for enhancing both the resilience and inclusiveness of bridge designs will be key areas of focus for support under the operation’s IPF component. At present, the DOR does not have a government program that focuses on pioneering advanced technologies and the IPF instrument has been selected accordingly to lay the foundations for such a program in the future.
13. The DOR has capacity to manage both IPF and PforR instruments in parallel and has experience of doing so while also maintaining fiduciary and safeguards policy‐related separation between them and complying with the Association’s relevant policies for each instrument. During the implementation period of the BIMP I, three parallel IPF operations were ongoing concurrently within the DOR. Of these, the Road Sector Development Project (P095977) provided consultancy support directly to the Bridge Branch which was highly effective. The design of BIMP II seeks to facilitate similar support with the added simplicity of housing both instruments under the same managing unit to enhance coordination.
II. Program Description
A. Government program
14. The DOR’s program of bridge investment accounts for approximately US$60–70 million of spending per year (likely US$300–US$350 million over the next five years). One segment of this larger program concerns maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of 78,169 m of SRN bridges in addition to ongoing construction of 15,710 m of new SRN bridges. It also covers a further 18,861 m of gaps that require new
5 CPF discussed in the Board on August 7, 2018
5
SRN bridges over the near and medium‐term future. The BMS provides a basis for tracking bridge inventory and gaps that require future bridges. BMS results provide prioritization for maintenance and new construction according to a multi‐criteria formula that considers need and criticality. Data from the BMS also provide an overall description of the DOR’s SRN bridge assets for planning and summary purposes. On average, bridges along the SRN are relatively short spanned and simple structures. Roughly two‐thirds of all SRN bridges are less than 40 m. Over 90 percent of all SRN bridges are less than 100 m long. Activities to be carried out under the PforR Program are detailed in section II.C (PforR Program Scope). Estimated PforR Program spending per year is indicated in annex 1. The PforR Program described in annex 1 was structured based upon analysis of BMS data and the delivery capacity of the DOR’s Bridge Branch.
15. Beneficiaries of the Program include motorized road users, pedestrians and cyclists, and communities that derive benefits from reduced transportation costs. In Nepal this has been shown to benefit agricultural producers, which is significant because of agriculture’s role in employment and poverty reduction. A 2012 research paper illustrated how farms in hill districts that have closer proximity to Nepal’s major North‐South road links are more profitable.6 A similar study observed that, between 1997 and 2002, the likelihood of escaping poverty for households in rural communities was 0.51 percent higher for every 10 percent reduction in their travel time to access public services.7
16. The replacement value of Nepal’s existing and under‐construction bridge assets that the DOR manages stands at approximately US$1.1 billion (at present levels of cost without consideration for depreciation). This is equivalent to 5.1 percent of Nepal’s 2016 GDP. The cost of building bridges along all identified gaps on the SRN is approximately US$216 million at present levels of cost, which is equivalent to a further 1 percent of Nepal’s 2016 GDP. It is important to note that these figures are not static as the SRN (and hence the need for bridges) continues to expand. In addition, aging bridges increasingly require maintenance and replacement. There are also needs for the DOR to enhance safety, resilience, inclusiveness, and capacity offered by existing bridges to meet Nepal’s evolving development needs.
B. Program Development Objective (PDO) and Key Results
17. The PDO is to provide safe, resilient, and cost‐effective bridges on Nepal’s Strategic Roads Network. The three indicators listed in table 1 will serve to measure the PDO’s achievement.
Table 1. PDO‐Level Results and Indicators
PDO‐Level Result PDO‐Level Indicator
Safe bridges PDO 1: Reduced likelihood of road departure crashes on Program bridges.
Resilient bridges PDO 2: Enhanced DOR capabilities for developing resilient bridge designs.
Cost effective bridges PDO 3: Estimated road user cost savings achieved by Program interventions.
C. PforR Program Scope
18. Developing and/or maintaining bridge infrastructure in the Strategic Roads Network under the Bridge Branch, as set forth in the Bridge Policy and Strategy, including: (a) providing road safety upgrades on existing bridges; (b) constructing new bridges; (c) completing bridges under construction; (d) major bridge maintenance; and (e) carrying out bridge designs, site assessments, feasibility studies, quality monitoring,
6 Shrestha, Slesh A. 2012. “Access to the North‐South Roads and Farm Profits in Rural Nepal” University of Michigan. 7 Dillon, Andrew, Manohar Sharma, and Xiaobo Zhang. 2011. “Estimating the Impact of Access to Infrastructure and Extension Services in Rural Nepal.” International Feed Policy Research Institute.
6
environmental and social impact management, and providing logistics support, for the Program, as required for the preparation and supervision of civil works.
19. The Recipient shall ensure that the Program excludes any activities which: (a) are likely to have significant adverse impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented on the environment and/or affected people; (b) involve the procurement of: (1) works, estimated to cost $50,000,000 equivalent or more per contract; (2) goods, estimated to cost $30,000,000 equivalent or more per contract; (3) non‐consulting services, estimated to cost $30,000,000 equivalent or more per contract; or (4) consultants’ services, estimated to cost $15,000,000 equivalent or more per contract; (c) are financed by any other financier or by the Association under any other loan, credit or grant; or (d) concern any backlog bridges that are not in compliance with the Program Fiduciary, Environmental and Social Systems.
D. IPF Component: Consultancy Support and Institutional Development
20. This component will support the following: (a) provision of consultancy support and institutional development to the Recipient to prepare Potential Future Projects within the Strategic Roads Network, such as, including but not limited to, preparation of baseline assessments, engineering studies, feasibility studies, safeguard assessments and technical designs; (b) carrying out technical audits through the National Vigilance Center, identifying instances where implementation of works deviates from expected technical‐ and process‐related standards or specifications; (c) developing advanced bridge designs to: (i) enhance resilience to extreme weather or seismic events; and (ii) include pedestrians’ and cyclists’ access; (d) Provision of Training to develop the DOR staff and other stakeholders’ technical, social, environmental and fiduciary capabilities; (e) strengthening the institutional capacity of the Bridge Branch for the carrying out of supervision and oversight activities on the Strategic Roads Network under the Operation; (f) mobilizing, equipping and developing the Design and Advanced Technology Cell; (g) improving DOR’s occupational and community health and safety practices and its capacity to implement the Labor Act; (h) verification activities support. (i) collecting data for the impact evaluation of the Program.
21. Table 2 summarizes financing for the hybrid operation’s PforR and IPF components.
Table 2. Financing Summary8
Component IDA (US$ million)
GON US$ million)
Total % of Total
Amt.
PforR Civil Works 113.09 63.01 176.10 90
PforR Institutional Results 5.75 — 5.75 3
Subtotal ‐ PforR component 118.84 63.01 181.85 93
% of PforR component 65% 35% — —
IPF: Consultancy Support and Institutional Development
14.15 — 14.15 7
Subtotal ‐ IPF component 14.15 — 14.15 7
% of IPF component 100% 0% — —
Total 132.99 63.01 196.00 —
% of total hybrid operation 68% 32% 100.0% —
8 As per the “Bank Policy: Program-for-Results Financing”, the PforR Financing proceeds are disbursed upon the achievement of verified results specified as disbursement-linked indicators, and such disbursements are not dependent upon or attributable to individual Program transactions or expenditures. Therefore, the presentation in the financing summary in Table 2 and in the detailed financing plan in Annex 9 reflects GON’s anticipated internal budgetary presentation and is not meant to predetermine earmarking of the IDA PforR Financing to specific individual Program transactions or expenditures.
7
E. Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs) and Verification Protocol
22. Table 3 summarizes the DLIs and the amount of IDA financing associated with each that will apply to the PforR component.
Table 3. DLIs, Target Quantities, and IDA Financing Amounts under PforR
Item Activity Qty. Units US$ DLI unit rate US$ DLI allocation
DLI‐1 Major bridge maintenance 4,500 Meter 2,908 13,087,728
DLI‐2 Road safety upgrades on bridges 8,000 Meter 2,181 17,450,304
DLI‐3 New 2 lane bridge construction, rehab., and replacement of bridges
4,000 Meter 8,822 35,288,393
DLI‐4 New 4 lane bridge construction 2,000 Meter 12,603 25,205,995
DLI‐5 Completion of backlog bridges under construction
5,000 Meter 4,411 22,055,246
DLI‐6 Improved fiduciary governance of design‐build contracting
1 Each 2,000,000 2,000,000
DLI‐7 BSMS (monthly monitoring system) use on Program worksites
5,000 Meter 750 3,750,000
Subtotal of IDA financing of PforR component DLIs 118,837,666
F. Key Capacity Building and Systems Strengthening Activities
23. The development and retention of technical specialists remains a key challenge for the Program’s sustainability and effectiveness. This is also an impediment to developing capabilities needed to deploy advanced bridge designs that can enhance resilience and inclusion. The Program Action Plan therefore envisages a new recruitment and training program for graduate engineers who would participate in a newly formed DATC within the Bridge Branch. This unit will derive support from the IPF component, including the mentorship of senior international engineers. The DATC will directly perform a portion of advanced design work ‘in house’ to develop the capacity of junior engineers. A similar approach has been used under the U.K. Department for International Development‐supported Third Rural Access Program in Nepal and has shown promising results.
24. A key requirement for the DATC is to recruit each year a cohort of 5 to 10 engineers. As part of an overall effort to enhance the role that female engineers play in the DOR’s programs, 33 percent or more of each engineering cohort recruited in the DATC are required to be female engineers. Over the life of the operation, the DATC is expected to provide experience to four to five different cohorts. Promotion activities related to the DATC’s creation, including partnerships with relevant universities, will be implemented to ensure a high level of participation from young engineers and specifically female engineers. Therefore, over the hybrid operation’s life, an estimated 7 to 17 female engineers will be hired and will receive advanced technical training/mentorship to build their capacity. They will also have practical opportunities to put those skills to use in the development of advanced bridge designs that will aim to achieve greater resilience and inclusion.
8
III. Program Implementation
A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements
25. The DOR’s Bridge Branch will lead Program implementation as well as the implementation of the operation’s IPF component. Six other entities within the DOR will have key roles in supporting the Program’s functioning. Table 4 summarizes the roles of these different entities.
Table 4. Roles/Responsibilities of Internal DOR Entities
DOR Entity Program role
Bridge Branch (Lead entity for Program delivery)
Overall stewardship of the BMS and Bridge Site Monitoring System (BSMS), management of BMS/BSMS data and software
Implementation (including procurement and contract management) of complex works (for example high/long bridges, innovative designs, advanced maintenance, and repair methodologies)
Oversight of implementation by DROs (for less complex works)
Coordination of site supervision by independent consultants
Management of design consultants and international experts
Implementation of the IPF component of the hybrid operation on consultancy support, advanced resilience and inclusion designs, and institutional development
Design approval, planning, monitoring, and development of Program investments
Undertaking of quality monitoring and evaluation of worksites
Coordination of all PforR Program and IPF activities and primary point of contact with the Association’s task team
Results monitoring and evaluation
Divisional Offices Procurement and contract management of less complex works
Bridge Sectors (Regional Directorates)
Coordinating of monitoring and reporting to the Bridge Branch of bridge works by Divisional Offices within their respective geographical remits
Direct monitoring and reporting to the Bridge Branch on Program bridge works within their respective geographical remits
Planning Branch Compilation of work plan and annual budget for the Program (which are subsequently proposed to Ministry of Finance [MoF] for consideration/inclusion in the national budget)
Financial Administration Section
Financial control and reporting for the Program within the DOR
Geo‐Environmental and Social Unit (GESU)
Lead overall management of environmental and social aspects of the Program
Social and environmental assessments (EAs) and development of safeguards instruments in accordance with the DOR’s ESMF, and other legislative provisions of the GON
Ensuring environmental and social consideration are adequately incorporated in project designs, bidding documents, bills of quantities (BoQs), contract monitoring systems, and other elements of contractual packages
Environmental and social compliance assurances—including planning, implementation, monitoring, and supervisions; and seek/grant approvals/concurrences as applicable
9
DOR Entity Program role
Management of the DOR’s Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) complaints relating to social and environmental impacts
Maintenance Branch
Development of Annual Road Maintenance Plans (which also include bridges)
26. There are six key GON institutions that have noteworthy roles relating to different aspects of the Program. These are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Other GON Institutions and their Program Roles
Implementation Role Entity
Line item budgeting and funding allocations
MoF (both annual and medium‐term)
Procurement oversight and complaints resolution mechanisms
Public Procurement Monitoring Office (PPMO)
Financial control of treasury single account system used for payments
Finance Comptroller General’s Office
Governance and anticorruption NVC (technical auditing)
Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (investigation and prosecution of suspected corruption)
Financial auditing Office of the Auditor General
DLI verification National Planning Commission (NPC) (with support from Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation [SDC])
B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation
27. The Bridge Branch will lead and manage results monitoring and evaluation in accordance with the Program’s Results Framework in Annex 2. The BMS is directly managed by the Bridge Branch and will provide information on the location and physical condition of all bridges along the SRN. The BMS uses unique bridge identification numbers and latitude/longitude for all bridges. It also stores condition photographs and written comments from inspection events that are used for planning and prioritization purposes. The BMS has been tested under BIMP I and all condition data underwent revision and upgrade during 2017 such that it is ready to support the Program’s monitoring and evaluation needs.
28. Alongside the BMS, the Bridge Branch will also use data from the DOR’s GRM for monitoring and evaluation of Intermediate Results Indicator 4.1 (‘Responsiveness of DOR’s Grievance Redress Mechanism’). This was developed and launched under BIMP I, with support from the Association. The GRM provides a platform for registering complaints from communities, contractors, department staff, and the general public. The Association’s team is also able to validate the GRM’s function during supervision using test complaints. Aggregated complaints and response data from the DRM are publicly disclosed through the DOR’s website.
C. Disbursement Arrangements
29. Per‐meter DLIs including DLI‐1, DLI‐2, DLI‐3, DLI‐4, and DLI‐5 will be scalable for bridges of different lengths with rounding to the nearest one‐tenth of a meter for calculation of cumulative disbursement amounts. However, disbursements against these DLIs will be ‘all or nothing’ for a single bridge. No partial disbursement for a given section of a single bridge will be possible. In addition, bridges selected for
10
disbursement against DLI‐1 (major maintenance) and DLI‐2 (road safety) will be required to meet a full list of eligibility criteria (see Annex 3) to qualify for disbursement. Partial maintenance or partial achievement of road safety criteria will not be sufficient to pass verification unless site conditions render a full solution impossible. Any such exceptions to agreed verification criteria will be pre‐agreed on a case‐by‐case basis in writing with the Association before the start of works. DLI‐7 relates to use of the BSMS that aims at facilitating and monitoring site supervision on Program worksites. Disbursement against this DLI will be made on the basis of complete and verified entries in the BSMS. Disbursements will be made to a Nepalese Rupee account within the Nepal Rastra Bank. A rolling advance of up to 25 percent of the cumulative financing amount allocated to DLIs will be available to the GON as a means of supporting DLI achievement in advance of verification activities.
30. Annex 3 lists the verification criteria that will apply to each DLI. The Bridge Branch will develop dossiers for completed physical works that will be proposed for verification. Dossiers will contain (a) documentation of technical specifications and engineering designs, (b) social and environmental assessments and information on preparation/implementation of management plans, and (c) procurement documentation. For the purpose of verifying the fulfillment of the DLIs the National Planning Commission is responsible for appointing and maintaining, at all times during the implementation of the Program, independent verification agents (under terms of reference satisfactory to the Association). Verification reports submitted to the Association should be mutually satisfactory in form and substance to the Government of Nepal and the Association. The Bridge Branch will forward dossiers in batches to the NPC. SDC will be funding and engaging independent technical advisers to work with the NPC during implementation on verification tasks. During verification, documentation in dossiers will first be reviewed to ascertain compliance with Program requirements. Field verification will subsequently follow on a sample basis according to the proportions listed in Annex 3.
31. DLI‐1, DLI‐2, DLI‐3, and DLI‐4 will apply to bridges with contract documents signed after April 26, 2018. DLI‐5 will apply to bridges with contract documents signed before April 26, 2018. Disbursement for prior results will be available under DLI‐5 up to 15 percent of the total IDA financing allocated toward this DLI to include those backlog bridges that have reached completion since the close of BIMP I and DLIs achieved after June 26, 2017.
D. Role of Development Partners
32. The Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC) will provide parallel financing to support (i) DLI verification activities under the National Planning Commission (NPC) for the Program’s initial three years; (ii) capacity development of the DOR in innovative bridge technology; and (iii) sound implementation of OCHS measures and labor standards in bridge construction (see Program Action Plan).
33. DLI verification will require funding from SDC to support technical advisers for undertaking verification activities. This arrangement was highly successful in supporting the NPC’s role in DLI verification under BIMP I. SDC’s support for the final two years will be sought by the GON. In the event that such support does not materialize, funding for the verification activities for the remainder of the Program’s implementation period will be provided under the IPF component of the operation.
IV. Assessment Summary
A. Technical
34. The BIMP remains one of Nepal’s largest and most strategically relevant development initiatives due the critical role that the SRN and its bridges play in supporting economic activity. The DOR’s Bridge Branch
11
has overall responsibility for the Program’s implementation and has demonstrated ability to achieve results under BIMP I. The Bridge Branch entails a central headquarters‐based technical office in addition to five field‐based Bridge Sectors. The Bridge Branch leads implementation of the Program works that are technically or contractually complex. Simpler Program works fall under the remit of the DOR’s 34 DROs which implement activities under the supervision and technical guidance of the Bridge Branch. The Program’s implementation arrangements have benefitted considerably from the first IDA‐supported BIMP I. Most notably, under BIMP I, the Program rapidly expanded its technical capabilities for designing maintenance remedies and significantly increased the level of expenditure on critical bridge maintenance works. BIMP I also restructured the Program’s expenditure framework that enhanced transparency and helped introduce prioritized investment planning of Program works. The Program’s expenditure framework entails two budget headings for Program expenditures (currently 337320 and 337159 in Nepal’s budget document) that are separate from the larger program of DOR bridge initiatives. One heading supports capital investment. The other supports bridge design, site assessment, feasibility study, quality monitoring, Program logistics support, and environmental and social impact management. The MoF will similarly maintain separate budget headings for the Program’s expenditure framework under BIMP II.
35. Despite positive past accomplishments, there is room to improve the Program’s performance further. Most notably, the as‐built quality of physical works remains a foremost challenge. Findings from the Association’s technical assessment have identified that quality deficiencies are endemic throughout the process of bridge development and construction. One reason for this is inconsistent field‐level supervision of works. Under BIMP I, the Bridge Branch accordingly developed a new mobile monitoring application, the BSMS, that uses a tablet or smartphone interface to enable rapid reporting/sharing of site conditions and quality‐related issues. The BSMS also provides a means for Bridge Branch leadership to track the frequency of field visits and quality of observations made by assigned works supervisors. The operation’s IPF component will also support technical auditing of Program works by the NVC as means of providing feedback on quality and one or more supervision and oversight consultancies to support the Bridge Branch with undertaking of spot checks and validation of site supervision. The Performance Assessment Tool (PAT) will be deployed as well under the Program to enhance contract monitoring. Other critical issues and areas for improvement highlighted in this technical assessment are related, among others, to the DOR’s technical capacity, the local construction industry capacity, and DOR employees’ professional development and performance management.
36. Besides, findings from the technical assessment have identified opportunities for deploying international bridge engineering approaches to further improve the Program’s effectiveness. BIMP II will accordingly aim at deploying advanced technologies and inclusive design concepts that are not common to Nepal. However, a key learning from BIMP I is related to the challenges of integrating international expertise within the Program’s implementation. In part, this reflected the inherent difficulties of engaging international experts on acceptable terms and conditions that would also align with government expectations and systems. The complementary IPF component will therefore support this agenda with engineering inputs, training and sharing of international best practices regarding climate resilience and OCHS in particular. The IPF component will indeed support the introduction of standard climate resilience mitigation measures in the engineering designs to further strengthen the resilience of Nepal’s bridge network and decrease environmental impacts.
12
B. Fiduciary
PforR Component
37. The experience of BIMP I and the team’s preliminary assessment suggest that the Program’s fiduciary systems are adequately robust to ensure that funds reach their intended purpose with due consideration for efficiency and economy. There are, however, noteworthy areas where the Program’s performance can improve to enhance performance as described below.
38. The Program’s procurement systems are broadly adequate. In the past, the Program has made extensive use of design‐build contracts as a means for accelerating the delivery of works and capturing incremental efficiencies from the private sector. In principle, this approach has merits and was previously successful at accelerating the delivery of new bridge construction. However, there is a need to strengthen governance around design‐build approaches as Nepal’s institutional and regulatory regimes concerning design‐build contracting is developing. Specifically, Nepal’s Public Procurement Act (as amended in 2016 and reamended in 2017) envisages design‐build contracting but national regulations are silent with respect to the provisions that should apply to managing these types of contracts. There is also no standard design‐build contract template for implementing institutions to reference when engaging contractors for design‐build modalities. As a result, BIMP I regularly experienced audit objections relating to its design‐build contracts and specifically the payment of variations for which there were no governing national regulations. The Program’s DLIs therefore aim at improving both the DOR’s approach to design‐build contracting and Nepal’s overall regulatory regime for design‐build contracts.
39. During BIMP I’s implementation, the Program experienced delays in financial and contract reporting and there were instances where the quality of reporting (trimester and audit reports specifically) required iterative improvements. In addition, regular supervision and monitoring of active contacts and worksites was inconsistent and often weak. There has been a general reluctance to outsource supervision, monitoring, and quality management of works (for example, using a FIDIC model). Timely completion of contracts and quality of works executed under those contract provisions are regular concerns. The benefits of large investments can sometimes be compromised by lack of proper supervision, oversight, and monitoring which is both a fiduciary issue and related to the quality of works. There is a need to strengthen the Program’s contract and quality management systems and their application. With respect to fiduciary oversight and monitoring of contracts, the DOR has systems that should be generating reporting information automatically. These systems include the Contract Management System (CMS) and a Financial Management Information System (FMIS). However, their use is inconsistent across implementing units and data are often tabulated offline, which results in delays and errors. The Association’s final assessment has identified that the CMS and FMIS will benefit from enhanced user friendliness as well as upgraded information technology (IT) functionality. This is included in the Program Action Plan. However, it is also important to note that the underlying challenges facing CMS and FMIS may not be entirely technical in nature. As an interim measure, the Program Action Plan will seek to address contract management and reporting issues by using the PAT in parallel with CMS and FMIS to augment contract management and reporting capabilities. As part of BIMP II’s preparation, the Association has already provided training to the Bridge Branch on mobilizing the PAT.
40. The Association has also observed that the Program may have an untapped potential to engage with and shape the market for bridge works. The DOR is the single largest purchaser of bridge works in Nepal and is uniquely positioned to both shape that market and drive contractor evolution toward more sophisticated technical capabilities that may be nationally beneficial. During implementation, the Association’s team will work with the Bridge Branch on slicing and packaging strategies for bridge works. These strategies will be used as a means for enhancing procurement efficiency and contractor performance
13
during the Program. In parallel there is a need to better understand market participants, their constraints, and the opportunities for their development. The Program Action Plan therefore includes a contractor market assessment and strategic assessment of how the Program may seek to structure its procurement approach accordingly through mechanisms such as contract bundling, structuring of payments/other incentives, and incremental enhancements to technical solutions.
41. The Program, like other public sector undertakings in Nepal, remains exposed to fraud and corruption risks. In addition to national systems under the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the MoPIT and the DOR also have policies and procedures covering complaints handling and redress relating to fraud and corruption as defined by the World Bank’s Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption for PforR Financing. These were included in the Financial Systems Assessment. Most notably, DOR’s GRS that was developed and approved under the IDA‐supported BIMP I operation captures and tracks complaints and responses relating to fraud and corruption (among others). Efforts to prevent and limit fraud and corruption risks facing the program will benefit from the strengthening of the DOR’s FMIS and CMS. The Program Action Plan accordingly includes these items along with an action to address and reduce audit observations annually, which is important for eliminating financial irregularities that may be linked to fraud or corruption.
IPF Component
42. Under the operation’s IPF component, the procurement for goods and non‐consulting services will follow the Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers (July 2016, revised November 2017). Details of procurement activities and procurement strategy have been prepared by the DOR using a simplified form of the Project Procurement Strategy for Development. An initial procurement plan covering the operation’s first 18 months for IPF component activities has been prepared by the DOR and reviewed by the Association. For financial management of the IPF components, the DOR will prepare a consolidated work program and budget for the IPF component’s related expenditures and will present them to the MoF annually for budget allocation and authorization to spend funds. The MoF will allocate annual budgets under a separate budget code to prevent comingling of expenditures between the Program under PforR and IPF activities. The DOR will issue budget authorization to respective cost centers. Separate expenditure accounts for the PforR and IPF component following the GON's accounting system and relevant Financial Procedure Act and Regulations will be maintained. The DOR will maintain records of consultant and suppliers, a loan register, a program ledger, and statements of expenditures. Quadrimester Implementation Progress Reports including Financial Monitoring Reports that differentiate between PforR and IPF‐related expenditures will be submitted by the DOR within 45 days of the end of each quadrimester. The audit report with differentiation between the operation’s PforR and IPF components will be submitted within nine months of the end of the fiscal year for the PforR and IPF components. There are currently no outstanding audit reports for the MoPIT. The Program Coordinator and Accounts Officer within the DOR will be authorized signatories for IDA disbursements. The disbursement will follow reimbursement modality. Disbursement under the hybrid operation’s IPF component will be report based. Disbursement under the hybrid operation’s PforR component will be based on achievement and verification of agreed results.
C. Environmental and Social Systems (including safeguards for IPF component)
PforR Component
43. The Association conducted an Environmental and Social Systems Assessment (ESSA) and reviewed BIMP I lessons learned. This has identified that BIMP I managed the application of the DOR’s ESMF in a satisfactory manner overall. The ESMF is the DOR’s department‐wide framework for managing social and
14
environmental impacts. It also includes a bridge‐specific addendum. Particularly encouraging achievements under BIMP I included (a) strengthening of GESU with a dedicated budget, additional human resources, and a greater role within the Program; (b) establishment of social and environmental screening approaches for bridges with a documentation system to capture assessments and actions within a ‘Bridge Dossier’ for verification purposes; (c) enhanced implementation supervision and monitoring of worksites; (d) integration of dedicated budget for environmental and social risk mitigations in the Bill of Quantity (BoQ) for works contracts; (e) establishment and mobilization of an electronic Grievance Redress Service (GRS); and (f) inclusion of ESMF compliance within verification activities.
44. The findings and recommendations of the ESSA were discussed with the DOR (including the Bridge Branch and GESU team members) as well as with wider stakeholders in a consultation workshop. The ESSA concludes that from policy and regulatory/legal perspectives, the borrower’s existing environmental and social management system for the proposed scope and boundary of BIMP II is consistent with the core principles and elements of the PforR Financing Policy. The ESSA also recommends actions for further improving the system’s efficiency, performance, and effectiveness at operational levels. The proposed BIMP II will contribute to further strengthening the system with respect to environmental and social planning and impact management.
45. The DOR’s ESMF provides a comprehensive framework for the assessment of different risks, development of safeguards documents, and overall management of impacts for the activities envisaged under BIMP II’s PforR component. Nevertheless, there are important improvements that BIMP II can help achieve in how risks and impacts are managed in the DOR’s overall scope of works (including higher risk interventions that are beyond the scope of PforR‐financed activities). Most notably, there is a need to affect enhancements to health and safety. A proposed partnership with an international organization that has expertise in labor‐related risks and their management and is satisfactory to the Association is included under the IPF component. This partnership will accordingly aim at enhancing OCHS practices and ensuring compliance with Nepal’s labor‐related laws and other provisions on key issues such as prohibition of child labor and workers’ rights. Other areas where the DOR can improve further include (a) improving focus on gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) and vulnerable community development initiatives during implementation; (b) enhancing implementation of provisions on assistance to squatters; (c) improving the approach to land acquisition (discouraging land donation practices); (d) enhancing focus on capturing the beneficial impacts of bridge works beyond vehicular transportation access alone; (e) strengthening citizen engagement (CE), the communication and outreach mechanism (COM), and workers' influx management (WIM); (f) streamlining with the changes in the mandates and institutions due to restructuring of state under the new constitution; and (g) enhancing/integrating climate and disaster resilience and responding to emerging global trends in social and environmental management approaches.
46. The hybrid operation’s PforR component supports maintenance and rehabilitation of existing bridges or construction of new bridges along existing roads. Environmental impacts are likely to be moderate and limited within the road right‐of‐way or its close vicinity. Typical environmental issues and impacts that are likely to include the following: (a) vegetation loss and reduced slope stability along bridge approaches; (b) degradation of river/stream water quality; (c) impacts on river/stream hydrology; (d) construction period disturbances including noise, dust pollution, and spoil disposal; and (e) OCHS including compliance with standards on labor camps, safety gear, safe working practices, and so on. Proper engineering of approaches, abutments, and river training works is essential for impact mitigation. Similarly, proper disposal of excavated materials, location of drain outlets, drainage management, and management of quarrying operations and community infrastructure, cultural heritages, and so on will be important. Environmental specialists/consultants will be part of project preparation and implementation teams at each level. BIMP II will follow this approach to ensure implementation and monitoring of environmental compliances and
15
application of ESMF provisions. BIMP I successfully deployed screening methodologies to guide the development of social and environmental management plans as appropriate for specific site conditions. This approach will continue under BIMP II as a means for determining which provisions of the ESMF should apply to Program works.
47. The Program is anticipating limited adverse social impacts that are most likely to occur in the vicinity of bridge works. Based on past experiences, social impacts can include (a) temporary leasing of private assets (land and/or structures) for contractor operations; (b) permanent acquisition of private assets (land, structures, trees, crops, and so on) around bridge abutments or approaches; (c) potential impacts due to worker influx and/or underage workers; (d) exclusion and/or gaps in CE; and (e) livelihood impacts (business disruptions, disruption to agricultural operations, and so on). The DOR’s ESMF and the GON's broader legal and policy framework that applies to the Program include provisions for land acquisition, resettlement and rehabilitation measures for the adversely affected persons/families with special focus on vulnerable communities (Indigenous Peoples). These include the (a) Land Acquisition Act; (b) Land Acquisition, Resettlement, and Rehabilitation Policy (LARRP); and (c) National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities Act. The framework provided by the DOR’s ESMF and the GON’s other laws and policies has distinct provisions applicable to adversely affected non‐titleholders/squatters who occupy lands informally. The Association’s team is also working with the DOR to strengthen implementation of labor camp and child labor‐related provisions of the ESMF based on a recently completed independent assessment of labor risks across IDA‐supported worksites in Nepal’s transport sector. Social management personnel shall be part of project preparation and implementation teams at each level. Likewise, the social management approach of BIMP II will synergistically focus on further enhancing aspects such as CE (including mobilization of inclusively formed ‘local consultative forums’ throughout the project cycle as per DOR ESMF provisions for new bridge construction sites), GESI, COMs, Grievance Management Systems, child worker prohibition, and WIM. Where required, social and environmental management plans will be developed to manage the impact of works.
48. The Program is exposed to key labor‐related risks that can threaten achievement of its development objective. These include (a) worker and community safety on and around worksites, (b) child labor, (c) management of labor influx and camps, (d) workers’ rights and redress, and (e) gender‐based violence (GBV) and sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA). The Program will follow a three‐tiered approach to further strengthen the systems it deploys to manage such risk as contained in the Program Action Plan. Tier 1 will focus on policies and standard guidelines. Tier 2 will focus on strengthening implementation of those policies and guidelines. Tier 3 will focus on system validation to provide feedback and remedies as needed to ensure that labor‐related risks are being effectively managed in practice. DLI‐7 which relates to the use of the BSMS is also an important mitigation mechanism for labor‐related risks. The BSMS enables validation of field supervision activities and provides a means for assigning personal accountability to critical site visit and monitoring functions that can serve as early warnings regarding labor‐related risks. Enhanced contract provisions for Program works will also provide means for penalizing contractors financially when gaps in key labor‐related risk mitigations are spotted.
49. A key learning regarding the Program’s environmental and social systems under BIMP I concerned the timing of assessments and the integration between technical, social, and environmental work streams. There were instances during BIMP I when social and environmental work was not optimally phased relative to parallel engineering work. Specifically, the Association’s supervision identified examples of designs advancing and proceeding to tender before social and EAs completing and providing inputs relating to mitigations for inclusion in contract terms (bidding documents, and so on). This often resulted in costly contract variations or suboptimal mitigations being adopted in an ex post manner. In part, this reflected instances of poor communication between the Bridge Branch and GESU that occasionally arose during
16
particularly busy periods. It also reflected an unstructured approach to managing the preparation of bridge investments from concept to readiness for tender. The Program Action Plan will seek to mitigate the likelihood of recurrence by adopting a codified system of stages and Gate Reviews for the development of Program works packages. Gate Reviews will aim at preventing works packages from advancing without required technical, social, and environmental preparations occurring in proper sequence. In addition, the Action Plan also includes the implementation of key enhancements to social and environmental risk management as identified by the ESSA.
IPF Component
50. The operation’s IPF component includes activities such as feasibility studies, technical studies, engineering design studies, and preparation of safeguards documents as part of the preparation of potential future projects. The actual implementation of those potential future projects is not part of the operation. It is likely that some of those future potential projects would be classified as ‘Category A’” for the purpose of the Association’s Environmental Assessment Policy. The category of each future potential project or bridge that will be prepared under the IPF component will be confirmed in accordance with the screening criteria as per OP 4.01 ‘Environmental Assessment’ as well as Nepal’s legislative requirements and the DOR’s ESMF that guides their implementation. Model Terms of Reference (TORs) for the development of safeguards documents have been prepared, reviewed, cleared by the Association and publicly disclosed. Site‐specific assessment reports and prepared plans relating to ‘Category A’ projects will be reviewed and cleared by the Association, approved by the concerned GON authorities, and disclosed by the Association and the DOR for a duration of time that is satisfactory to the Association before the execution of assignments. During implementation, model TORs will be customized to site‐specific interventions. Any site‐specific studies and safeguards documents for each Category A intervention will be reviewed and cleared by the Association.
51. For environmental risk management, OP/BP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, OP/BP 4.04 Natural Habitats, OP/BP 4.36 Forests, and OP/BP 4.11 Physical Cultural Resources are triggered for the IPF component because one or more of the bridges to be constructed with support from this component may have adverse consequences relevant to those aspects, depending on the location and details of the proposed intervention/bridge. For social impacts, OP/BP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples) and OP/BP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement) are triggered. Safeguards documents will be prepared in accordance with these policies.
52. Communities and individuals who believe that they are adversely affected as a result of a Bank supported operation, as defined by the applicable policy and procedures, may submit complaints to the existing program grievance redress mechanism or the World Bank’s Grievance Redress Service (GRS). The GRS ensures that complaints received are promptly reviewed in order to address pertinent concerns. Affected communities and individuals may submit their complaint to the WB’s independent Inspection Panel which determines whether harm occurred, or could occur, as a result of WB non‐compliance with its policies and procedures. Complaints may be submitted at any time after concerns have been brought directly to the World Bank's attention, and Bank Management has been given an opportunity to respond. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank’s corporate Grievance Redress Service (GRS), please visit http://www.worldbank.org/GRS. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank Inspection Panel, please visit www.inspectionpanel.org.
17
D. Risk Assessment
53. The Program’s overall risk rating is High primarily on account of political and governance risks in combination with risks relating to sector strategies and policies (including risks relating to competing investment programs), and environmental and social risks.
54. Political and governance (High). Political and governance risks are rated High. In contrast to the frequent changes in government that characterized Nepal’s decade‐long transition to federalism, the new government enjoys a historic supermajority in Parliament. Along with new constitutional checks and a far fewer number of political parties, there is a much greater degree of optimism for stability in the coming days. However, state restructuring on this scale is uncharted territory for Nepal and smoothening the transition from the previous unitary system to the new federal one will remain a daunting task. The new system, in principle, provides opportunities to decentralize development benefits and make service delivery more effective and accountable. However, the risks of jurisdictional overlap between the three tiers of government, lack of clarity and coherence between policies and devolved powers, and duplication of efforts will remain high during the coming few years. Key aspects of the new system require further definition and may continue to be contested by different population groups.
55. Sector strategies and policies (High). There are similarly high risks relating to sector strategies and policies. There is currently no agreed approach to how Nepal’s road and bridge network will divide across federal and provincial jurisdictions. The details of how the Program would operate as federalism will be effectively implemented in Nepal in the next few years will likely need to be worked out during Program implementation. The Program currently functions as a national concern but entails both centrally managed works and works that are managed by locally based Divisional Offices (which are currently under the national government). This approach straddles potential administrative boundaries that federal restructuring may create. Formal changes to Program implementation arrangements may become necessary to accommodate altered institutional mandates and accountability structures which are yet to be defined. The process whereby such changes takes place may also be lengthy, circuitous, and iterative. While risks remain high, continuing the Program’s development is a way of supporting the GON to shape sound sector strategies and policies through the eventual transition. The Program only focuses on the SRN that is most likely to remain under the responsibility of the central government (specifically the DOR). This helps mitigate potential risks induced by the federalization process to some extent.
56. There is also a high risk relating to the Program’s vulnerability to competing initiatives. Specifically, the DOR has historically been compelled to construct bridges along the local roads network. The DOR’s involvement in this subset of Nepal’s transport infrastructure stretched the department beyond its mandate and available resources. However, the strong demand for local transport infrastructure affects political decisions to prioritize its delivery. The BIMP I Program was severely affected by bridge construction activities along the local roads network, particularly during years when political instability prevented the GON from defining clear and coherent priorities for road and bridge construction.
57. Environment and social (High). While the Program’s environmental impacts, land acquisition, and resettlement activities are envisaged to be minor, environmental and social risks are rated High. This is due to the vulnerability of works to natural disasters and climate change as confirmed by the Association’s Climate and Disaster Risk Screening Tool. During Nepal’s 2017 monsoon season bridges along the East‐West Highway, including BIMP I sites, were affected by flooding. The risk of future, similar events remains high and is a key reason that the hybrid operation’s development objective includes a strong focus on resilience. The project also has potential exposure to child labor risks and risks associated with labor influx such as GBV and risk of SEA. The Program Action Plan includes a multi‐tiered approach that the Program will follow to
18
further mitigate these risks. The Association’s Implementation Support Plan also includes a pillar on labor risk management. This will focus on monitoring enforcement of contract provisions relating to labor camps, workers’ conduct, prohibition of child labor, and access to resources for communities that may be affected. The Association is currently working with Nepal’s National Women’s Commission on improving knowledge and access to resources for individuals and communities affected by GBV/SEA. The Association’s team will integrate this work with the operation’s community outreach and engagement efforts led by GESU.
58. Project preparation under the IPF component has the potential for links to significant adverse impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented on the environment and/or affected people. This component is accordingly considered as a Category A activity and the following safeguards policies are triggered: (a) Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01, (b) Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04, (c) Forests OP/BP 4.36, (d) Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11, (e) Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10, and (f) Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12. The Bridge Branch will deploy the DOR’s ESMF that was updated and disclosed in 2013 under BIMP I to include bridge‐related materials, to categorize potential impacts, and to develop associated risk mitigations. Screening reports along with TORs, final reports, and safeguards documents will be subsequently disclosed on the DOR and World Bank websites.
59. Fiduciary (Substantial). Government programs in Nepal remain vulnerable to fraud and corruption. There are accordingly ‘substantial’ fiduciary risks facing the Program, which could impede achievement of development objectives. For bridge works, key concerns relate to collusion or manipulation of bidding processes, fraudulent claims for payment against quantity items (for example, earthworks, aggregates), deficient quality combined with inappropriate payments for completed works, and erroneous contract variations. The Program’s systems for mitigating fiduciary risks remain imperfect but will also benefit from additional strengthening measures in the Program Action Plan. These include (a) verification of Bridge Dossiers and physical inspection of Program bridges as required to trigger disbursements, (b) technical auditing by the NVC and subsequent referral of serious non‐compliances to Nepal’s Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, (c) use of the BSMS which offers enhanced means of quality control on remote worksites, (d) deployment of the PAT to enhance contract monitoring and management, and (e) deployment of one or more supervision and oversight consultancies.
E. Program Action Plan
60. The Program Action Plan includes strengthening measures relating to technical, fiduciary, and environmental/social performance. Key actions under each of these headings relate to (a) enhancing DOR’s ability to design resilient bridges, supervise their construction effectively, and root the overall Program in a sound planning/policy framework; (b) strengthening DOR’s fiduciary control over bridge works; and (c) helping the DOR to leverage technology such that monitoring and reporting of contracts and financial transactions becomes faster and more accurate; and (d) upgrading the DOR’s ability to plan, implement, and enforce mitigations to key social and environmental risks—the operation will deploy a new multi‐tiered approach to achieving this as defined in the Program Action Plan; and (e) ensuring that the DOR continues to attract, retain, and develop talented technical staff. This is a critical part of maintaining the DOR’s strength into the future as many senior engineers retire in the near future.
19
ANNEX 1. DETAILED PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
DLI‐1: Major bridge maintenance (US$13.1 million)
1. The Program will support major maintenance interventions on approximately 90 bridges (4,500 m) to improve resilience, extend asset lives, and prevent failures. Many of Nepal’s bridges are 40–50 years old. While the IDA‐supported BIMP I and RSDP AF II have made progress against maintenance needs, additional support from BIMP II is necessary to continue the Program’s positive trajectory and to further the Bridge Branch’s experience of diagnosing and prescribing remedies to address vulnerabilities and aging assets. Bridge works included in this DLI category are required to come through the BMS’ prioritized list that considered data on condition, detour times, and beneficiary populations served.
DLI‐2: Road safety upgrades on bridges (US$17.5 million)
2. The Program will support approximately 8,000 m of road safety upgrades on existing bridges. Road safety upgrades will consist of the interventions listed in Annex 3, which include (a) bridge rail, (b) approach barriers and transitions, (c) pedestrian and cyclist safety, and (d) markings. Bridges that go for verification against agreed DLIs will need to meet full road safety criteria unless site conditions render partial solutions as the only practicable option. Examples of justifications could include topography constraints and/or structural limitations of bridges. These cases will be agreed with the Association in writing on a case‐by‐case basis before the start of works.
DLI‐3: New 2 lane bridge construction, rehab., and replacement of bridges (US$35.3 million); and DLI‐4: New 4 lane bridge construction (US$25.2 million)
3. There is a total of approximately 372 identified gaps (that is, 18,860 m) on the SRN. The Program will support the new construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of approximately 80 new 2 lane bridges (about 4,000 m) to address these gaps. In addition, there are bridges that require replacement and widening to accommodate greater traffic volumes. The Program will accordingly support the construction of approximately 35 4 lane bridges (about 2,000 m). Bridges under DLI‐3 and DLI‐4 will be selected exclusively from the BMS‐generated priority list. Backlog bridges with contracts signed before BIMP II’s date of appraisal (April 26, 2018) will not be eligible for disbursement against either DLI‐3 or DLI‐4. All new 2 lane bridges proposed for disbursement against DLI‐3 must have estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic greater than 100 Passenger Car Unit (equivalent) according to the DOR’s Highway Management Information System (HMIS) at the time of verification. All 4 lane bridges proposed for disbursement against DLI‐4 must have an estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic greater than 3,000 Passenger Car Unit (equivalent) according to the DOR’s HMIS at the time of verification.
DLI‐5: Completion of backlog bridges under construction (US$22.1 million)
4. At present, the DOR is constructing 231 bridges (14,959 m) on the SRN. The Program will provide funding to bring 92 bridges (about 5,000 m) to full completion. Bridges that will go for completion under this DLI will require complete Bridge Dossiers that evidence compliance with Program procurement, environmental, social, and technical standards. To be eligible for disbursement against this DLI, bridges will need to have contracts signed before April 26, 2018.
DLI‐6: Improved fiduciary governance of design‐build contracting (US$2.0 million)
5. At present, Nepal’s national legal and regulatory framework for design‐build contracting remains under development. The Public Procurement Act (2007, last amended 2017) envisages design‐build
20
contracting but Public Procurement Regulations are silent on this contracting modality. There are also no standard bid documents for design‐build works. The Program has used the design‐build modality during BIMP I and intends to also do so under BIMP II. There is a need to develop the regulations and standard documents including environmental and social aspects required to ensure the effectiveness of this approach. This DLI will be eligible for disbursement once the DOR has drafted regulations and standard documents for the Program and subsequently submitted them to Nepal’s Public Procurement Management Office for consideration as inputs to potential national regulations and standard documents.
DLI‐7/BSMS (mobile monitoring system) use on Program worksites (US$3.75 million)
6. The Program concerns many works contracts in dispersed geographical areas. Many sites are difficult to access form Kathmandu and the Bridge Branch often uses locally based supervision teams to monitor the execution of civil works. This entails inherent challenges for overall Program management and quality monitoring. The Bridge Branch has accordingly developed a BSMS that can be used on tablet devices and smartphones to capture photos, videos, and written entries form site supervisors. The BSMS is functional and the DOR is working to drive its use among all implementing units. This DLI will accordingly measure the use of the BSMS on Program sites. One or more substantive, complete, and accurate entries per site including environmental and social aspects within a single month will count as one unit of DLI achievement. Entries with timestamps falling within 12 hours of one another will be considered a single entry. Verification activities will sample entries to check for incomplete, redundant, or erroneous entries. The aim of this DLI is to ensure that site supervision is occurring regularly and is well documented with an overall aim of enhancing the quality of built works.
Bridge design, site assessment, feasibility study, quality monitoring, and environmental and social impact management
7. The expenditure program for investments under the hybrid operation’s PforR component will include US$8.4 million for bridge design, site assessment, feasibility study, quality monitoring, and environmental and social impact management. This amount is equivalent to approximately 5 percent of the estimated civil works spending required to meet DLIs. This amount is shown here as a separate item at the request of the Bridge Branch for planning and budgeting for Program activities.
8. Table 1.1 summarizes the activities and expenditure program under the PforR component of the operation.
21
Table 1.1. Program Activities and Expenditures under PforR Component9
SRN Bridge Program Activity
Unit Bklog Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
DLI‐1: Major bridge maintenance
Program spend [US$, million] 1.5 3.4 4.8 5.3 2.4 17.5
Number of bridges taken up 15 20 30 25 — 90 Number of bridges in progress in year 15 35 50 55 25 — Number of bridges completed in year — 15 20 30 25 90
Number of meters completed — 750 1,000 1,500 1,250 4,500
DLI‐2: Road safety upgrades on bridges
Program spend [US$, millions] 1.9 4.8 6.1 6.8 3.6 23.3
Number of bridges taken up 30 45 50 55 — 180 Number of bridges in progress in year 30 75 95 105 55 — Number of bridges completed in year — 30 45 50 55 180
Number of meters completed — 1,333 2,000 2,222 2,444 8,000
DLI‐3: New 2 lane bridge construction, rehab., and replacement of bridges
9 Note: Figures above pertain to capital spending only and do not include US$5.75 million for PforR institutional results, including (a) DLI-6: Improved fiduciary governance of design-build contracting (US$ 2.0 million) and (b) DLI-7: BSMS monthly monitoring on Program worksites (US$ 3.75 million). The total size of the PforR Program, which includes disbursements for institutional results, is US$181.85 million with US$118.84 million from IDA.
22
IPF Component: Consultancy support and institutional development (US$14.2 million):
9. The operation’s IPF component will finance the following activities with indicative financing amounts described in table 1.2:
IPF‐1: Preparations for future projects on the Strategic Roads Network. There are several potential major projects that the GON may seek to develop on the SRN. However, consensus on which may benefit from international support has not crystalized. Financing under the IPF component will support initial stages of project preparation as high priority projects are agreed for further development. This subcomponent will finance baseline assessments, engineering studies, site assessments, feasibility studies, and technical designs and other project preparation tasks to prepare for future physical investments.
IPF‐2: Technical audits carried out by NVC. BIMP I included similar technical auditing arrangements. These proved particularly useful in providing a feedback mechanism for identifying quality gaps and potential future improvements to address them. This subcomponent will finance the costs of technical auditors under the NVC who will assess and report on the extent to which works under the PforR Program comply with design specifications and the Government’s procedures relating to the execution of works. Technical auditing is a key part of the effort to enhance the quality of civil works in Nepal.
IPF‐3: Advanced bridge designs for enhanced resilience and inclusion. Similarly, there is a need to enhance the inclusion that the DOR’s bridge designs offer for pedestrians and cyclists. Deploying technologies that are new/less used in Nepal can help the DOR with both efforts. IPF support will accordingly help the DOR develop advanced bridge designs initiatives (including the design standards and guidelines, as well as actual engineering designs) as required to take forward future investments that deploy those designs.
IPF‐4: Training (domestic and international) and capacity development. There is a need for skills enhancement and for providing relevant training to the DOR staff and other transport sector stakeholders to ensure that the DOR’s road and bridge network provides the connectivity needed for Nepal’s development. Technical, social, environmental, fiduciary, federalism‐related capacity development will be eligible for support under the IPF component. In addition, this subcomponent will support the DOR to undertake annual staff surveys and to compile results as a starting point for broader organizational development objectives.
IPF‐5: Supervision oversight consultancies. The Bridge Branch relies extensively on support from Divisional Offices and Bridge Sector offices for field supervision. Under BIMP I, there were instances where this supervision was inconsistent which has been identified as contributing to gaps in construction quality and safe working practices. This subcomponent will accordingly finance one or more supervision and oversight consultancies that will support the Bridge Branch to verify field supervision, enhance use of the BSMS, and augment the intensity of supervision where needed to mitigate key risks to intended development outcomes.
IPF‐6: Mobilization, equipage, and development of Design and Advanced Technology Cell. The DOR does not currently have an organizational approach to identifying, absorbing, and deploying new or advanced technologies. There is also no program for the development of
23
junior engineers. This results in missed opportunities—both in terms of civil works and staff capabilities. The IPF component will help mobilize a DATC that will lead the development of advanced bridge designs for enhanced resilience and inclusion. Specifically, this will include equipment, software, facilities, training, support from external experts, and logistics support to enable the DATC to function at a high level of technical capability. Cohorts of junior engineers selected for the DATC will include at least 33 percent female participation in an effort to enhance the role that female engineers play in DOR programs. This subcomponent will also support the implementation of promotion efforts to ensure a high participation rate of young engineers and specifically female engineers in the DATC program.
IPF‐7: Support for improving OCHS and DOR implementing Nepal’s new Labor Act (2017). The implementation of BIMP I evidenced that OCHS standards and worksite practices in Nepal need to develop further. While the DOR has made considerable recent progress, there are further opportunities to strengthen DOR systems that apply to OCHS and ensuring compliance with the provisions of Nepal’s new Labor Act (2017). This subcomponent will enable the DOR’s Bridge Branch to engage external support in these critical areas from one or more international organizations specialized in labor risk management. Support will be used to implement the measures identified in Program Action Plan.
IPF‐8: Contingency funding for verification past year 3. During the Program’s initial three years, SDC will provide support to the NPC for discharging its verification mandate under the program. However, the continuation of this support past year 3 is not guaranteed as of June 2018. IPF‐8 will accordingly include contingency funding to ensure that the NPC (or its successor following federal restructuring) can engage one or more private firms to undertake verification of DLIs as technical advisers.
IPF‐9: Program impact evaluation data collection. This subcomponent will pay for data collection for an impact evaluation that is currently under design with support from the World Bank Group’s Development Impact Evaluation team’s i.e. Connect program. The purpose of this impact evaluation is to inform the Program’s future prioritization strategy, future investment initiatives, and strategy for donor involvement. Gender‐related considerations will form part of the impact evaluation’s scope with a view toward the complementary initiatives that could accompany bridge development and target benefits at specific groups such as lower‐income women.
24
Table 1.2. IPF Component: Consultancy Support and Institutional Development
Subcomponent Description Qty Unit Unit Cost Amount
IPF‐1 Preparations for future projects on the Strategic Roads Network
1 Lump sum 5,000,000 5,000,000
IPF‐2 Technical auditing by NVC 5 Years 100,000 500,000
IPF‐3 Advanced bridge designs for enhanced resilience and inclusion
10 Bridges 300,000 3,000,000
IPF‐4 Training (domestic and international) and capacity development
IPF‐6 Mobilization, equipage, and development of Design and Advanced Technology Cell
5 Annual 200,000 1,000,000
IPF‐7 Support for OCHS and DOR implementation of Nepal’s Labor Act (2017)
5 Years 200,000 1,000,000
IPF‐8 Contingency funding for verification past year 3 2 Years 150,000 300,000
IPF‐9 Program impact evaluation data collection 1 Lump sum 250,000 250,000
IPF Subtotal 14,150,000
10. The decision to finance the above tasks under an IPF component reflects learnings from BIMP I and a view that several activities are outside the Program’s historic practice. Under BIMP I, these types of initiatives were supported using parallel financing from the IDA‐supported RSDP’s TA component. The RSDP is expected to close in July 2019 and there is a need to ensure that IPF resources are aligned with the full duration of the PforR Program.
25
ANNEX 2. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND MONITORING
Table 2.1. Results Framework
Results Areas
PDO Indicators Intermediate Results Indicators DLI # Unit of Measurement Baseline (Year)
End Target (Year)
Safe bridges
PDO 1: Reduced likelihood of road departure crashes on Program bridges
Number of upgraded bridges with visual signs or recorded incidents of prevented road departure crashes
0 (year 1) 18 (year 5)
IRI 1.1: Road safety upgrades on Program bridges DLI‐2 Meter 0 (year 1) 8,000 (year 5)
Resilient bridges
PDO 2: Enhanced DOR capabilities for developing resilient bridge designs
Number of advanced bridge designs prepared
0 (year 1) 10 (year 5)
IRI 2.1: Design and Advanced Technology Cell created
One time n.a. DATC staffed/mobilized
(year 2)
IRI 2.2: Mobilization of advanced design skills for improved resilience and inclusion
Number 0 (year 1) 10 (year 5)
(Gender Indicator) IRI 2.3: Female Engineers recruited in the Design and Advanced Technology Cell and given advanced skills training
% 6% (DOR average) (year 0)
>33% (all years)
Cost‐effective bridges
PDO 3: Estimated road user cost savings achieved by Program interventions
NPR 0 (year 1) > NPR 2,971 million
IRI 3.1: Implementation of high priority maintenance to extend asset lives
DLI‐1 Meter 0 (year. 1)
4,500 (year 5)
IRI 3.2: Completion of backlog bridges to reduce road user costs
DLI‐5 Meter 0 (year 1) 5,000 (year 5)
IRI 3.3: Construction of new bridges to reduce road user costs
DLI‐3 DLI‐4
Meter 0 (year 1) 6,000 (year 5)
Beneficiary feedback
(Beneficiary Feedback) IRI 4.1: Responsiveness of DOR’s Grievance Redress Mechanism
Calendar days (weighted average) 31.2 (year 0)
10 (year 5)
(Beneficiary) IRI 4.2: Anticipated beneficiaries of inclusive design concepts
Number of people 0 (year 1) 5,000 (year 5)
26
Table 2.2. Indicator Description
Indicator Name (#) Description (Clear
definition and so on) Frequency Data Source
Methodology for Data Collection
Responsibility for Data Collection
DLIs
Responsibility for Data
Verification
Scalability of Disbursement
(Yes/No)
PDO 1: Reduced likelihood of road departure crashes on Program bridges
Number of Program bridges with road safety upgrades that show visual signs or have recorded incidents of prevented road departure crashes
(i) Midterm review; and (ii) within 4 months of closing date
Visual inspection and photos captured in BMS; or accident reports from Nepal Police; or community interviews
Review of BMS entries, Nepal police reports, and/or community interviews
Bridge Branch n.a. n.a.
IRI 1.1: Road safety upgrades on Program bridges
Meters of Program bridges with upgraded road safety features
Annual updates
Third Trimester Report of each fiscal year
Trimester reporting
Bridge Branch NPC Yes
PDO 2: Enhanced DOR capabilities for developing resilient bridge designs
Number of new bridge designs prepared that include advanced design features for enhanced resilience and inclusion.
Annual updates
Third Trimester Report of each fiscal year
Trimester reporting
Bridge Branch n.a. n.a.
IRI 2.1: Design and Advanced Technology Cell created
DOR to establish a DATC within the Bridge Branch, satisfactory to the Association, for insourcing a fraction of bridge‐related engineering tasks and developing the capacity of junior engineers.
One time MoPIT Task Team verification of DATC's staffing and functionality
Task Team n.a. n.a.
27
Indicator Name (#) Description (Clear
definition and so on) Frequency Data Source
Methodology for Data Collection
Responsibility for Data Collection
DLIs
Responsibility for Data
Verification
Scalability of Disbursement
(Yes/No)
IRI 2.2: Mobilization of advanced design skills for improved resilience and inclusion
Number of advanced bridge designs completed that incorporate enhanced resilience features
Annual Third Trimester Report of each fiscal year
Trimester reporting
Bridge Branch Yes Third Trimester Report of each fiscal year
(Gender Indicator) IRI 2.3: Female Engineers recruited in the Design and Advanced Technology Cell and given advanced skills training
Percentage of females employed in the engineering cohorts recruited in DATC and trained (target not less than 33%)
Annual Third Trimester Report of each fiscal year
DOR staff records
Bridge Branch n.a. n.a.
PDO 3: Estimated road user cost savings achieved by Program interventions
Modeled savings resulting from PforR Program investments
(i) Midterm review; and (ii) within 4 months of closing date
HDM‐4 HMIS data for demand by SRN road
HDM‐4 model Task Team n.a. n.a.
IRI 3.1: Implementation of high priority maintenance to extend asset lives
Meters of completed major bridge maintenance on Program bridges
Annual updates
Third Trimester Report of each fiscal year
Trimester reporting
Bridge Branch NPC Yes
IRI 3.2: Completion of backlog bridges to reduce road user costs
Meters of completed backlog bridges under the Program
Annual updates
Third Trimester Report of each fiscal year
Trimester reporting
Bridge Branch NPC Yes
IRI 3.3: Construction of new bridges to reduce road user costs
Meters of new 2 lane and 4 lane bridges completed under the Program
Annual updates
Third Trimester Report of each fiscal year
Trimester reporting
Bridge Branch NPC Yes
(Beneficiary Feedback) IRI 4.1: Responsiveness of DOR’s Grievance Redress Mechanism
Average response time to GRM entries received by DOR
Annual updates
GRM quarterly reports
DOR GRM system (through DOR website)
Bridge Branch n.a. n.a.
28
Indicator Name (#) Description (Clear
definition and so on) Frequency Data Source
Methodology for Data Collection
Responsibility for Data Collection
DLIs
Responsibility for Data
Verification
Scalability of Disbursement
(Yes/No)
(Beneficiary) IRI 4.2: Anticipated beneficiaries of inclusive design concepts
Number of beneficiaries expected to benefit from inclusive design concepts developed under IPF‐3 (advanced design bridges). Figure to be disaggregated by gender.
One time per bridge site
Safeguards assessment of advanced design bridges
Safeguards documents
Bridge Branch n.a. n.a.
29
ANNEX 3. DLIS, DISBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND VERIFICATION PROTOCOLS
Table 3.1. Disbursement Linked Indicator Matrix
Total
Financing Allocated
% of PforR
Financing DLI Baseline
Indicative Timeline for DLI Achievement and disbursement
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
DLI‐1: Major bridge maintenance [target of 4,500 m]
0 — 750 1,000 1,500 1,250
Allocated amount (US$): 13,087,728 11
— 2,181,288 2,908,384 4,362,576 3,635,480
DLI‐2: Road safety upgrades on bridges [target of 8,000 m]
0 — 1,333 2,000 2,222 2,444
Allocated amount (US$): 17,450,304 15
— 2,908,384 4,362,576 4,847,307 5,332,037
DLI‐3: New 2 lane bridge construction, rehab., and replacement of bridges [target of 4,000 m]
The Bridge Branch will develop dossiers for completed physical works that will be proposed for verification. Dossiers will contain (a) documentation of technical specifications and engineering designs, (b) social and environmental assessments and information on preparation/implementation of management plans, and (c) procurement documentation. For the purpose of verifying the fulfillment of the DLIs the National Planning Commission is responsible for appointing and maintaining, at all times during the implementation of the Program, independent verification agents (under terms of reference satisfactory to the Association). Verification reports submitted to the Association should be mutually satisfactory in form and substance to the Government of Nepal and the Association. The Bridge Branch will forward dossiers in batches to the NPC. SDC will be funding and engaging independent technical advisers to work with the NPC during implementation on verification tasks. During verification, documentation in dossiers will first be reviewed to ascertain compliance with Program requirements. Field verification will subsequently follow on a sample basis according to the proportions listed below.
# DLI Definition/Description of
Achievement
Scalability of Disbursements
(Yes/No)
Protocol to Evaluate Achievement of the DLI and Data/Result Verification
Data Source/Agency Verification
Entity Procedure
DLI‐1 Major bridge maintenance
Completion of one or more major maintenance works as defined in table 3.4 and physical verification of state of good repair (that is, BMS condition 7, 8, 9, or 10) for all elements listed in table 3.4 according to Bridge Branch inspection guidelines. All bridges requested for verification must originate from BMS priority list.
Yes—to nearest one‐tenth meter of a single completed bridge.
Bridge Dossiers assembled by Bridge Branch; and visual inspection on sample basis for verification
NPC All Bridge Dossiers to undergo review for completeness/compliance before verification.
NPC to select random sample (not less than 50%) of completed bridges (by number) for physical verification. Sample results will apply to entire DLI‐1 category works within the same disbursement request.
100% physical verification of bridges where deviation from maintenance checklist has been agreed with the Association.
For the avoidance of doubt, bridges eligible for DLI‐1 may also be included in DLI‐2.
31
# DLI Definition/Description of
Achievement
Scalability of Disbursements
(Yes/No)
Protocol to Evaluate Achievement of the DLI and Data/Result Verification
Data Source/Agency Verification
Entity Procedure
DLI‐2 Road safety upgrades on bridges
Completion of one or more road safety investments listed in table 3.5 at each bridge site and verification that all bridge‐related road safety elements in table 3.5 are in place unless site conditions render partial solutions as the only practicable option.
Yes—to nearest one‐tenth meter of a single completed bridge.
Bridge Dossiers assembled by Bridge Branch; and visual inspection on sample basis for verification
NPC All Bridge Dossiers to undergo review for completeness/compliance before verification.
NPC to select random sample (not less than 50%) of completed bridges (by number) for physical verification. Sample results will apply to entire DLI‐2 category works within the same disbursement request.
100% physical verification of bridges where deviation from full road safety checklist has been agreed with the Association.
New 2 and 4 lane bridges under DLI‐3 and DLI‐4 will not be eligible for disbursement against this DLI.
DLI‐3 New 2 lane bridge construction, rehab., and replacement of bridges
Completion of physical works for dual carriage way bridge meeting or exceeding GON Bridge Design Standards and road safety requirements as described in table 3.5. All bridges requested for verification must originate from BMS priority list and have contract signing dates after April 26, 2018. All new 2 lane bridges proposed for disbursement must come through BMS prioritized list.
Yes—to nearest one‐tenth meter of a single completed bridge.
Bridge Dossiers assembled by Bridge Branch; and visual inspection for verification
NPC All Bridge Dossiers to undergo review for completeness/compliance before verification.
Physical verification to be applied to 100% of works covered by disbursement request.
BMS list of priority bridges for each year to be posted on DOR website.
For the avoidance of doubt, bridges eligible for DLI‐3 cannot count toward DLI‐2.
32
# DLI Definition/Description of
Achievement
Scalability of Disbursements
(Yes/No)
Protocol to Evaluate Achievement of the DLI and Data/Result Verification
Data Source/Agency Verification
Entity Procedure
DLI‐4 New 4 lane bridge construction
Completion of physical works for 4lane bridge meeting or exceeding GON Bridge Design Standards and road safety requirements as described in table 3.5. All bridges requested for verification must originate from BMS priority list and have contract signing dates after April 26, 2018. All 4 lane bridges proposed for disbursement must have estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic greater than 3,000 Passenger Car Unit (equivalent) according to the DOR's HMIS at the time of verification.
Yes—to nearest one‐tenth meter of a single completed bridge.
Bridge Dossiers assembled by Bridge Branch; and visual inspection for verification
NPC All Bridge Dossiers to undergo review for completeness/compliance before verification.
Physical verification to be applied to 100% of works covered by disbursement request.
Traffic data from DOR’s HMIS to provide the basis for verification of traffic volume.
For the avoidance of doubt, bridges eligible for DLI‐4 cannot count toward DLI‐2.
DLI‐5 Completion of backlog bridges under construction
Completion of physical works for bridges with construction contracts signed before April 26, 2018. Completed bridges must meet or exceed GON Bridge Design Standards.
Yes—to nearest one‐tenth meter of a single completed bridge.
Bridge Dossiers assembled by Bridge Branch; and physical inspection on sample basis for verification
NPC All Bridge Dossiers to undergo review for completeness/compliance before verification.
NPC to select random sample not less than 30% of competed bridges (by number) for physical verification.
Sample results will apply to entire DLI‐5 category works within the same disbursement request.
For the avoidance of doubt, bridges eligible for DLI‐5 may also be included in DLI‐2.
DLI‐6 Improved fiduciary governance of design‐build contracting
Drafting and endorsement by the MoPIT of the revised guidelines for design‐build contracts to be submitted to the PPMO for approval
No Official letter from MoPIT Secretary to PPMO
NPC Pass/fail criteria to apply based on completion of DLI target using desk‐based verification of outputs.
33
# DLI Definition/Description of
Achievement
Scalability of Disbursements
(Yes/No)
Protocol to Evaluate Achievement of the DLI and Data/Result Verification
Data Source/Agency Verification
Entity Procedure
DLI‐7 BSMS (mobile monitoring system) use on Program worksites
At least two complete and substantive BSMS entries for a single worksite per calendar month will constitute one unit of DLI achievement. Entries must date from the period between contract signing and beginning of defects and liability period for works and must include environmental and social aspects of works. Entries must be substantive, complete, and accurate. Entries with timestamps falling within 12 hours of one another will be considered a single entry.
Yes BSMS data export with sample audit of data entries for a selection of sites.
NPC Spreadsheet analysis of BSMS entries to provide basis for calculating DLI achievement based on time stamps and geo‐referenced location.
Verification target of 10% on entries included in DLI calculation to check for completeness and to detect potentially fraudulent entries.
Sample results will apply to entire DLI‐7 category results within the same disbursement request.
34
Table 3.3. Disbursement Table
# DLI
IDA financing
allocated to the DLI (US$)
Disbursement calculation formula
Maximum number of meters on which
disbursement can be based
Of which Financing available for Prior results
Deadline for DLI
Achievement
Minimum number of bridges required for
disbursement to occur
DLI‐1 Major bridge maintenance (approximately 90 bridges)
13,087,728 US$2,908 per meter of completed bridges maintained
4,500 0 Date of close 10 completed bridges per GON fiscal year across all DLI categories combined DLI‐2 Road safety upgrades on bridges
(approximately 180 bridges) 17,450,304 US$2,181 per meter of completed
bridges that have been upgraded 8,000 0 Date of close
DLI‐3 New 2 lane bridge construction, rehab., and replacement of bridges (approximately 80 bridges)
35,288,393 US$8,822 per meter of completed bridges that are constructed, rehabilitated, or replaced
4,000 0 Date of close
DLI‐4 New 4 lane bridge construction (approximately 35 bridges)
25,205,995 US$12,603 per meter of completed bridge constructed, rehabilitated, or replaced
2,000 0 Date of close
DLI‐5 Completion of backlog bridges under construction (approximately 92 bridges)
18,746,959 US$4,411 per meter of completed bridge
5,000 2,812,044 Date of close
DLI‐6 Improved fiduciary governance of design‐build contracting
2,000,000 Disbursement = US$2,000,000 upon verified completion
1 0 Date of close n.a.
DLI‐7 BSMS (mobile monitoring system ) use on Program worksites (5,000 validated bridge worksites)
3,750,000 Disbursement = number of verified sites × US$750
5,000 0 Date of close n.a.
35
Table 3.4. Elements for Major Maintenance of Program Bridges under DLI‐1
Bridge Element Example of Repair Intervention
Bridge deck Resurfacing
Replacement with modular steel bridge sections
Girders/other superstructure
Crack/spalling location repair (for example, chemical grouting, weld repair, others)
Reinforcement (for example, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer or other means)
Sand blasting and repainting
Bearings Jacking and replacement or refurbishment
Abutments Crack repair
Provision or repair of access for maintenance
Repair of cheek wall
Approaches Resurfacing and/or rehabilitation of road structure
Drainage improvements to prevent siltation of bridge deck
Expansion joint Replacement or rehabilitation
Piers Jacketing
Grouting (foundations)
Placement of riprap or gabions to protect against scouring
River training works Check damns for scour prevention
Gabion walls to provide guide banks
Constructions of spurs
Bridge rail Repair of collision or other damage
Note: Any exceptions to full maintenance solutions will be agreed in advance in writing with the Association.
36
Table 3.5. Road Safety Checklist for Program Bridges under DLI‐2
Item Requirement
Bridge rail ‘F’ shape; or
‘W’ shape; or
Thrie‐beam; or
Double or triple steel tube type;
Transitions ‘W’ shape terminal connector; or
Thrie‐beam terminal connector; or
Cable to ‘W’ beam or ‘F’ shape transitions
Approach rail ‘W’ shape; or
‘F’ safety shapes; or
Cable safety system; or
Cement Rubble Masonry
End treatments Buried in slope; or
Breakaway (various types); or
Anchor block (for cable systems); or
Energy absorbing; or
Crash attenuator type solution.
Pedestrian and bicycle right of way and railing. (note: required for new bridges that is, under DLI‐3 or DLI‐4 on any road without access control)
Pedestrian parapets provided on both sides of bridge and segregated by bridge rail from traffic; and
0.5 m minimum, 1+ m preferred for bridges outside of urban areas; or
2 m minimum, 3+ m preferred for bridges in urban areas; and
1.1 m or higher steel tube with 6” intermediate rails and rub rail for pedestrian/cyclist fall protection
Markings Lane delineation on approaches and bridge deck
High visibility markings at approach and on barriers
Warnings and restrictions as appropriate to location and loading control (if applicable)
Note: Any exceptions to full solutions will be agreed in advance in writing with the Association.
11. The Program will support the development of guidelines for the implementation of road safety works consistently. These guidelines should feature standard designs that have been developed and approved for use by the following international authorities (or any standard design that has undergone the Association’s review and received ‘no objection’):
Federal Highways Administration (United States) and various U.S. state transportation agencies:
o https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/countermeasures/reduce_crash_severity/listing.cfm?code=long
o http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/rlg/rlg.pdf
o http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Pages/Drawings‐Bridge.aspx
37
New South Wales: http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business‐industry/partners‐suppliers/document‐types/standard‐drawings/road/safety‐barriers.html
New Zealand Transport Agency: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads‐and‐rail/road‐engineering/road‐safety‐hardware/standard‐drawings/
Alberta Transportation: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType30/Production/BridgeBarriersDrawings.pdf
12. The Bridge Branch may select and deploy alternative designs or solutions for Program bridges provided that those alternatives have been tested and approved to the level required for a particular site application according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware or equivalent standards.
13. For the avoidance of doubt, it will be permissible for bridges to qualify for disbursement against DLI‐1 (major maintenance) and DLI‐2 (road safety upgrades) in instances where works contracts may include bundled maintenance and road safety interventions. In such instances, verification criteria for each DLI category will remain unchanged.
38
ANNEX 4. SUMMARY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Summary
1. The Program remains one of Nepal’s largest and most strategically relevant development initiatives due the critical role that the SRN and its bridges play in supporting economic activity. The DOR’s Bridge Branch has overall responsibility for the Program’s implementation and has demonstrated ability to achieve results under BIMP I. Despite positive past accomplishments, there is room to improve the Program’s technical performance further. Most notably, the as‐built quality of physical works remains a foremost challenge. Findings from the present Association’s technical assessment have identified that quality deficiencies are endemic throughout the process of bridge development and construction. One reason for this is inconsistent field‐level supervision of works. Under BIMP I, the Bridge Branch accordingly developed a new mobile monitoring application, BSMS, that uses a tablet or smartphone interface to enable rapid reporting/sharing of site conditions and quality‐related issues. The BSMS has been made operational in time for BIMP II and offers the means for Bridge Branch leadership to track the frequency of field visits and quality of observations made by assigned works supervisors.
2. The experience of BIMP I has been positive overall. Particularly encouraging experiences relate to (a) continuous verification of actual results under the NPC that has helped manage the Program’s performance, (b) links between DLIs and continuous use of the BMS which has helped improve asset management and prioritize investments; and (c) convening of different DOR units and GON authorities by virtue of relying on government systems that has helped quickly address unforeseen implementation challenges. Below are key technical learnings from BIMP I along with options for improvement under BIMP II.
Expenditure Framework
3. The Program’s expenditure framework entails two budget headings for Program expenditures (currently 337320 and 337159 in Nepal’s budget document) that are separate from the larger program of DOR bridge initiatives. One heading supports capital investment. The other supports bridge design, site assessment, feasibility study, quality monitoring, Program logistics support, and environmental and social impact management.
4. The Program’s current expenditure framework was established under a legal covenant in the Financing Agreement for BIMP I which was upheld and found to be effective at enhancing transparency around the Program’s expenditures. The Financing Agreement for BIMP II reflects a similar legal covenant requiring the MoF to maintain separate budget headings. For the avoidance of doubt, the Program’s budget headings will also be separate and distinct from the budget heading used for IPF component expenditures. Annex 1 details Program expenditures.
Technical Engineering Design and Quality Management of Bridges
5. Under BIMP I, the Bridge Branch demonstrated a remarkable leap in capacity to design maintenance interventions and implement them effectively. This included the use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer repairs to strengthen degraded structural members as well as pressurized grouting to address foundation failures and epoxy‐based injection grouting to address cracking. These advanced techniques had never before been used by the Program and they succeeded in addressing urgent maintenance needs at a fraction of likely bridge replacement costs. However, there were also observed gaps in the quality of design for new bridge construction and in the quality of both new construction and maintenance works.
39
These gaps appear to stem from multiple root causes including design practice, weak consultant/contractor capacity, inconsistent site supervision, oversights in site assessments, and the processes that develop designs for tendering. Moreover, digitalization of the Bridge Branch’s documents, specifically technical designs, has become critical to inform future maintenance programs. At present a key challenge of diagnosing maintenance needs is trying to figure out how an existing bridge was actually built.
New Bridge Construction and Contractor Capacity
6. Based on standard designs for prestress concrete bridges (25 m, 35 m, and 45 m span), the DOR effectively introduced long‐span concrete bridges in new construction works. It also introduced design and build contract options (around 50). In that regard, the capacity of the local construction industry has increased in response to the Bridge Branch’s leadership but remains a work in progress. Major delays are common during contract execution. The Bridge Branch faces many challenges in managing contracts, including issues of contract management, quality enforcement, delays in the process of budget release, and OCHS on worksites. A key challenge faced during the implementation of new construction contracts stem from the fact that contractors happen to bid for different contracts expected to be implemented within the same time frame, without the adequate capacity to deliver on time.
DOR’s Technical Capacity
7. The Bridge Branch has a substantial workload. The Bridge Branch has noted difficulties in recruiting young engineers to support the Program on account of notoriously high workload, risks associated with approving bridge designs, and limited professional development opportunities. Similarly, there are concerns at the level of divisions regarding the Program’s ability to provide effective site‐level support and technical guidance in a constructive manner. The current staffing structure is based on a 20‐year‐old plan for the DOR which is no longer reflective of the Program’s current status. The Association is currently supporting the DOR to undertake a human resources survey and will subsequently support the DOR to develop a DATC to further enhance the Program’s capabilities. This is being done through an e‐mailed survey instrument that the Association has assisted the DOR to prepare and distribute to its staff.
8. Civil servants in Nepal are expected to transfer every two years, because staff tend to stay in one sector for their entire career. The two‐year rule for transfers affects planning and implementation of projects, which in turn causes delays. For example, staff from roads are transferred to bridges projects without ensuring the minimum technical skills. Support to newcomers is ad hoc. There is a perception that changes before two years also occur in response to different institutional and political pressures. A key means to coping with turnover will be the digitalization and electronic archiving of administrative and technical documents (designs, bidding and contract documentation, and other documents). This is needed to improve the DOR’s overall efficiency and the ability of new team members to come up to speed on assignments. The BMS is currently being upgraded to also handle document control which can be further developed under BIMP II’s consultancy support and institutional development.
Internal Coordination
9. Better coordination is required between the different entities responsible for the implementation and monitoring of road or bridges operations, namely the DOR, DROs, and GESU. It is particularly important to enhance GESU’s field presence and integration within the process of designing technical solutions. At present, the timing of GESU’s inputs are often suboptimal and there is a need to further mainstream social and environmental inputs in the development process of new works contracts.
40
Economic Analysis
10. As part of the Program’s technical assessment, the team carried out economic analysis to inform the design of IDA’s support to the Program. This considered the following four categories of bridges:
Bridges which may fail in the absence of appropriate intervention. The bridges requiring major maintenance are in this category. So too are bridges judged to require safety upgrade work. Here, however, the risk of failure is low. The bridges requiring major maintenance are assumed to be at ‘medium’ risk of failure, that is, within the next 20 years with a probability of failure of 1 percent in any one year. Year by year, this probability will increase by 5 percent a year until at the 20th year probability approaches 100 percent. When a bridge becomes too weak to carry the projected traffic load and fails, two sets of costs may be incurred; the cost of providing a temporary crossing while the bridge is reconstructed (not considered in the present appraisal) and the costs of additional kilometers driven as a detour is found.
Bridges considered for a road safety upgrade. Some of the activities involved will, in addition to improving road safety, prolong the life of the bridges through avoided damage and thus benefits from avoiding failure are considered, although the probability of failure is put at no more than 0.65 percent in any one year. Again, this probability will increase by 5 percent a year over a 20‐year period. Appraisal of the bridges has included the costs of accident reduction. At issue is the degree to which improving bridge safety will reduce such costs because data on accident causes do not reveal direct association with bridge condition. The team therefore tested a wide range of scenarios.
New 2 lane bridge construction. This intervention is used to develop a missing bridge where installation of a new bridge reduces both distance and time costs of road use by shortening access distance and avoiding costs crossing the river by a ford. Time taken to negotiate a ford is longer than for even a single lane bridge and this has been considered.
Development of 4 lane bridges. This intervention is used where the capacity of 2 lane bridges is inadequate. Delays experienced crossing a 2 lane bridge are largely geometric delays—rising from the need to reduce speed when crossing the bridge. Only with very heavy traffic flows will congestion delay (the need to slow or stop because of an oncoming vehicle overtaking) become significant. To estimate such delays, an Erlang queuing model has been used.
11. Potential interventions were appraised based on a sample of SNR bridges over a period to 2038. Both the rate of discount and the opportunity cost of capital were taken to be 12 percent. Where road user costs are saved by an investment, these have been calculated using World Bank RED software configured for HDM‐4 relationships. Traffic volumes used in different scenarios for the economic appraisal came from the DOR’s HMIS. The range of appraisal findings varies by intervention type and traffic volume. These are presented in the tables below. Key overall findings and implications include the following:
Maintenance. Major maintenance works are economically justifiable in nearly every traffic scenario except for bridges with less than 100 Passenger Car Unit equivalent per day in traffic volume. Results of the sample and the Association’s experience of traffic growth during a bridge’s initial years of service suggest that a maintenance intervention on bridges of this category would be a rare occurrence on the SRN. Despite low likelihood of occurrence, the
41
verification requirement for major maintenance (namely that Program interventions must come through BMS prioritized lists) mitigates the risk of supporting unviable investments. BMS prioritizes interventions on higher traffic roads first such that maintenance interventions on extremely low volume SRN roads would be unlikely to be selected for funding.
New 2 lane bridge construction. New 2 lane bridge construction is also economically justifiable in nearly every traffic scenario except for along roads with less than 100 vehicles per day. There is comparatively greater risk of this occurring in the case of new construction when compared to maintenance interventions. SRN roads that lack bridges tend to be lower volume roads by not offering year‐round accessibility. Roads that lack bridges are also often feeder roads that have lower traffic volumes due to their place in Nepal’s road hierarchy. The verification criteria for new 2 lane bridge construction require that all (that is, 100 percent) new 2 lane bridges must come through BMS prioritized lists (rather than the 80 percent allowed under BIMP I).
Road safety upgrades. Available data and base case analysis suggest that road safety upgrades may be less economically viable on roads with traffic volumes below 3,000 Passenger Car Units equivalent per day. However, the team notes three key issues with this analysis:
o Available road safety data for Nepal that was used for this analysis are incomplete such that injuries and fatalities are likely understated which in turn reduces the modeled value for economic returns. For example, national statistics suggest that in 2013 Nepal experienced 1,744 road safety‐related deaths, whereas the World Health Organization estimated actual deaths were closer to 4,713 due to underreporting. There is also no available data on the road departure crashes in Nepal that involve bridge infrastructure.
o Findings from the IDA‐supported Road Safety Support Project (RSSP) Implementation Completion and Results Report showed the importance of developing road safety infrastructure even on Nepal’s lower volume roads. Like RSSP roads, Nepal’s lower volume roads often traverse steep ravines by virtue of their geographical location in Nepal’s road hierarchy. Road departure crashes on these roads can therefore have severe multi‐fatality consequences due to precipitous drops. RSSP was successful at significantly reducing such incidents and achieved economic rates of return estimated between 23 percent and 50 percent despite traffic volumes below 3,000 Passenger Car Units per day. At the time of the RSSP’s close, a simplified impact evaluation based on observed barrier strikes and consultations showed that the RSSP’s crash barriers had prevented seven road departure crashes for multiple occupancy vehicles (each carrying 15–60 people). If not prevented, these would have likely resulted in multiple fatality incidents. One vehicle experienced a road departure crash on an RSSP road in March 2017 along a section that was not protected by crash barriers, which resulted in 27 fatalities.
o In the absence of robust data, scenarios were tested for different rates of accident occurrence and severity. Findings suggested that economically viable rates of return were possible within credible levels of uncertainty around current data.
42
In light of the above there is no traffic volume‐related verification criteria for road safety upgrades of BIMP II bridges despite mixed results from the economic analysis.
4 lane bridges. Results of the economic analysis suggest that 4 lane bridges are economically viable on roads with greater than 3,000 Passenger Car Units equivalent in daily traffic. The verification criteria for DLI 4 reflect this.
12. Results of base case assumptions for different interventions are shown in table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Base Case Economic Appraisal Results
Item Major Maintenance New 2 Lane Crossing
Road Safety Upgrades
4 Lane Bridges
Traffic levels 100 to 3,000 100 to 3,000 1,000 to 3,000 >3,000
No. of bridges in sample 91 60 60 15
Economic internal rate of return range (%)
38.5 to 141.4 16.5 to 41.4 4.8 to 61.8 22.9
Emissions Reduction
13. All four categories of intervention will result in savings of vehicle emissions over the appraisal period considered (20 years). The savings will result from reduction in detours necessary in the event of bridge failure in the case of major maintenance and safety upgrade (the latter intervention incorporates work which has the effect of minor maintenance) and in detours avoided by constructing new crossings. Emissions are saved when an intervention allows increased speeds. This is the case with developing 4 lane bridges. The modeling of emissions reduction used HDM‐4 as part of Program appraisal. A summary of emissions savings for the Program is included in table 4.2. Over the 20‐year appraisal period considered, the Program is expected to save approximately 1.3 million metric tons of CO2 emissions relative to a without‐Program scenario.
Table 4.2. Emissions Reduction by Vehicle Class over the Appraisal Period (metric tons)
Total 353,587 226,287 312,820 405,986 303,866 1,602,546
Actions to Improve the Program’s Performance
14. Key initiatives that will enhance the Program’s technical performance include the following:
Increase focus on sound technical design, use of new technologies, and the quality of engineering processes that ultimately shape works packages. This must be linked to an
43
overall human resources strategy for enhancing the Program’s human capital. It is a key justification underpinning the Program Action Plan items relating to the DATC and cross‐cutting action for annual staff surveys to inform human resources strategies.
Improve consideration for climate‐resilient designs and technologies as recent events are showing the limitations of traditional standards and approaches. The advanced designs and mobilization of the DATC that will be funded under the IPF component aim at achieving this along with the Program Action Plan item for revising the DOR’s Bridge Policy and Strategy to include resilience consideration.
Tighten the Program’s regime of field supervision through enhanced accountability and stronger oversight. The Program makes extensive use of the recently developed BSMS to document field supervision tasks and to subsequently hold supervision engineers to account for the final quality of works based on their actions or inactions. DLI‐7 links disbursement to the use of the BSMS accordingly.
Encourage thinking for the role of bridges beyond vehicular traffic. There is an opportunity to make bridge infrastructure more inclusive and amenable—particularly to pedestrians and cyclists. The IPF component’s support to advanced design concepts will help achieve this as will the DATC’s mobilization as required by the Program Action Plan.
Climate Change Vulnerability and Co‐benefits (Resilience)
15. Nepal’s unique topography, ranging from the high Himalayan range to the plains of the Terai region is, according to most climate change models, likely to be dramatically affected by changing weather patterns. In terms of volumes, the monsoon delivers about 80 percent of annual rainfall in just three months. The high Himalayas have historically played a unique role in determining the extent of water storage as ice and snow and provided flows of water and sediment through perennial rivers in the remaining months of the year. These mountain ranges have also determined the way the regional circulation of moisture‐bearing winds leads to temporal and spatial precipitation patterns.
16. However, global climate change models project that increases in global temperatures along with changes in ocean currents will affect rainfall and cyclone patterns in Nepal. These models have been less reliable in predicting how the regional circulation of moisture‐bearing winds will affect precipitation and temperature in Nepal because the role played by the high mountain ranges on subregional circulation and precipitations is still not fully understood.10 IPCC suggests that that Himalayan regions like Nepal will experience significant changes in weather patterns due to climate change.
17. A recent World Bank study utilized the various available climate change models to identify ‘hotspots’ in the South Asia region that would be affected by changes in weather in terms of rainfall and temperature. A key overall conclusion was that adverse impacts on living standards would be severe by locational characteristics.11 An estimated 29 million people in Nepal are projected to be affected by these localized hotspots.
10 See “4 Degrees Turn Down the Heat – Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience”; the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics; June 2013. 11 See www.worldbank.org/southasiahotspots.
44
18. Perhaps of greater relevance is that the combination of global (climate change) and regional (presence of the high mountain ranges) anomalies will create temporal and spatial climate effects that could involve not only the hotspots but also other geographic areas of Nepal as well.12 For example, changes in the ice and snow accumulation and more rapid runoffs from the high Himalayas will release significantly larger volumes of water and sediment in future through the river systems, which will disrupt natural ecosystems, infrastructure networks, and human habitats in downstream subregions—all served by the SRN system. A precursor already visible in Nepal is in the form of more frequent flash floods, more damage from monsoon runoffs from fast flowing rivers, particularly in the Terai region.
19. A recent World Bank publication on flood risks in the Ganges‐Brahmaputra‐Meghna basins provides useful insights on the scale and complexity of future floods scale‐up because of climate change. These events will require (a) improving the quality of vulnerability assessments of SRN roads and bridges, including prioritizing investments in bridges, which need to be designed to withstand 1:100 years or even higher flood events; (b) identifying priority bridges that need built‐in system redundancy because of the multiple functions they perform (in the event of catastrophic events, such as Glacial Lake Outburst Floods [GLOF], cloudbursts, earthquakes) that end up causing catastrophic damage to human settlements and surrounding road network infrastructure; (c) tracking continuously of enhancements in Bridge Design Standards that are necessary to mitigate vulnerability to unforeseen climate‐induced hazards; (d) using innovative materials and construction methods that build resilience of the bridges to natural disasters; and (e) strengthening monitoring of post‐incident response, in case a bridge is damaged because of climate‐induced or other natural disasters.13
Relevance of Operation’s Design to Building Adaptive Resilience
20. Under conditions of climate uncertainty, the SRN system without bridges resilient to climate‐induced weather events will severely disrupt connectivity—from social, physical, and economic perspectives. Bridges therefore occupy a strategically important role in Nepal’s quest to eradicate poverty and boost shared prosperity. For example, monsoon flooding during the summer of 2017 demonstrated that many bridges in Nepal, particularly along the East‐West Highway, were vulnerable to natural events. The Association’s Climate and Disaster Risk Screening Tool further confirms high risks of extreme precipitation and landslides facing SRN roads and bridges.
21. Nepal’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) states: “climate change has visible and pronounced impacts on snows and glaciers that are likely to increase the possibilities of Glacier Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs). Nepal has suffered from the impacts of increased frequency of extreme weather events, such as landslides, floods and droughts resulting in the loss of human lives as well as high social and economic costs.”14
12 See (a) Yi Loo, Yen, and Ajit Singh. 2015. ““Effects of Climate Change on Seasonal Monsoons in Asia and Impact on Variability of Rainfall in Southeast Asia”. Geoscience Frontiers 6 (6): 817–823. The analysis is mainly for Southeast Asia, but there are observations on South Asia as well; (b) “4 Degrees Turn Down the Heat – Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience”; the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics; June 2013; and (c) World Bank. 2018. “South Asia's Hotspots: Impacts of Temperature and Precipitation Changes on Living Standards.” www.worldbank.org/southasiahotspots 13 Priya, Satya, William Young, Thomas Hopson, and Ankit Avasthi. 2017. “Flood Risk Assessment and Forecasting for the Ganges‐ Brahmaputra‐Meghna River Basins.” World Bank. 14 Quoted from Government of Nepal Ministry of Population and Environment; Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, page 2. Communicated to the UNFCCC Secretariat in February 2016.
45
22. Strengthening the resilience of Nepal’s road and bridge network, particularly through greater consideration for resilient engineering designs to insure against catastrophic weather‐related events will be important for tackling any likely disruptions because of climate change. These include not only the robustness to withstand catastrophic climate‐induced weather events for strategically important bridges but also in terms of ensuring adequate resilience to expedite recovery after a climate‐induced event has damaged other bridges. Strengthening robust maintenance systems is therefore essential for achieving greater resilience as well as cost effectiveness of Nepal’s SRN bridge investments. BIMP II has therefore committed to support the DOR develop the institutional capacity for tackling both the structural and nonstructural aspects of adapting bridge design, construction, and operations and maintenance to climate change.
Specific Activities Addressing Climate Resilience
23. A key element of the operation is to build climate resiliency planning capacity for the bridges of strategic importance in the SRN. Adaptation to the adverse impacts of climate change is indeed one of the main priorities for the Government, as stated in the INDC, submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The INDC states “Overall, Nepal is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, water‐induced disasters, and hydro‐meteorological extreme events such as droughts, storms, floods, inundation, landslides, debris flow, soil erosion and avalanches. Based on National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) 2010, out of 75 districts, 29 districts are highly vulnerable to landslides, 22 districts to drought, 12 districts to GLOFs, and 9 districts to flooding.”15
24. The Nepal INDC highlights the national policy aimed at promoting Local Adaptation Plans for Action (LAPA) to ensure integration of adaptation and resilience from the local to the national planning processes. The objective of such an approach is to engage communities in carrying out vulnerability and adaptation assessment, such that either a stand‐alone LAPA could be formulated and/or integrated into a larger regional adaptation plan. However, as noted in the earlier sections, the effectiveness of such plans depends critically on the institutional capacity in the DOR to implement resilient design innovations throughout the network.
1. In accordance with the PforR Financing Policy, an integrated fiduciary systems assessment was carried out that evaluated the fiduciary systems pertaining to the Program to determine whether they provide reasonable assurance that the Program funds will be used for their intended purpose. The integrated fiduciary assessment comprised three separate sub‐assessments of the fiduciary risks relating to SRN Bridge Program: (a) procurement, (b) financial management, and (c) governance (including fraud and corruption risks). The objective of the Integrated Fiduciary Systems Assessment is to provide a reference that can be used to monitor fiduciary systems performance during the Program’s implementation and to identify actions, as needed, to enhance those systems. Findings from the assessment conclude that the overall fiduciary framework is adequate to support implementation. Actions to enhance fiduciary systems will help ensure that the Program achieves its intended results.
Program Financing and Expenditure Framework
2. The Program’s funding comes through the GON’s annual budget to the DOR through the MoPIT. Under BIMP I, the MoF revised the Program’s expenditure framework to provide greater transparency and control over expenditures relating to SRN bridges. In the past, the Program’s capital budgets were comingled among a wider national program of bridge sector investment which includes urban and local road network bridges. This subjected the Program to funding volatility when competing initiatives could divert funding from the Program’s works. The present expenditure framework mitigates this risk. The budget codes with the GON’s budget document are 337320 and 337159. Bridges that are excluded from the Program use separate budget code(s). The Program Financial Statements will be used for reconciliation between disbursements and the Program expenditures at the time of Program closure. This will determine if any refund is to be made.
Program Implementation Framework
3. Implementation of the SRN Bridge Program will involve the DOR’s Kathmandu‐based Bridge Branch, along with four regionally based Bridge Sectors which look after 5 regions and 34 DROs. Divisional Offices have a role in implementing less complex works under supervision of the Bridge Branch. This approach relies on the institutional systems that govern the DOR’s procurement and financial management functions. It also requires a strong regime of oversight to ensure that Divisional Offices exercise appropriate fiduciary control. Nepal’s governance and fiduciary management systems may change due to federalization. The timing and likely impacts of such changes is not known at present. However, if there are any significant changes in responsibility for construction, maintenance, and safety upgrades of SRN bridges due to federalization such changes would be revisited during implementation so that the Program’s fiduciary arrangements may be revised with mutual consent of the GON and the Association.
Assessment of the Program Procurement Framework
4. Procurement of Program investments will be governed under the Public Procurement Act (2007) and Public Procurement Regulations (2007), as well as the associated complaints, investigation, and reporting mechanisms applicable in Nepal. The Public Procurement Act requires open competitive bidding and provides procedures for reviewing the complaints related to the actions before and after the signing of agreements. The PPMO has issued standard bidding documents for large and small works contracts that can be used for this framework. These provide adequate guidance for applying the Public
47
Procurement Act effectively. Introduction of e‐bidding in the DOR has resulted in significant increase in competition and has proved to be an effective measure to reducing collusion and coercion among bidders.
5. At the same time, the DOR has capacity constraints relating to skills and competencies required for efficient and transparent procurement at its Divisional Offices. Most divisional office staff are qualified engineers with technical skill sets, but with little formal training on procurement or contract management. Even though there are rate fixation committees in every district, a lack of uniform standards in project costing prevents standardized and comparable cost structures across projects. While the Public Procurement Regulations clearly lays out the procedures for contract administration (including the timelines for contract supervision and oversight) there are gaps in its practice. Weaknesses in the monitoring of project cost and time overruns result in many projects remaining incomplete for long periods of time. There are also gaps in the systems and practices for procurement record keeping and filing.
Financial Management Assessment
6. Nepal’s Financial Procedures Act (1998) and Financial Procedures Rules (2007) provide an adequate framework for the Program’s key financial management and budgeting systems. However, weaknesses and gaps in the implementation of this framework pose fiduciary risks. There are weaknesses in the application of internal controls procedures that pose risks to the transparent and efficient financial management at the implementation level. The various controls procedures and directives relating to expenditure management are not codified and internal control system to be developed as per Financial Procedure Regulation, 2007, has not yet been developed and hence they are not readily available in a manner that facilitates effective management and oversight of program implementation at the divisional office level. The present arrangements for internal audit (carried out by the District Treasury Comptroller Office) need strengthening and will draw on support from the training and consultancy support offered by the hybrid operation’s IPF component. Monitoring of audit findings is generally weak, although BIMP I has made progress at ensuring that audit observations are resolved. The Program Action Plan includes several items aimed at addressing these gaps. In the short term, the Program will deploy the World Bank’s PAT that has proven effective at enhancing contract management and monitoring financial progress. In addition, the Program Action Plan includes enhancements to the CMS and FMIS to further improve contract management and financial control across the department. Last, the Program Action Plan also targets continued improvement from BIMP I on addressing audit observations under the DOR’s Audit Committee.
Program Fraud and Corruption Risks
7. The Program has a significant but manageable exposure to potential fraud and corruption on account of the following weak areas: (a) implementation of procurement and contract administration procedures, (b) internal control systems and processes, (c) monitoring and oversight of project preparation and implementation, and (d) the transparency and accountability regime. Key initiatives under BIMP II to mitigate these risks include (a) a program of technical auditing by the NVC, (b) deployment of the Association’s PAT to enhance contract management, and (c) donor support to verification activities which has proved to be highly effective under BIMP I.
8. Nepal has a relatively strong legislative framework to deal with fraud and corruption that includes the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority Act (1991), Prevention of Corruption Act (2002), the Public Procurement Act (2007), and the Good Governance Act (2008). The lead institution for
48
addressing fraud and corruption allegations is the CIAA which has a mandate which is enshrined in Nepal’s Constitution along with legal authority granted by subordinate legislation. The CIAA acts on all complaints that it receives and may investigate any person holding a public post. Not all complaints lead to full investigations and the CIAA follows a multistage approach with preliminary reviews proceeding detailed investigations.
9. Any citizen may file a complaint with the CIAA against any public official for alleged improper conduct that may have adversely affected public interest. Complaints may be anonymous and the legislative framework provides protection for whistleblowers to mitigate the potential threat of reprisals. The CIAA provides transparent annual reports regarding its operations that include summaries of successful prosecutions.
10. Despite the strength of Nepal’s legislative framework, there are noteworthy weaknesses in how public agencies implement their roles. Following support from BIMP I, the DOR now has a GRS in accordance with the GON’s Service Delivery Guidelines (2008) that require all agencies to set up mechanisms to handle administrative‐level public complaints/grievances. Intermediate Results Indicator 4.1 in the Program Results Framework (‘Responsiveness of DOR’s Grievance Redress Mechanism’) will measure this systems ability to field complaints and provide redress on time. Nepal has passed the Right to Information Act and has recently ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which has created public awareness regarding the menace of corruption. As part of the implementation of UNCAC, the Government has drafted legislation pending parliamentary approval which will allow it to undertake joint investigations with other external agencies. The strong stance taken by Nepal’s judiciary in cases involving political and bureaucratic corruption is heartening. Tough sentencing may also act as a deterrent against future fraud and corruption. The Prime Minister’s Office has set up a dedicated cell (‘Hello Government’) to listen to suggestions and complaints from the public.
49
ANNEX 6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS
PforR Component: Summary of ESSA
1. The ESSA has been conducted by the World Bank for BIMP II in accordance with the World Bank’s Policy/Directive on ‘PforR Financing’. The overarching objective of the ESSA is to analyze consistency and applicability of the Government’s environmental and social management systems as applied to the Program with the six ‘core principles’ of the World Bank’s PforR Financing Policy.
2. The ESSA focused on environmental and social management systems, as applied to the subset of bridges under the DOR in which IDA financing is envisaged through the proposed PforR component. The analysis was conducted by reviewing documents, assessing institutional capacity of Program executing and implementing agencies (that is, the MoPIT and the DOR), reviewing experiences and lessons of BIMP I implementation, and reviewing Strengths‐Weaknesses‐Opportunities‐and‐Threats of the Program’s management. The ‘weaknesses’ or gaps were considered on two levels: (a) defined systems as written in laws, regulations, procedures and (b) the application of those systems in actual practice. Implementation capacity was also considered as demonstrated by the performance of the institutions that are executing and implementing the Program. The ESSA found consistency between government systems as applicable in the PforR component and PforR ‘core principles.’ It has also recommended measures to address identified gaps and to enhance performance during implementation of BIMP II.
3. BIMP I has substantially achieved its objectives with ‘Satisfactory’ social and environmental safeguards rating. Key accomplishments in improving the Program’s environmental and social management systems under BIMP I include (a) issuance and enforcement of a bridge addendum to the DOR’s ESMF, (b) increased human resources and financial resources (budget) for the DOR’s GESU improving the environmental and social management capacity of the GESU, and (c) improved social and environmental impact management, particularly of bridges, within the DOR. Consequently, a system is in place for environmental and social screening and preparing environmental and social management plans and documenting them, for integrating environmental and social mitigations in the engineering designs and bidding documents, for supervision and monitoring, and so on. Furthermore, coordination has been improved, an IT‐based electronic GRM has been established, and third‐party verification of the compliance with environmental and social requirements has been practiced under BIMP I.
4. The scope of BIMP II is substantially similar to that of BIMP I and the anticipated adverse environmental and social issues and impacts are expected to be similar. The adverse impacts are likely to be limited in nature and are not expected to pose a significant risk as the activities are likely to be within or close vicinity of the existing road right of way and Category A activities are excluded from the boundary for PforR financing. Some potential adverse impacts of new bridge construction, for example, include impacts on the existing vegetation cover (limited to the bridge abutment locations), impacts on the aquatic ecology (limited to a few hundred meters upstream and downstream of the bridge crossings), impacts arising from lack of compliance with mitigation measures during construction/civil works (such as those related to health and safety, sanitation, wastes, and labor camps), and limited land acquisition and resettlement (confined to the area near bridge works). Based on experiences, adverse social impacts are likely to be temporary during project works, such as temporary land leasing for the contractor operations. However, new bridge construction may require land acquisition for bridge and access road development purposes. They need to be given due attention during the selection of bridge site locations, designs, and implementation.
50
5. The bridge program will benefit many communities, particularly those with no or little access and isolated in remote areas. This is particularly so with indigenous communities that are among the targeted beneficiaries of the Program. However, bridge rehabilitation and construction activities may also have adverse impacts on nearby indigenous communities because of land acquisition, and impacts on livelihood, public health and traffic safety concerns, and community facilities. Such impacts will be assessed and mitigation plans will be developed in accordance with the provisions of the ESMF.
6. The Association executed a stocktaking of labor‐related risks across all IDA‐supported projects in Nepal during 2017 which also informed the ESSA. This confirmed that existing risk mitigations on IDA‐supported initiatives (including BIMP I), while imperfect, have proven reasonably effective and can be further enhanced to provide additional mitigation potential. Below is a brief summary of results from this study:
Scope
Field assessment and quantitative survey of eight project sites where demographic and other information on 131 laborers and 261 community members were collected through multiple survey instruments. Four of these project sites were related to the SNRTP and four other sites (one each per project) were related to the following IDA‐supported initiatives: (a) the Nepal‐India Regional Trade and Transport Project, (b) BIMP I, (c) the RSSP, and (d) the RSDP.
Qualitative interviews/information gathering that included (a) 50 key informant interviews with workers, community members, a police official, and contractors; (b) 15 Focus Group Discussions, of which 7 entirely comprised female participants; (c) 7 semistructured interviews (informal) with workers; and (d) informal conversations and observations with various individuals around project sites.
Main Findings
Child labor. Surveys with community members found that 26.1 percent of the respondents claimed that increased child labor was a common risk of transport sector projects in Nepal. The study team’s overarching findings suggest that contractors, community members, and laborers are well informed of the age limits for working on IDA‐supported transport projects. Despite awareness, results also showed a general social acceptance of child labor among community members, laborers, and contractors alike due to poverty‐related considerations which may result in an underlying support for child labor. Despite positive findings relating to IDA‐supported projects, the study also highlighted the need for continuing to enhance mechanisms that can keep underage persons from pursuing labor on project worksites. These should include strengthening the contractual recourse that can be used to ensure contractor compliance as an additional measure to strengthen risk mitigations. Social awareness and ‘soft’ measures to influence public opinion on child labor are areas that require additional attention once contractual recourse is strengthened further.
Migrant labor and camps. About 88 percent of workers observed by the study team were migrant workers, coming from other regions within Nepal or neighboring countries. Emigration of skilled laborers was cited as a key reason for this figure. There is a likelihood that migrant labor will continue to dominate in Nepal’s transport sector. Proactive
51
monitoring of labor camps and community‐worker interaction are therefore critical risk mitigations in Nepal. The organizational systems used to monitor migrant labor camps need upgrading in parallel with increased use of outside labor.
Skills and training: Only 11 percent of workers who responded to the study team’s surveys reported receiving skills training related to their employment. This highlights a potential development opportunity IDA‐supported projects may be able to tap through skills training components which would potentially form part of community engagement initiatives.
Workers’ rights and conditions: The assessment documented continued lapses in OCHS‐related performance across IDA‐supported worksites. In one instance, the study team found a situation where a contractor had arranged to receive advanced notification of site supervision activities so that personal protective gear could be hastily distributed to workers and subsequently recollected once supervision had completed. These findings highlight the need to enhance both OCHS guidelines and mechanisms such as the DOR’s GRS that can facilitate reporting of implementation gaps. These findings also highlight the need for regular validation of reporting and monitoring systems to provide feedback on areas where they may have become compromised.
Conclusion: Key ESSA Findings
7. The ESSA concludes that the overall environmental and social management system of the DOR is acceptable for use in the PforR component of BIMP II in the bridge sector. The Legal and regulatory framework governing the bridge planning and construction is generally satisfactory. The potential environmental and social impacts of PforR component of BIMP II are low to medium. Summary of the ESSA findings in relation to PforR’s six core principles are as follows:
Core Principle 1: Environmental and Social Management procedures and processes are designed to promote environmental and social sustainability in Program design; avoid, minimize or mitigate against adverse impacts; and promote informed decision making relating to a program’s environmental and social effects.
8. Country system requires different level of EA of a proposed project depending on nature, size, financial threshold, and sensitivity of the project site. The road and bridge sector frameworks and guidelines promote environmental and social mainstreaming. Screening of an activity, for example, construction of a bridge, decides type of assessment. EA, in the form of Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), is required for sizable bridges. The assessment requires information disclosure and consultations with stakeholders. The EA/IEE identifies measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Implementation effectiveness, monitoring, and enforcement, however, vary from activity to activity: it is generally better in donor‐supported activities compared to the government‐funded activities.
Core Principle 2: Environmental and social management procedures and processes are designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate against adverse effects on natural habitats and physical cultural resources resulting from the Program.
9. EA is necessary for any activity located within sensitive sites, such as the protected area. In addition, prior approval of competent authority is required for activities within the recognized sensitive sites. The legal provisions and guidelines require analysis/study showing various alternatives for the operation to avoid and minimize the loss of forest area and resources. EA is carried out and prior approval is obtained
52
for the bridges located in the protected areas, and location of a bridge in a physical cultural site is generally avoided.
Core Principle 3: Program procedures ensure adequate measures to protect public and worker safety against the potential risks associated with (a) construction and/or operations of facilities or other operational practices developed or promoted under the Program; (b) exposure to toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, and otherwise dangerous materials.
10. The ESMF of the road sector, the bridge addendum to the ESMF, and other guidelines have provisions related to workers’ health and safety as well as community health and safety. Experience in the road and bridge sector, including recently completed BIMP, suggests that effective implementation of these provisions varies: these are implemented, partially in many cases.
Core Principle 4: Land acquisition, displacement and loss of access to resources is avoided or minimized, and affected people are assisted in improving, or at least restoring, their livelihoods and living standards.
11. The Land Acquisition Act, LARRP, Land Acquisition Rules, the DOR's ESMF, and so on have provisions and procedures regarding land acquisition, resettlement, and rehabilitation measures. However, the Land Acquisition Act does not recognize non‐land‐related impacts nor does it cover people without titles. Impacts to non‐titleholders are covered in the LARRP, the DOR’s department‐wide ESMF, and other guidelines and manuals which emphasize avoiding, minimizing, and/ or mitigating the adverse impacts. The LARRP and the DOR’s ESMF specifically require that all those adversely affected, including non‐titleholders to land, particularly the poor and vulnerable households, will be recognized for assistance in their livelihood restoration and improvement. In the case of land titleholders, the land acquisition provisions including compensations at market value are implemented. Implementation of the provisions related to the non‐titleholders varies: these are better implemented in donor‐supported activities.
Core Principle 5: Due consideration is given to cultural appropriateness of, and equitable access to, program benefits, with special emphasis provided to rights and interest of indigenous peoples, as well as the needs or concerns of vulnerable groups.
12. The LARRP and the DOR’s ESMF mandatorily require, as part of environmental and social screening and assessment, free, prior, and informed consultations/consent with the indigenous people and vulnerable groups including local communities. One of the objectives of the Program is to provide connectivity, hence benefit, to communities in remote and isolated areas which are often the underdeveloped areas. Indigenous Peoples and other poor and vulnerable communities are among the intended beneficiaries. The DOR, as part of its road and bridge planning and implementation, conducts consultations providing prior information to the project beneficiaries and adversely affected people and integrates relevant consultation outcomes into project designs and development of environmental and social management instruments. This is better implemented in projects financed by international organization(s).
Core Principle 6: Avoid exacerbating social conflict, especially in fragile states, post‐conflict areas, or areas subject to territorial disputes.
13. It is unlikely that the Program would exacerbate social conflict. The predecessor Program (BIMP I) has been smoothly implemented, without reports of social conflicts. Nepal’s Good Governance (Management and Operation) Act (2008) has applicable provisions aimed at avoiding and managing any
53
conflicts relating to development initiatives. The Good Governance Act specifically aims at making public administration pro‐people, accountable, inclusive, and participatory. Moreover, Nepal’s legal framework provides for CE through the local consultative forums constituted for purpose, transparency, GESI, and so on. These will be applicable to BIMP II. The DOR has a functioning GRM available as a first line of conflict identification/resolution. The DOR’s Divisional Offices can also receive complaints in person from individuals who lack information and communication technology connectivity. Groups and individuals also access the local judiciary system, which has proven effective in the past. Bridge construction and maintenance activities enjoy broad support and also have inherent multiple beneficial impacts. Areas of Nepal where Program works are envisaged do not have any territorial disputes.
Proposed Strengthening Measures
14. The ESSA concludes that the overall environmental and social management system of the DOR is acceptable for use under this hybrid operation’s PforR component in the bridge sector. Nevertheless, it identifies opportunities for further strengthening institutional capacity constraints, improving ground‐level performance, and addressing gaps experienced in the environmental and social management system. This opportunity is recognized by the client, which has expressed interest and commitment to address the main recommendations of the ESSA.
15. Findings of the ESSA indicate the following key actions for the proposed Action Plan:
Continue strengthening GESU and elevating their profile within the DOR, as the mandated and responsible unit for the overall management of social and environmental impacts and associated processes. Strengthening measures should include (a) preparation and approval of GESU’s three‐year business plan, (b) provision of human resources and financial resources to GESU based on a three‐year business plan, (c) provision of logistics and reference materials/documents, and (d) capacity building/training on new areas/use of new technology for social and EA/monitoring.
Update the DOR’s ESMF (in whole or with addendum) to include enhanced provisions relating to OCHS, labor camp management, and prevention of child labor. This should include the development of OCHS guidelines and associated tools for the road and bridge sector as well as tools to support implementation. These could include standard contract provisions, training modules, OCHS awareness materials aimed at Program teams, and other key stakeholders (for example, contractors, workers, and communities). The updated ESMF should seek to align with international lessons learned on protocols for CE, GESI, outreach and communication, WIM, child labor prevention, and beneficial impact enhancement measures.
Define improved process and procedures for integrating environmental and social aspects in planning and development of bridges under the proposed system of ‘Gate Reviews’. These milestones should ensure coordination, monitoring, enforcement, stakeholder engagement, and disclosure of information occur in proper sequence with technical work to prepare packages for civil works.
Implement enhanced multi‐tiered approach (see Program Action Plan items) to managing labor‐related risks that spans policies/procedures all the way to implementation and includes the following:
54
o Develop policy and guidelines relating to OCHS and other aspects of labor management to guide application of the Labor Act 2017 according to the specific needs of Nepal’s road and bridges sector.
o Strengthen implementation capabilities of the DOR for planning, supervising, and becoming better at labor management. This should include organizational structure, training and capacity development, and reporting/monitoring of issues.
o Revise bidding documents with distinct reflection of costs for OCHS in BoQs, as well as mechanisms for enforcing OCHS compliance through financial incentives, contract termination, and/or other actions against contractors.
o Develop and deploy an approach to site inspection and performance validation defining organizational arrangements, frequency, and responsibilities for checking/monitoring and reporting compliance with relevant environmental and social mitigations including compliance with/enforcement of OCHS at construction sites of the bridges. There should also be an approach for periodic external assessments of in‐practice functionality of systems and field‐level performance.
Approach for IPF Component: Consultancy Support and Institutional Development
16. The IPF component does not include construction of civil works. The locations of the roads and bridges that would be the subjects of consultancy support activities under the IPF component are not known at this stage but will be along the SRN, and in some cases, potentially in close vicinity of existing bridges.
17. For environmental risk management, OP/BP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, OP/BP 4.04 Natural Habitats, OP/BP 4.36 Forests, and OP/BP 4.11 Physical Cultural Resources are triggered for the IPF component because one or more of the bridges to be prepared with support from this component may have adverse consequences relevant to those aspects, depending on the location and details of the proposed intervention/bridge. For social impact management, Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10, and Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 are triggered. The existing ESMF of the DOR will be used as a guiding document in the development of specific safeguards documents in accordance with the policies noted above.
18. Model TOR. Model TORs for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (and Social Impact Assessment [SIA]) and related plans for Category A interventions have been prepared, reviewed, cleared, and disclosed by the Association. During implementation of the IPF component, these TORs will be customized for the specifics of each intervention. The DOR will thus prepare specific TOR for each IPF‐supported design activity as required for preparing safeguards documents in accordance with the World Bank’s safeguards policies that have been triggered. Where such interventions are screened as Category A interventions, each Category A TOR relating to safeguards assessments and safeguards documents will be subject to consultation and disclosure as well as clearance from the Association as required by the World Bank safeguard policies.
19. Integration of environmental and social inputs. Where required, environmental and social safeguard documents will be prepared during the implementation of the IPF component, in tandem with engineering to prepare for civil works (feasibility studies, engineering designs, and detailed project reports). The aim is for safeguards‐related steps and engineering steps to be carried out together so that
55
there is good integration of outputs. All safeguards documents supported under the IPF component need to comply with the World Bank’s safeguard policies and Nepal’s national requirements. The DOR will ensure coordination among the safeguards, technical feasibility, and detailed design process and teams.
Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability Moderate
Fiduciary Substantial
Environment and Social Substantial
Stakeholders Moderate
Overall High
57
ANNEX 8. PROGRAM ACTION PLAN
# Action Description Resp. Party Deadline Completion Measure
T Technical Actions
T1 All Program implementing units equipped with mobile tablets and BSMS made operational in all Program implementing units including DROs, Bridge Sector Offices, and Bridge Branch Headquarters.
Bridge Branch Initial accomplishment within 9 months of effective date and subsequent use for duration of Program.
Initial milestone: At least 5 complete BSMS reports filed per DRO and Bridge Sector office. Measure of sustainable use: At least 2 reports per month per bridge site with active works contracts. Reports to include social and environmental aspects of works (including labor camps where applicable).
T2 The DOR to establish a DATC within Bridge Branch, satisfactory to the Association, for insourcing a fraction of bridge‐related engineering tasks and developing the capacity of junior engineers, with a particular focus on training and developing female engineers.
DOR’s office of the Director General
First cohort (approximately 5–10 engineers or specialists) recruited within 18 months of effective date. Subsequent cohorts recruited annually with approximately 5–10 engineers or specialists per cohort.
Measures for completion: (a) Endorsement of DATC TOR by Secretary of MoPIT through official letter to all DOR units; (b) Initial and subsequently annual recruitment of the DATC cohort completed; and (c) Cohorts to target not less than one‐third female participants.
T3 The DOR to update Bridge Policy and Strategy with additional focus on resilient systems approach and the principles that will be applied to achieving resilience in subsidiary plans.
Bridge Branch Within 24 months of effective date
Official promulgation of updated Bridge Policy and Strategy by MoPIT Secretary.
58
# Action Description Resp. Party Deadline Completion Measure
F Fiduciary Actions
F1 The DOR to update CMS and FMIS software and to relaunch the updated CMS and FMIS. The Program’s contracts and financial transactions will use the CMS/FMIS.
DOR’s office of the Director General
Revised CMS/FMIS software launched within 18 months. All contracts and transactions through the FMIS/CMS within 24 months of effective date
Confirmation letter from MoPIT secretary regarding relaunch of the updated CMS and FMISs. All Program contracts to be covered under the CMS/FMIS with all Program transactions made through the FMIS.
F2 The Bridge Branch to operationalize the PAT for all Program contracts and to include summaries of all contracts in Trimester Reports. The PAT will be used until such time as the CMS and/or the BSMS are fully able to incorporate reporting on fiduciary, technical, and environmental/social performance of contractors (including OCHS).
Bridge Branch Within 12 months of effective date and continuously thereafter
PAT outputs included in Trimester Reports.
F3 DOR’s outstanding audit observations up to FY 2017/18 and each subsequent fiscal year are recorded annually and addressed as part of continuously monitored plan to reduce audit observations.
DOR Within 18 months of effective date and annually thereafter
FMIS to record audit observations, spreadsheet tool to track action against addressing audit observations.
F4 Contractor market assessment updated and recommended procurement strategy developed for future DOR bridge works (including those under potential major projects).
Bridge Branch Within 18 months of effective date
Final report endorsed by the MoPIT and presented to the NPC and the MoF. Revised report approved by the NPC.
ES Environment and Social Actions
ES1 Prepare and approve the business plan for GESU for the next three years.
GESU Within 12 months of effective date
Business Plan approved by the DOR DG
59
# Action Description Resp. Party Deadline Completion Measure
ES2 Revise bidding documents with distinct reflection of costs for OCHS, environmental and social management mitigation cost in the BoQs, and inclusion of relevant provisions under the conditions of contract.
DOR/Bridge Branch/GESU
By end September 2018
Revised bidding documents in practice
ES3 The DOR’s ESMF updated (in whole or with addendum) to include enhanced provisions relating to OCHS, labor camp management, CE protocol, provisions on the prevention of child labor, provisions on prevention of GBV and SEA.
MoPIT/GESU Within 24 months of effective date
Official approval of updated ESMF (in whole or with addendum) by the MoPIT Secretary and public disclosure thereafter.
ES4 Effectiveness of GESU GESU (lead), and the Bridge Branch may directly procure experts and second them to GESU if need be for implementation modality
Within 12 months of effective date
Confirmation from the DOR DG of: (a) Set up of functional team in GESU for OCHS and labor standards; (b) Approved organizational structure for GESU; (c) TOR defined for specialists; and (d) Specialists in post and performing daily functions.
ES5 OHCS and labor management guidelines (bridge‐specific elements) developed and deployed on Program contracts.
GESU and the Bridge Branch to develop with support from specialized United Nations agency or international organization satisfactory to the Association
Interim guidelines endorsed by the DOR by end September 2018; and Final guidelines endorsed by the MoPIT within 12 months of effective date
Deployment of specific provisions for worksites to be included in contracts, BoQ items, and social and environmental documents; Deployment of specific provisions to ensure control over subcontracted arrangements in the supply chain of goods works and services
60
# Action Description Resp. Party Deadline Completion Measure
ES6 The DOR OCHS and labor policy: Integrated OCHS and labor standards developed to align with national legislation (including Labor Act 2017) and matching updates to the DOR’s ESMF (or addendum to ESMF) to reflect DOR policy and OHCS and labor management guidelines.
GESU and the Bridge Branch to draft standards and ESMF update/addendum with support from specialized United Nations agency or international organization satisfactory to the Association
Within 24 months of effective date
MoPIT endorsement/confirmation through letter of (a) Final OCHS and labor management policy; (b) Completion of stakeholder consultation on ESMF update; and (c) Public disclosure of final updated ESMF (or addendum developed).
ES7 OCHS management officers assigned to Program sites.
Bridge Branch (assignment of engineers) GESU (recruitment of support consultants)
End July 2019 and continuously thereafter
(a) DOR engineers assigned as OCHS management officers for all Program sites (Note: one engineer may cover multiple sites); (b) Consultants assigned to support officers with field monitoring and reporting; and (c) Assignment register developed, promulgated, and updated in each Trimester Report.
ES8 OCHS capacity‐building program (training, awareness, and education)
Road Sector Skill Development Unit (lead) and the Bridge Branch
Within 12 months of effective date and annually thereafter
Modules developed and delivered annually before the beginning of each construction season covering (a) Training for DOR engineers and consultants (including training of trainers); (b) Contractors compliance training; and (c) Demand‐side awareness raising training initiative for workers
ES9 OCHS system monitoring GESU (lead) and the Bridge Branch
Within 12 months of effective date and annually thereafter
Documentation in BSMS of (a) Regular and unannounced site visits by OCHS management officers and support consultants to worksites and camps to ascertain actual performance at implementing OCHS standards; and (b) Consultations with communities near Program worksites and/or camps. Target is at least 1 visit per month during construction season.
61
# Action Description Resp. Party Deadline Completion Measure
ES10 OCHS system near miss and incident data collection.
GESU with support from the Bridge Branch
Within 12 months of effective date and continuously thereafter
(a) Accidents and near misses documented and made public for use in awareness raising and education; (b) Worker grievances to be directed to the DOR GRM system; (c) Documentation in the BSMS and public disclosure of incidents as pdf through the DOR website; and (d) Injured workers to be engaged as trainers/speakers.
ES11 OHCS independent system validation and corrective actions.
Bridge Branch to coordinate SDC support for system validation through parallel TA program
Reports provided annually by end July of each fiscal year during implementation beginning in July 2019 Action plans to be in place by September of each year beginning in September 2019
Independent assessments of in‐practice function of OCHS and labor standards to include field validation (ground truthing) and community consultation. Executed by one or more external bodies (for example, private firms, development partner, nongovernmental organizations/civil society organizations). Annual action plans developed/agreed with IDA in response to any shortcomings identified.
CC Crosscutting Actions
CC1 Annual DOR staff surveys to be completed using questionnaire satisfactory to the Association. Annual staff survey results reports to be independently compiled and publicly disclosed.
NPC Within 12 months of effective date and surveys administered annually thereafter by December 31 of each calendar year
Public disclosure of results reports on the DOR website.
CC2 Bridge development process defined with specific Gate Reviews and input stages from key technical, social, and environmental work streams.
Bridge Branch Within 9 months of effective date and continuously thereafter.
(a) Bridge development process endorsed by the MoPIT for initial use; and (b) Documentation and signoffs for Gate Reviews completed for each Bridge Dossier.
CC3 Update of model bid document technical, fiduciary, and environmental and social provisions used for contracting Program works.
Bridge Branch End September 2018 Model bid document, satisfactory to the Association, adopted by Program for works contracts.
62
ANNEX 9. DETAILED FINANCING PLAN (PforR AND IPF COMPONENTS) Item Activity Qty. Units Unit Cost US$ IDA US$ GON Total PforR Civil Works
DLI‐1 Major bridge maintenance 4,500 Meter 3,878 13,087,728 4,362,576 17,450,304
DLI‐2 Road safety upgrades on bridges 8,000 Meter 2,908 17,450,304 5,816,768 23,267,072
DLI‐3 New 2 lane bridge construction, rehab., and replacement of bridges 4,000 Meter 13,572 35,288,393 19,001,442 54,289,836
DLI‐4 New 4 lane bridge construction 2,000 Meter 19,389 25,205,995 13,572,459 38,778,454
DLI‐5 Completion of backlog bridges under construction 5,000 Meter 6,786 22,055,246 11,875,902 33,931,147
Bridge design, site assessment, feasibility study, quality monitoring, environmental, and social impact management
5% Of works 8,385,841 — 8,385,841 8,385,841
Subtotal of PforR Civil Works 113,087,666 63,014,988 176,102,654
PforR Institutional Results
DLI‐6 Improved fiduciary governance of design‐build contracting 1 Each 2,000,000 2,000,000 — 2,000,000
DLI‐7 BSMS (monthly monitoring system) use on Program worksites 5,000 Sites 750 3,750,000 — 3,750,000
Subtotal of PforR Institutional Results 5,750,000 — 5,750,000
Total expenditure program of PforR 118,837,666 63,014,988 181,852,654 % of PforR component 65.3% 34.7%
IPF Component: Consultancy Support and Institutional Development
IPF‐1 Preparations for future projects on the Strategic Roads Network 1 Lump sum 5,000,000 5,000,000 — 5,000,000
IPF‐2 Technical auditing by NVC 5 Years 100,000 500,000 — 500,000
IPF‐3 Advance bridge designs for enhanced resilience and inclusion 10 Bridges 300,000 3,000,000 — 3,000,000
IPF‐4 Training (domestic and international) and capacity development 5 Annual 120,000 600,000 — 600,000
Item Activity Qty. Units Unit Cost US$ IDA US$ GON Total
See note16
16 As per the “Bank Policy: Program-for-Results Financing”, the PforR Financing proceeds are disbursed upon the achievement of verified results specified as disbursement-linked indicators, and such disbursements are not dependent upon or attributable to individual Program transactions or expenditures. Therefore, the presentation in the financing summary in Table 2 and in the detailed financing plan in Annex 9 reflects GON’s anticipated internal budgetary presentation and is not meant to predetermine earmarking of the IDA PforR Financing to specific individual Program transactions or expenditures.
64
ANNEX 10. IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT PLAN
1. There are four primary elements to the operation’s Implementation Support Plan. These include
Field presence by the Association’s team of engineering experts;
Program management and strategy support to the Bridge Branch in Kathmandu;
Support to GESU’s role in (a) applying the DOR’s ESMF on Program (PforR component) works, (b) ensuring compliance with safeguards requirements (IPF component), and (c) fulfilling the environmental and social requirements of national law; and
Support and regular monitoring from the World Bank’s team relating to GBV/ SEA prevention.
2. Table 10.1 shows an indicative estimate for 12 months of implementation support to the operation in each of the areas above.
Table 10.1. Implementation Support Plan
Item Focus Skills Needed Resource Estimate (US$)
Field presence (12 months)
Quality monitoring
Technical support to field units
Technical inputs to the DATC
Validation of contract monitoring and management
Civil engineering
Quantity survey
Contract management
70,000
Program management and strategy support (12 months)
Investment planning
Expenditure tracking and monitoring
Procurement tracking and contract monitoring
DLI and expenditure monitoring
Support to Action Plan items
Support to mobilizing the DATC
Financial analysis
Institutional development
Policy/strategy
Fiduciary
50,000
GESU support (12 months)
Inputs to TOR for EIA/SIA/screening activities
Site visits and on‐the‐job support to GESU staff and field‐based implementation units
Spot checks of implementation performance (OCHS, social management plans, environmental management plans)
Support to mobilize and enforce enhanced contract terms for managing labor‐related risks
EA/impact management
Social assessment/impact management
CE/community mobilization and consultation
GBV/SEA prevention
50,000
65
Item Focus Skills Needed Resource Estimate (US$)
Labor risks management including GBV/ SEA prevention
Integrate ongoing World Bank‐supported work with National Women’s Commission on GBV/SEA prevention with operation’s activities
Regular monitoring to ensure enforcement of contract provisions relating to labor camp conditions, prohibition of child labor, and prohibition of GBV/SEA
Gender analysis
Community consultation
GBV/SEA awareness raising and capacity development within the GON and civil society
50,000
66
ANNEX 11. MAP (IBRD 39229) NEPAL’S BRIDGE NETWORK AT APPRAISAL OF BIMP I (2013)
67
ANNEX 12. MAP (IBRD 43444) NEPAL’S BRIDGE NETWORK AT APPRAISAL OF BIMP II (2018)
