AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP
SIERRA LEONE
MANO RIVER UNION
REHABILITATION OF BO-BANDAJUMA ROAD PROJECT
OITC DEPARTMENT
December 2015
Pu
bli
c D
iscl
osu
re A
uth
ori
zed
Pu
bli
c D
iscl
osu
re A
uth
ori
zed
Contents 1. STRATEGIC THRUST & RATIONALE ...................................................................... 1
1.1. Project linkages with country strategy and objectives .................................................... 1
1.2. Rationale for Bank’s involvement .................................................................................. 2 1.3. Donor Coordination ........................................................................................................ 3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 3 2.1. Development Objectives ................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Project components ......................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Technical solution retained and other alternatives explored ........................................... 4 2.4 Project type ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Project cost and financing arrangements ........................................................................ 6 2.6 Project’s target area and population ................................................................................ 7
2.7 Participatory process for project identification, design and implementation ................. 7
2.8 Bank Group experience, lessons reflected in project design .......................................... 8 2.9 Key performance indicators ............................................................................................ 9
3. ROJECT FEASIBILITY ................................................................................................. 9 3.1. Economic performance ................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Environmental and Social impacts................................................................................ 10 Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 10
Gender ........................................................................................................................... 10
Social ............................................................................................................................. 11 Inclusive Growth ........................................................................................................... 13
Involuntary resettlement ................................................................................................ 13
4. IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................... 13
4.1. Implementation arrangements ....................................................................................... 13
4.2. Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 15 4.3. Governance ................................................................................................................... 16 4.4. Risk management .......................................................................................................... 16 4.5. Knowledge building ...................................................................................................... 18
5. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS AND AUTHORITY .......................................................... 19 5.1. Legal instrument ........................................................................................................... 19 5.2. Conditions associated with Bank’s intervention ........................................................... 19 5.3. Compliance with Bank Policies .................................................................................... 20
6. RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................ 20
Appendix I : Country’s comparative socio-economic indicators .............................................I
Appendix II : Table of ADB’s portfolio in the countries .......................................................... II Appendix III: Key related projects financed by the Bank and other development partners in
the country ............................................................................................................................... III
Appendix IV: Map of the Project Area ................................................................................... IV
i
Currency Equivalents As of 31 October 2015
1 Unit of Account = 7,7429.42731 Sierra Leone_Leone
1 Unit of Account = 1.40374 United States Dollars
1 USD = 5,292.595 Sierra Leone_Leone
Fiscal Year
1st January – 31st December
Weights and Measures
1 metric tonne = 2204 pounds (lbs)
1 kilogramme (kg) = 2.200 lbs
1 metre (m) = 3.28 feet (ft)
1 millimetre (mm) = 0.03937 inch (“)
1 kilometre (km) = 0.62 mile
1 hectare (ha) = 2.471 acres
ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic MRU
NGO
Mano River Union
Non-Governmental Organization
ADF African Development Fund
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome OFID OPEC Fund For International Development
A4P Agenda for Prosperity NPV Net Present Value
AfDB African Development Bank PAP
PAR
Project Affected People
Project Appraisal Report
BADEA Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa PBA Performance-based Allocation
CPIA
CPR
CSP
Country Political and Institutional Assessment
Country Strategy Paper
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States PDO Project Development Objectives
EDF European Development Fund PCN Project Concept Note
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return PFMU Project Financial Management Unit
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategic Paper
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment OFID OPEC Fund for International Development
ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan QCBS Quality and Cost Based Selection
EU The Commission of European Union QPR Quarterly Progress Report
EVD Ebola Virus Diseases RAP Resettlement Action Plan
FS Feasibility Study RED Road Economic Decision Model
GDP Gross Domestic Product RISP Regional Integration Strategy Paper
GoSL Government of Sierra Leone ROW Right of Way
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus RMFA Road Management Fund Administration
IDB Islamic Development Bank SLRA Sierra Leone Roads Authority
ICB International Competitive Bidding SLRSA Sierra Leone Roads Safety Authority
ITPSIS Integrated Transport Policy, Strategy and
Investment Strategy
SDF Saudi Fund for Development
STI Sexually Transmitted Infection
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency TAH Trans-African Highway
KFAED Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development TSF Transition Support Facility
LCS Least Cost Selection method TOR Terms of Reference
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation TA Technical Assistance
MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development UA Unit of Account
MoWHI Ministry of Works Housing & Infrastructure VOC Vehicle Operating Costs
WB World Bank
iii
Loan Information
Client’s information
BORROWER: GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE
EXECUTING AGENCY: SIERRA LEONE ROADS AUTHORITY
Financing plan
Source Amount (UA) Instrument
ADF – TSF 3.71 Loan
ADF - PBA 3.23 Loan
OPEC Fund For International Development (OFID) 14.24 Loan
Sierra Leone Government (GoSL) 2.66 Counterpart Funds
Total Cost 23.84
ADF key financing information
Loan currency Units of account
Interest type* Not Applicable
Interest rate spread* Not Applicable
Commitment fee* 0.5% per annum on the un-disbursed loan
balance
Service Charge 0.75% on the amount disbursed and outstanding
Other fees* Not Applicable
Tenor 50 years
Grace period 10 years
EIRR, NPV (base case) 21.5%, USD 15.744 million
*if applicable
OFID key financing information
Maturity 20 years
Grace Period 5 years
Interest Rate 1% p.a ***
Service Charge 1% p.a ***
*** on amounts withdrawn and outstanding
Timeframe - Main Milestones (expected)
ADF OFID
Concept Note approval September, 2015
Project approval December 2015 December 2015
Effectiveness March 2016
Last Disbursement December, 2019
Completion December, 2018
Last repayment March, 2065
iv
Project Summary
Project Overview The project will involve rehabilitation of the Bo-Bandajuma road at an estimated total cost of
UA23.84 million. Project Funding is from ADF13 (Transition Support Facility (TSF) Loan of
UA 3.71 million and PBA Loan UA 3.23 million) and OPEC Fund For International
Development (OFID) Loan of UA 14.24 million and Government of Sierra Leone Counterpart
Funding (Contribution of UA 1.43 million and PAPs compensation of UA 1.23 million). The
Project components include: (i) Infrastructure investments comprising the rehabilitation of Bo-
Bandajuma road (46km),, three (3) studies for the construction of Kailahum-Koindu-Guinea
border road, a pre-feasibility for rehabilitation of the Mano River Union Bridge and a study for
the identification of trade facilitation needs on the MRU corridors; (ii) Project Management
(Implementation Support, Financial and Technical Audits, Monitoring and Evaluation); and
(iii) Cross cutting and Complementary Components (Compensation of PAPs and Awareness
Campaigns on HIV/AIDS, Malaria, Ebola, Gender Sensitization and Road Safety). The
beneficiaries include the local communities within the road zone of influence, which is
expected to benefit from the project through provision of reliable access to socio-economic
facilities including schools, markets and health centers which in turn should boost the local
economy and contribute to poverty alleviation. The road will also serve international traffic
within ECOWAS/Mano River Union Region (Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone), and will thus
contribute to regional integration.
Needs Assessment The Project road is a critical link of national and regional importance linking the south eastern
parts of the country and regionally to neighboring MRU member states and ECOWAS. The
road passes through one of the areas that was severely affected by the Ebola Virus Disease
(EVD) Crisis and will aide in the post recovery period in delivery and provision of access to
social-economic services. The project fits well with the country’s development agenda
(Agenda for Prosperity) and is in line with Bank’s Ten Year Strategy and Country Strategy
Paper (CSP, 2013-2017). As a fragile state in transition Sierra Leone still requires the much
needed support to finance infrastructure to boost its post conflict recovery efforts.
Bank’s Value Added The Bank has wide experience in financing a range of infrastructure in Africa and particularly
in challenging fragile state environments such as Sierra Leone and is thus preeminently placed
to assist Government of Sierra Leone to satisfactorily implement this project. The Bank’s added
value is twofold: firstly the Bank’s wealth of experience in delivering the projects across Africa
will be applied; and secondly the Bank has retained the trust of co-operating partners (OFID)
to manage a significant co-financing instrument for the project.
Knowledge Management Through this project the Bank continues to increase and consolidate its knowledge on working
in Fragile States. Additional knowledge has been accumulated during the design phase and will
continue to be consolidated during implementation. During design the Bank engaged the
sponsor, client and consultant to advice on study outputs that supported the project’s
bankability and resulted in timely provision of financing by the Bank and its partners. The Bank
has gathered further knowledge on mobilising and leveraging substantial co-financing
instruments for the project. During implementation the monitoring and evaluation components
as well as awareness campaigns will provide opportunities for further knowledge
accumulation. The project will provide specific valuable lessons on how provision of reliable
transport infrastructure will affect the EVD Post recovery efforts. All these efforts will
facilitate Bank and GoSL to improve project design and implementation activities that are not
only unique to fragile states but other operations across the Bank’s portfolio.
v
RESULTS BASED LOGIC FRAMEWORK Country and project name: Mano River Union, Rehabilitation of Bo-Bandajuma Road Project, Sierra Leone
Purpose of the project: Support Sierra Leone’s economic growth agenda through development of strategic transport infrastructure that significantly contribute to its poverty reduction strategy.
RESULTS CHAIN
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
MEANS OF VERIFICATION RISKS/MITIGATION MEASURES Indicator
(including CSI)
Baseline
2015
Target
2020
IMP
AC
T
Impact
Contribute to improved socio-economic
development in the project’s zone of
influence.
Incidence of Poverty (%)
51%
47%
National Statistics from: Ministry
of Finance (MoFED)
OU
TC
OM
ES
Outcome 1
Reduced transport costs
Vehicle Operating Costs
(Cost/veh-km)
US$ 0.34/veh-km reduced by 25% SLRA, Monitoring & Evaluation
Report
Risks: (i) Axle Load Control may not be
implemented and (ii) poor road maintenance
practices. Mitigation Measures: (i) GoSL
has drafted Axle load Control Policy and is
working on an institutional framework; and;
(ii) GoSL maintenance funds are increasing
annually and other forms of financing like
PPPs are actively being pursued.
Average Travel Time
between Bo – Bandajuma
(Hours)
1.0 hour 35 minutes (21 % reduction) By inspection / Driver Interviews
( SLRA), Monitoring and
evaluation Report
Taxi Passenger fares
between Bo -Bandajuma
US$ 2 Reduced by 10%
Monitoring & Evaluation Report
National Statistics reports from
Ministry of Finance Outcome 2
Temporary and permanent jobs
generated
No. people employed (%
female, % youth)
No jobs 500 No. temporary jobs and 300
permanent jobs generated (at least
30% female, at least 20% youth)
Outcome 3
Contribute to higher yields of palm oil
smallholder producers
Hectares of palm oil
produced
4500 hectares Increased by 1000 hectares
OU
TP
UT
S
Infrastructure Investments (i) Road between Bo and
Bandajuma rehabilitated
(ii) Studies conducted
(iii) Social infrastructure
constructed
(iv) Engineering graduates supported
through internships to develop skills
in road maintenance and construction
(i) Km
(ii) Studies
(iii) Market, Boreholes +
pumps
(iv) Graduates trained
0km
No Studies
No markets,
Boreholes + pumps
No graduates trained
(i) 46 Km
(ii) 3 studies
(iii) 1 Market, 2 Boreholes +
pumps
(iv) 20 internship for graduate
engineers trained in road
maintenance and
construction (50% women)
By inspection / Substantial
completion of works (SLRA)
Quarterly Progress Reports
Risks: (i) cost over-runs; (ii) project control;
and (iii) erratic payments of counterpart
funds; Mitigation: (i) provision of adequate
contingencies; (ii) engage competent
contractor and supervisor; technical audit;
provision of adequate client logistics support
to carry out project supervision; and (iii)
Government has provided comfort letter to
pay counterpart funds. Overall the project
management component will contribute to
project control.
ESMP/RAP Implemented:
(i) ESMP Implementation
(ii) PAPs compensated
(iii) Awareness campaigns
(i) ESMP implemented
(ii) Households Compensated
(ii) Communities Sensitized
Nil
Nil
Nil
(i) ESMP quarterly reports provided
(ii) 295 Households compensated
(iii) 13 communities sensitized
-Project quarterly progress reports
-Quarterly ESMP Compliance
Monitoring Report
Risks: (i) delay in payment of
compensation of PAPs;
Mitigation: (i) GoSL committed to pay
compensation of PAPs through budget
commitment.
KE
Y A
CT
IVIT
IES
COMPONENTS INPUTS
Component 1: Infrastructure Investments : Rehabilitation of Bo-Bandajuma road & ESMP, Supervision of Works ,
Studies on Trade Facilitation Needs on MRU corridors, Kailahum Koindu Guinean Border & Pre-feasibility for rehabilitation of the
Mano River Bridge
Component 2: Project Management (Project Implementation Support, Financial &Technical Audits, Monitoring and Evaluation)
Component 3: Cross cutting and complementary : Compensation of PAPs, Awareness Campaigns ( HIV/AIDS , Malaria, Ebola,
Gender Sensitisation, Road Safety)
Budget (UA Million)
Component 1 18.16
Component 2 0.59
Component 3 1.13
Contingencies 3.96
Total 23.84
Financing Plan (UA Million)
ADF TSF Loan 3.71 15%
ADF PBA Loan 3.23 14%
OFID 14.24 60%
GoSL Counterpart Fund 1.43 6%
GoSL PAPs Compensation 1.23 5%
Total 23.84 100%
vi
PROJECT TIME FRAME
1
Report and Recommendation of the Management of the ADB Group to the BoardS of
Directors on a Proposed Loans to the Republic of Sierra Leone
Management submits the following Report and Recommendation on a proposed Loan of
UA 3.23 million of PBA and UA 3.71 million of TSF to the Republic of Sierra Leone.
1. STRATEGIC THRUST & RATIONALE
1.1. Project linkages with country strategy and objectives
1.1.1 Sierra Leone’s Agenda for Prosperity: Sierra Leone has been through a challenging
security situation of a decade long civil conflict that destroyed the country’s social and physical
fabric of society. Beyond the conflict, the country continues its difficult path towards socio-
economic recovery. Growth has been resilient and well established over the past 5-10 years
averaging above 5% wedged by buoyant revenues from extractive industries and growing
business confidence. This has, however, been amidst continuing development challenges
including more recently the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) crisis that to ravaged the country with
the possibility of negating past economic gains. The country remains among the poorest in the
world and needs to do more to generate wealth that would have significant impacts on poverty.
Sierra Leone’s Country development agenda is pinned on the Agenda for Prosperity 2013-18
(A4P) that outlines key development strategies. The A4P was launched in 2013 and has eight
(8) pillars namely; economic diversification, managing natural resources, accelerating human
development, promoting international competiveness, labour and employment, social
protection, governance and public sector reform and gender equality and women’s
empowerment. Through Pillar 4 the A4P has identified strengthening road infrastructure
among core sectors that would contribute to lowering the cost of business as well as promoting
competiveness of the economy. Though roads account for over 80% of passenger and freight
traffic only about 10%1 of the road network estimated at 11,500 km is paved and only 21%2 of
rural population (60% of the country population) resides within two (2) kilometres of an all-
weather road. These compounded effects ultimately result in high transaction costs and poor
competiveness of the economy particularly for the people residing in rural communities that
depend on agriculture for their livelihoods.
1.1.2 Strategic link between the project and Sierra Leone’s development objective:
Though Sierra Leone is endowed with a wealth of fertile land suitable for agriculture much of
the activity is concentrated in the north while the south east remains unexploited due to poor
transport connectivity that presently is not adequate to support agriculture productivity.
Located in south-east of the country, the section of road between Bo-Bandajuma thus holds
immense potential to open up the region. The road is not only of national importance but
regionally is also part of the Trans-African Highway (TAH) 7, from Lagos-Nouakchott
providing the main connection between Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. The road passes
through Bo, the country’s second largest town and continues southerly to a small chiefdom
community called Bandajuma. Beyond Bandajuma, the section of road is adjacent to the TAH-
7 only missing link between Bandajuma to Mano River Union Bridge at the Liberia Border.
1.1.3 The project road pavement has been resilient over its service period of over 25 years
though its deterioration is now accelerating with the possibility that the road will reach terminal
serviceability within two (2) years. Already sections of approximately 2km have failed and will
require total reconstruction and if timely intervention on the rest of the section of 44 km is
1 Compared to about 12% for Sub-Sharan African and 82% for Middle Income Countries (The Little Data Book on Africa
2010 and AICD, 2010) 2 Compared to at least 31% for middle income countries (AICD Road Sector Database on 40 Sub-Saharan Countries, 2010)
2
delayed, costlier solutions including full reconstruction will be required. The collective
intervention of government with support of the Bank is therefore timely as it seeks to ensure
that the residue value on the fair section of road is efficiently used to preserve the asset and
would result in significant savings of road user costs.
1.1.4 Nation-wide, the Bo-Bandajuma road (46 km) provides access to the southern region
district towns of Bo (second largest City after Freetown) and Pujehun. The road plays an
important role in the delivery of social services and at the peak of the Ebola Virus Disease
crisis, it provided a life line for transportation of emergency supplies as well as patients
between established treatment centres, samples to laboratories, communication alerts and
information campaigns. This section of road corridor has considerable agriculture potential in
rubber, palm oil, citrus fruits, horticultural produce and rice. Despite potential of good yields,
the condition of road obliges farmers to avoid agriculture investments in perishables such as
tomatoes, eggplant, cumber, melons and others since the region is cut off during the rainy
season.
1.1.5 Sierra Leone is a member of the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS) and Mano River Union (MRU). Both RECs advocate for the realisation of reliable
regional road connectivity among its member states to promote growth of trade markets and
unlock economic potential in agriculture, mining and other sectors. Despites its strategic
regional importance, the section of the TAH7 in Sierra Leone, has not been maximised to its
full potential due the deteriorating road conditions between Bo-Bandajuma, the adjacent
missing link between Bandajuma to MRU Bridge as well as lack of a bridge over the Moa
River that forces traffic to divert to a longer route through Kanema. The construction of the
missing link with committed financing from the European Union and the rehabilitation of the
deteriorating section under this project will however ensure that the section of the corridor
between Bo - MRU Bridge is maximised to its full regional and national potential that will
result in trans-national social and economic benefits. The project will specifically contribute
to the EVD recovery effort by providing an efficient transport link to social services
1.2. Rationale for Bank’s involvement
1.2.1 The proposed project addresses key development objectives outlined in the country
development agenda, the A4P. The project is in line with the Bank’s Ten Year Strategy twin
objectives that promotes inclusivity through development of infrastructure as a key priority
area and promotion of green growth through development of sustainable infrastructure. The
project also supports the country’s CSP (2013-17), Pillar 2 (Supporting Transformational and
Sustainable Infrastructure Development), specifically Sub-Pillar 2 (Expanded Transport/
Roads Infrastructure and Enhanced Operation and Maintenance) and Pillar 1, Sub-pillar 3
(Improving Business Enabling Environment). The project is also in line with the Bank’s West
African Regional Integration Strategy Paper (RISP) 2011-2015, whose first pillar seeks to
invest in missing links on the Trans-African Highway Corridors.
1.2.2 The Bank will use its wealth of experience and leadership in delivering projects in
similar fragile state environments to leverage the project. In spite of limitations in country’s
financing instruments the Bank’s determination to support the project has resulted in
mobilising significant amounts of co-financing instruments for which the cooperating partners
have retained the Bank’s ability and trust to manage.
1.2.3 The Bank’s intervention complements the planned upgrading of the TAH missing link
between Bandajuma-Zimmi-MRU Bridge that is to be financed by the EU. This simultaneous
3
financing of the two sections on the TAH-7 corridor demonstrates close collaborative
initiatives among Development Partners (DPs) and has the common goal of ensuring
development of viable and sustainable infrastructure that promotes seamless and efficient flow
of traffic.
1.3. Donor Coordination
1.3.1 Donor coordination in the road transport sector has formally been conducted through a
road transport thematic group that has not been active since 2013. The Bank and EU
Commission are committed to revive the group and commence meetings before the end of
2015. The Government, however, has several instruments to manage aid coordination broadly,
including a Development Partners (DP) group, which meets quarterly. The Government
through its Development Assistance Coordination Office (DACO) oversees donor coordination
and promotes a division of labor amongst DPs which reflects comparative advantages and
which guides the closing of strategic funding gaps. The Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA)
under the supervision of the Ministry of Works Housing and Infrastructure ensure
harmonization of project prioritization and implementation in line with the national
development agenda in the A4P. The Mano River Union (MRU) Secretariat in Sierra Leone
works with Government and other Development Partners promoting regional integration within
the MRU. Their activities focus on mobilizing resources for regional roads within the MRU,
Sierra Leone inclusive. The Road Transport sector in Sierra Leone is currently supported by
the African Development Bank (AfDB), the European Union (EU), OPEC Fund for
International Development (OFID), Saudi Fund for Development (SDF), Islamic Development
Bank (IDB), Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (BADEA), Kuwait Fund for
Arab Economic Development (KFAED) and Abu Dhabi Fund. The World Bank (WB),
currently, has no on-going infrastructure project in the transport sector but is active in policy
dialogue and sector reform issues and recently supported Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL)
in the preparation of an Integrated Transport Policy Strategy and Investment Plan, an Urban
Transport Policy and Mobility Plan for Greater Freetown.
Table 1.1: Donor Coordination
Players – Public Annual Expenditure (Average)
Government Donors EU 87.1%
AfDB 6.1%
OFID 2.6%
IsDB 2.6%
BADEA 1.0%
Others 0.6%
69.9%
30.1%
Level of Donor Coordination
Existence of Thematic working Group Yes
Existence of SWAPs or Integrated Sector approaches No
ADB’s involvement in donor group M
*** L: leader, M: member but not leader, none: no involvement
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1. Development Objectives
2.1.1 The overall goal of the project is to support Sierra Leone’s economic growth agenda
through development of strategic transport infrastructure that significantly contribute to its
poverty reduction strategy.
4
2.1.2 The objectives of the Project are to provide efficient nation-wide road transport access
to the southern districts of Bo and Pujehun and regionally to the Mano River Union Member
States and ECOWAS as a whole. The Project is expected to improve the living conditions of
the communities in the project’s zone of influence. The expected outcomes include: (a) reduced
transport costs and travel time; (b) enhanced potential for agriculture development thereby
contributing to poverty reduction among communities along the corridor; and (c) improved
access to social – economic services including, local markets, schools and health facilities; and
(d) improved road safety.
2.2. Project components
2.2.1 The Project road constitutes an important road corridor of strategic national and
regional importance. Given its advanced state of deterioration, its rehabilitation is necessary to
maintain its status as a route of choice providing safe and efficient movement of freight and
services. The components that have been included in the project are thus aimed to ensure that
the road continues to provide its intended primary functions. A description of components to
be financed is provided in Table 2.1. Further details on the Project Components are in the
detailed annex.
Table 2.1: Project Components
No. Component Estimate
(UA million)
Description
1 Infrastructure Investments 15.73 Rehabilitation of 46 km section of road between
Bo-Bandajuma and Implementation of ESMP
1.41 Consultancy services for supervision of road
works.
0.56 Update of Studies for the Kailahum Koindu
Guinean Border road
0.32 Pre-feasibility study for rehabilitation of the
Mano River Bridge
0.14 Study to identify Trade and Transport
Facilitation needs and assessment of Joint
Border operations within the MRU Transport
Corridors
2 Project Management 0.11 Project Implementation Support
0.21 Monitoring and Evaluation
0.27 Technical and Financial Audits
3 Cross cutting 1.10 HIV/AIDS, Malaria, Ebola, Gender and Road
safety awareness campaign
1.03 Compensation for Project Affected People
(PAPs)
2.3. Technical solution retained and other alternatives explored
2.3.1 The project road follows an existing alignment and therefore did not require an
investigation of alternative routes at feasibility level. Selected geometric re-alignments have
however been proposed to smoothen curves to make them compliant to safe driving conditions.
The cross section requirements are based on the Sierra Leone Road Design Manual (SLRDM3)
and ECOWAS4 guidelines. A road safety analysis was further conducted to identify road
3 SLRDM road classification standards recommend pavement width of 7.0m and shoulder of least 1.5m 4 ECOWAS guidelines recommend a pavement width of at least 7.00 m and shoulder width of at least 1.35m to 1.50m
5
improvement measures that promote safe use of the road by both vehicular and non-motorized
transport.
2.3.2 To remain consistent with design of adjacent sections and government preference, the
asphalt concrete pavement surfacing has been adopted. The pavement design used to propose
the dimensions of the road layers required for the rehabilitation is based on standards that are
commonly applied in Sierra Leone and cross checked with other established methods like
Southern African Transport and Communications Commission (SATCC) road design manual.
2.3.3 At least three (3) design alternatives with respect to the road geometry have
subsequently been considered and subjected to economic analysis to determine the most
feasible as summarised in table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2: Summary of technical solutions
Options Pavement Design Geometric Standards Reasons for
Acceptance / Rejection
Option 1
Asphaltic concrete
overlay of depth varying
between 50 mm and 120
mm over 44km.
Remaining 2km will be
reconstructed with
crushed stone base of
170mm, subbase of
200mm and asphaltic
pavement layer of
50mm,
Pavement width of
7.00 m with shoulders
of 1.35m
Though this option meets minimum
ECOWAS requirements it was rejected
because the carriageway and shoulder
widths were not compliant with adjacent
sections that are wider and provide better
road safety benefits. Option 2 Pavement width of 7.2
m and 1.25m
This option was rejected because it only
meets Sierra Leone road design standards
and not ECOWAS with respect to the
shoulder width. Option 3 Pavement width of
7.2m and shoulders of
1.5m
This option which requires widening was
accepted because it meets both the Sierra
Leone road design standards and fully
complies with ECOWAS guidelines. It is
also similar to other recently rehabilitated
primary roads in the country including the
adjacent section between Bandajuma to
MRU to be upgraded to paved standard
with financing from EU. The wide profile
of the road carriageway and shoulder will
provide adequate safety for vehicular and
non-mortised traffic.
2.3.4 All three (3) options were economically feasible with the only difference between
options two (2) and three (3) being widening of shoulders from 1.25 m to 1.50 m. Government
has made a preference for option three (3) albeit its higher cost to ensure that it remains
compliant to ECOWAS guidelines as well as the geometric standards of similar recently
rehabilitated roads in the country and the Bandajuma to MRU bridge to be upgraded soon to
paved standards with financing from the EU.
2.3.5 The road safety analysis has resulted in re-alignment of least three (3) curves to meet
speed requirements of 80 Km/hr and provision of other road safety features including: (i) paved
shoulders of at least 1.5 m on either side; (ii) traffic calming measures at approaches to
populated centres; (iii) bus bays to avoid passenger services providers stopping on carriageway;
and (iv) provision of raised kerbs at bridge crossings to separate pedestrians from vehicular
traffic.
6
2.4. Project type
2.4.1 The project is designed as a single investment operation to be financed through ADF
loan facilities from the Banks’s country allocation for Sierra Leone, Transition Support Facility
(TSF) and a co-financing instrument from OFID. The investments against which the funds are
to be disbursed are well defined and specific. As such, the project approach is the most
appropriate arrangement for Bank’s intervention in this operation.
2.5. Project cost and financing arrangement
2.5.1 The total project cost including compensation for Project Affected Persons is UA 23.84
million (US$ 33.54 million) of which the foreign exchange cost is UA 17.93 million (US$
25.29 million) or 80% of the total, and the local cost is UA 5.91 million (US$ 8.25 million) or
20% of the total cost. These cost estimates are based on detailed design studies of the project
as well as international norms and average unit prices for the works and services.
Table 2.2: Project cost estimates by component
No Components
UA (millions) %
FE Foreign
Exchange
Local
Currency Total
1 Infrastructure Investments 14.50 3.66 18.16 80
2 Project Management 0.37 0.22 0.59 63
3 Cross Cutting & complementary 0.08 1.05 1.13 07
Total Base Cost 14.95 4.93 19.88 75
Physical Contingency 1.49 0.49 1.98
Price Contingency 1.49 0.49 1.98
Total Project Cost 17.93 5.91 23.84 75
2.5.2 As shown in table 2.3 total ADF contribution to the project would be UA 6.94 million
(29%) in form of TSF loan of UA 3.71 million (15%) and UA 3.23 million (14%) ADF-IV
Performance Based Allocation (PBA) loan. UA 14.24 million (60%) will come as co-financing
loan from OFID. The Bank shall manage the OFID loan which shall exclusively be applied on
the civil works component. This exceptional contribution is a continuing demonstration of
corporation among development partners under which OFID has financed a similar operation
for the on-going rehabilitation of the Matoko – Sefadu road. As demonstration of commitment,
Government of Sierra Leone is expected to contribute a total of UA 2.66 million (11%) in the
form of UA 1.43 million (6%) counterpart fund and UA 1.23 (5%) million for compensation
of Project Affected People. Contribution of the Country’s PBA as well as total government
counterpart funding have been confirmed by government authorities.
Table 2.3: Sources of financing
Source ADF XII DSF Class US$ millions UA million %
TSF Loan 5.20 3.71 15
ADF - XIII PBA Loan 4.53 3.23 14
OFID Loan 20.00 14.24 60
29.73 21.18
GoSL Counterpart Funds 2.07 1.43 6
GoSL Compensation 1.74 1.23 5
Total 33.54 23.84 100.00
7
2.5.3 The project cost by category of expenditure and schedule by component are presented
in tables 2.4 and 2.5 respectively.
Table 2.4: Project cost by category of expenditure (UA millions)
No Category UA (millions)
Funding Source (UA millions)
ADF OFID GoSL Foreign Local Total
1 Civil Works 12.58 3.15 15.73 3.85 11.88
2 Consultancy 2.37 0.64 3.01 1.93 1.08
3 Project Coordination-Logistics 0.06 0.06 0.06
4 Project Coordination-Goods 0.05 0.05 0.05
5 Compensation of PAPs 1.03 1.03 1.03
Total Base Cost 14.95 4.93 19.88 5.78 11.88 2.22
Physical Contingency 1.49 0.49 1.98 0.58 1.18 0.22
Price Contingency 1.49 0.49 1.98 0.58 1.18 0.22
Total 17.93 5.91 23.84 6.94 14.24 2.66
Table 2.5: Expenditure schedule by component
No Components UA millions
2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
1 Infrastructure Investments 3.63 6.35 6.35 1.83 18.16
2 Project Management 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.59
3 Cross Cutting Components 1.05 0.02 0.02 0.04 1.13
Total Base Cost 4.85 6.48 6.48 2.07 9.88
Physical Contingency 0.48 0.65 0.65 0.20 1.98
Price Contingency 0.48 0.65 0.65 0.20 1.98
Total 5.81 7.78 7.78 2.47 23.84
2.6. Project’s target area and population
2.6.1 The project area lies in altitude ranges of 100-200m above sea level with undulating
topography in most areas. Large parts of the areas are fairly of high elevation while others in
poorly drained inland valley swamps are increasingly being used for paddy rice growing. The
project is located in Bo district with a population of about 228,392 inhabitants and a density of
112 person/km2 constitutes the primary target beneficiary population. The people in the area
earn their living mainly from agricultural activities, small scale trading and in transportation
services through operating motorcycles (okadas). Poverty in the road corridor is manifest in
terms of; poor housing; lack of access to safe potable water and poor education infrastructures
and impact of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) can be seen in terms of closed/non-operational
market facilities which has affected the local population. The road is particularly of importance
as it will help the people to transport produce to the markets, access social services, and once
improved it will help reduce bus fares and directly creat some jobs directly during its works. It
will also improve regional connectivity through MRU to Liberia thereby facilitating regional
intergration.
2.7. Participatory process for project identification, design and implementation
2.7.1 Key consultations have been made with stakeholders and has resulted in inclusion of
relevant project features. Those consulted included interviews with district technical officials
in Bo and Freetown, NGOs operating in the project area including ActionAid in Gondama,
8
Watsan Project Sembehun at Buuma, Africare in Bendu, Medicines Sans Frontiers in Bellor
and World Vision in Bontiwo. Other consultations were held with chiefdom heads in Jaima
Bingor Chiefdom in Bo District, Gondama in Tikondo Chiefdom, Bo District and at Bandajuma
Sowa in Sowa Chiefdom, in Pujehun. The ESIA team also consulted the Environmental team
in SLRA, representative of transport operators and held focus group discussions with various
women and youth groups along sections of the road. During preparation and appraisal
additional consultations where undertaken by the Bank team with communities at Bandajuma,
Koribondo, Gondama and Jendema. The main concerns raised by stakeholders included: road
safety issues before and after construction, increase of HIV/AIDs prevalence, need for safe
water sources, gender empowerment through giving fresh female engineers opportunities for
their internship trainings, youth employment and provision of health facilities. To address these
concerns, the project includes provision of selected social infrastructures such as markets and
water boreholes with pumps (if possible solar powered) at major population centres (Gondama)
located along the road and programmes to promote road safety, HIV/AIDS, Malaria and EVD
awareness. The project also includes a capacity development programme that aims to support
at least 20 graduate civil engineers (50%) female) to develop their skills in road construction
and maintenance through internships on the construction site and the supervision consultant
office.
2.8. Lessons reflected in project design
2.8.1 Bank Activities: The Bank’s operations in Sierra Leone commenced in 1973. As at 31
October 2015, the Bank’s portfolio for Sierra Leone comprises 15 active operations with a total
commitment of UA 152.27 million in various sectors (details are in Appendix 2). Two road
projects have been included in the Bank’s Country Strategy (CSP 2013 -2017). These are: (i)
Bandajuma – Zimmi (61km) and (ii) Kenema – Zimmi (88km). The Bandajuma – Zimmi road
project was replaced by Bo – Bandajuma project. The decision on replacement followed EU’s
confirmation of funds been secured to reconstruct the entire stretch from Bandajuma – Zimmi
– MRU bridge leaving Bo – Bandajuma as the missing link along the road corridor. Current
Bank’s commitment to the transport sector comprises only one operation which is the Matotoka
– Sefadu Road Rehabilitation Project. The Bank is financing UA22 million of the total project
cost. The project involves the rehabilitation of 70km of inter-urban road and the provision of
social infrastructure including rehabilitation of 3 primary schools (provision of classroom
blocks, sanitation and water facilities), a health centre, market and 20km of feeder roads. The
recently completed Lungi – Port Loko Road project upgraded 62km of inter-urban road and
has improved road accessibility from the capital city to the only international airport in Sierra
Leone.
2.8.2 Lessons learnt in Project Design from on-going / completed projects: The Bank
has funded three (3) road projects in the transport sector since 2006. One Project Completion
Report (PCR) has been completed with another one currently ongoing for the Lungi-Port Loko
Road Project. Major lessons that have been learnt from the implementation of the above
projects and which have been considered in the design of this project include: (i) weaknesses
in project and contract management that have resulted in a number of issues including weak
monitoring and evaluation systems, lengthy and bureaucratic approvals at various government
levels; sufficient provision has been allocated for outsourcing an M&E consultant preferably
from the region and inclusion of minimum logistics support to the project will assist the
Executing Agency (EA) carry out its contract management functions. (ii) fiduciary challenges
in procurement and financial management have resulted in poor construction lead time
resulting from lengthy procurement processes and financial losses to contractors arising from
9
highly tedious approvals as well as lack of follow-up on numerous audit recommendations; the
Bank’s continuous training through fiduciary clinics and support to the Accounting Department
of SLRA shall enhance the FM aspect of the project. The Bank’s field office shall follow-up
on procurement related issues and continue to provide procurement clinics to enhance
performance; (iv) constrained cadre of local contractors has restricted tender participation and
limited competition; however, the cost/km is within tolerable limits to attract a pool of regional
and international contractors; and (v) inclusion of minimum social community infrastructure
component such as schools, clinics and boreholes to ensure a more inclusive development. The
project include the construction of a market and water boreholes as accompanying measures.
2.9. Key performance indicators
2.9.1 The key performance indicators are shown in the results-based log-frame. Data on these
indicators will be collected under the framework of the Monitoring and Evaluation Component
of the Project. This activity shall facilitate refining of baseline values, monitoring during
implementation and at the end of construction period. At the bassline study other indicators
such as agricultural yields and Employment generation will be included for the purposes of
arriving at reasonable development impacts and outcomes. In addition, the performance
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms shall also cover monitoring the social, economic and
environmental impact within the project’s zone of influence.
3. PROJECT FEASIBILITY
3.1. Economic performance
3.1.1 The methodology for the economic analysis is based on cost-benefit analysis by
comparing the “with” and “without “ project scenarios over a period of 20 years, using Road
Economic Decision (RED) model. A discount rate of 12%, a standard conversion factor (SCF)
of 0.90, and construction period of 2 years starting in 2016 are adopted. The economic costs
consist of: (i) the capital investment costs and (ii) the routine and periodic maintenance
expenses. The benefits consist of savings in: (i) vehicle operating costs; (ii) motorized traffic
travel time for passenger and cargo; and (iii) maintenance costs. Other benefits (exogenous)
include: (iv) employment generation, (v) reduction in transport fares, (vi) enhanced agricultural
production; and (vii) reduction in traffic accidents. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
on the project road are 1,254 vehicles per day, and 579 vehicles per day (excluding motor
cycles).
3.1.2 The measures of assessing project viability used are the Economic Internal Rate of
Return (EIRR) and the Net Present Value (NPV). The economic analysis for the three technical
alternatives (options 1-3) of the project road yielded an EIRR of 27.2% and an NPV of €20.219
million, an EIRR of 26.4% and an NPV of €19.751 million, an EIRR of 21.5% and an NPV of
€15.744 million respectively for option 1, option 2 and option 3. Option 3, with an EIRR of
21.5% and NPV of €15.744 million is the most feasible alternative since it complies with
ECOWAS standards. Sensitivity analysis of a 20% increase in the investment costs and a 20%
reduction in benefits (worst-case scenario) of the most feasible option results in an EIRR of
14.7% for the project road. The summary of the economic analysis for the selected pavement
intervention is presented in Table 3.1, with details presented in Annex B7. The economic
analysis results indicate the Project road is economically viable. Further confirmation of the
robustness of the economic analysis results through Switching Values analysis revealed that
10
the Project would become unviable only when the project costs increase beyond 82% (unlikely)
and the benefits decrease below 45%.
Table 3.1: Key Economic and Financial Figures
Scenario Economic Parameters
NPV
(€ Million)
EIRR
(%)
Base Results 15.74 21.5
Sensitivity Results: (+20% costs & -20% benefits) 4.90 14.7
3.2. Environmental and Social impacts
3.2.1. Environmental: The road project is a Category 1 type as it is likely to lead to loss of
businesses and shelter for about 2,807 communities, loss of 3,099 multi-purpose trees and
community water sources. RAP and ESIA summaries have been posted in Bank’s website on
20 August, 2015. Positive impacts include: better paved road implying improved transportation
and access to markets, employment for about 500-800; reduced road accidents; enhanced
agricultural production and boost tourism; reduced travel time and vehicle operations costs by
20 and 21% respectively as well as improved regional connectivity between Sierra Leone and
Liberia. Its negative impacts include destruction of roadside water sources to be mitigated
through relocation of water points before start of construction. Dust and air emissions impacts
mitigated through routine sprinkling of water and land uptake to be mitigated through
compensation as in the RAP. Soil erosion and siltation to be mitigated by landscaping and re-
grassing. Public health, EVD and HIV/AIDS impacts are to be mitigated through awareness
and sensitization campaigns. An ESMP has been developed to provide mitigation and
management measures for the impacts. The Cost of ESMP implementation is estimated at US$
300,000 (included in civil works).
3.2.2. Climate Change: Some sections of the road pavement have failed due to rusted and
broken down metallic Armco culverts while across trading centres, there is direct discharge of
run-off onto the carriageway attributed to silted covered access drains. These issues are to be
addressed by use of concrete reinforced culverts (CRC) in place of metallic Armco culverts
and appropriate access drains across trading centres as well as securing the road reserve to
allow for unimpeded functioning of off-shoots drains. These measures have been adopted based
on hydrological, topographical, land use and settlements assessments in the road corridor and
its wider catchment which was a basis of decision on the type, nature and sizes of proposed
storm water discharge infrastructure on the road project. For the sections to be reconstructed,
there are plans to pulverize and re-use the asphalt concrete as sub-base materials. In addition,
modalities for timely and effective maintenance interventions by SLRA on its road network
have also been worked out with the Road Maintenance Administration Fund. In all, GoSL is
cognizant of climate change impacts in all its sectors of development and multi-sectoral
adaptation strategies have been drawn. For the transport sector, some measures that have been
instituted include, ban on importation of leaded fuels. Furthermore, in an attempt to address
issues of CO2 and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, import tax of 5-110% is imposed on all
vehicles imported into the country taking into account, year of manufacture (age of vehicle),
model and cubic centimetres of the vehicle engine amongst others..
3.2.3. Gender: GoSL is committed to ensure that gender analysis is embedded within all
national development programmes as enshrined in its Pillar 8 in The Agenda for Prosperity
2012-2017. The Ministry of Social Welfare and Children Affairs has also undertaken a review
of the National Gender Policy and also prepared a Draft Gender Bill which has been approved
11
by Cabinet and is soon to be presented to Parliament. All these instruments provide for at least
30% of available employment opportunities in projects to be availed to women. Already on
Matotoka-Sefadu road project under Bank financing, 30% for women is being observed by the
contractors and this is already a best practices instituted by SLRA regarding gender
mainstreaming. However, by the time the road project becomes operational, these laws will
have become effective and the contractor will simply stream the practice in line with the policy
frameworks then. The project plans to drill some 2 boreholes and considering the fact that, it
is mostly women with the responsibility of fetching water, the boreholes under the project are
of large positive benefit to the women. At 00+750km LHS from Bo town, there are two women
palm oil wholesalers engaged in buying palm oil from the countryside smallholders and wild
collector dealers. The palm oil is packed in 20 liter jerry can which is sold to traders from
Barmoi market and to those coming from as far as Madina and Bonfi in Conakry. However,
this business is handicapped in terms of parking space for trucks for loading and off-loading
the palm oil; they also have no shelter for storage of the merchandise and the containers as well
as the area is poorly drained. It is proposed that the road project should provide for a
parking/bus bay at the section where this palm oil wholesale point, construct a shelter for
handling the business transactions of palm oil and improve the drainage around the site. This
is hoped to improve the working environment for the women wholesale palm oil dealers, to
provide safe and secure working shelter and a lorry parking on the road. These will improve
their enterprises and enable them earn better income which is hoped to translate to better
livelihoods at their households. The planned capacity building to support at least 20 graduate
civil engineers (50%) female) to develop their skills in road construction and maintenance
through internships on the construction site will both benefit men and women. The sensitization
programs to be undertaken about gender will equally benefit the women in the project area.
The contractor is to adopt a code of conduct to make the work place conducive to both men
and women.
Social
3.2.4. Development of economic growth: The project will contribute to economic growth in
the project area by improving market accessibility and stimulating development of other
economic opportunities thereby diversifying avenues of accessing earnings. Having this road
as all weather type and being of regional importance, the road will improve access to markets
and support better marketing of produce. The key activity in the project area is agriculture
which is expected to become market oriented will provide incentive for households to increase
their production especially of marketable produce such as rice, kola nuts and garri. For
instance, the road will improve access to Tiwai forest tourist destination close to Potoru tourism
site hence after Bandajuma town and that will boost tourism which brings a number of
economic opportunities both at local and national levels. It is also expected that, the road
project will offer estimated 500-800 jobs across its various activities and based on gender law
soon to be passed, 30% of these jobs will be availed to the women and this will give them
alternate sources of incomes to support their households. The project will also develop market
facilities at new Gondama market which will provide good marketing environment for the
market vendors especially the women who comprise 45% of the vendors thereby improving
their trade which translates to income and livelihoods at their household levels.
3.2.5. Improved accessibility to social economic infrastructure: No doubt, the Bo-
Bandajuma road link connects main areas such as Bandajuma, Koribondo, Gondama and as far
as MRU to Bo City which has the main district referral hospital. The current state of the road
makes access to referral medical services in Bo City difficult to access because of its deep
potholes which are most of the time filled with pools of water. Improved access will lead to
12
expansion of production and enhanced marketing and household incomes as well as new
businesses and general economic development along the rehabilitated road. Implementation of
the project will also lead to improved transportation services that are expected to drive an
increase in the volume of trade and commercial activities in the two districts and in the regions.
Improved transportation services are also expected to result in better access to health care,
particularly for expectant mothers with obstructed labour who cannot sustain longer than three
(3) hour delay to the nearest health unit at Bo, improved delivery of social services, agriculture
and education sectors and increased school enrolment rates. Other social benefits will include:
opening up regional markets to local players, thus encouraging the sharing of formal and
informal business practices, increasing exposure and connectivity to communities in
neighboring regions and countries, thus promoting cultural, social, and economic linkages. As
part of the Ebola Recovery Strategy, the United Kingdom Department for International
Department (DFID) is considering a grant of US$ 5 million to GoSL to rehabilitate the arterial
network of 200 km feeder roads that directly connect to the project road. DFID is expected to
support this activity in 2016 through supplementary financing to be managed by the Bank. This
effort is expected to complement the project through providing efficient linkages to farms with
regional markets and other social services all aimed at uplifting the livelihoods of the rural
population and introduces a local economic development dimension to the project.
3.2.6. Ebola Virus Disease sensitization and awareness campaigns: The GoSL has put in
place a National Ebola Response Centre (NERC) under direct supervision of the Office of the
President. NERC is a Task Force whose mandate is to coordinate support and response to
contain the Ebola pandemic. The NERC has championed the hand washing, screening,
treatment as well as burial procedures for those who die of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD).
However, once WHO declares Sierra Leone to be Ebola free then the country will be in its post
Ebola period and at that time, the efforts on Ebola control will be handled by the recently
created National Disaster Management Agency under the Office of the National Security in the
President’s Office. For now, NERC has decentralized to the districts the management of Ebola
under the District Ebola Response Centre (DERC) and in the areas of the road project, the Bo
District DERC will be a key stakeholder in management of Ebola interventions on the road
project. Of particular importance to the road project is the need for the contractors to be aware
of Ebola survivors who have discharge certificates from NERC and are reported to be free of
EVD and should not be discriminated in the recruitment to work if they turn up during the
recruitment process. During consultation on this subject, it emerged that, the road project
should mainstream deliberate EVD control measures to ensure sustained awareness and
sensitization on Ebola in the project areas during works in view of the trans-regional nature of
Bo-Bandajuma road, and that, there is still a lot of unknown scientific and social dynamics on
Ebola which can easily trigger its re-occurrence in the event of relaxed public education and
caution. However, the project design has already integrated EVD sensitizations and awareness
sessions amongst its outcome yardsticks.
3.2.7. Road Safety Campaigns: In addition to the engineering aspects included in the design
such as provision of sealed shoulders, signage, speed calming measures, the project will mount
IEC (Information, Education and Communication) campaigns to all road users on safety
aspects. This will be done in collaboration with the SLRSA.
3.2.8. Baseline data: It is expected that basic socio-economic data will be collected at the
beginning of project implementation under the M&E sub-component. The SLRA will maintain
a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Expert who with input of the M&E consultant be
responsible for the development of a baseline to measure Objectively Verifiable Indicators
13
(OVI) and monitor the project’s social and development impacts, such as: (i) all season access
to public transportation within 2 km of their homes; (ii) yearly traffic accidents and mortality
along the project zone of influence; (iii) monthly household expenditures devoted to transport
and other indicators.
3.2.9. Inclusive Growth: GoSL envisages that, improvement of its road network such as Bo-
Bandajuma road will greatly have multiplier transformational impacts on the livelihoods of its
populace across gender, various age groups and geographical divide through improved
transportation and access to markets for their agriculture produce both within the areas of the
road project and beyond. In particular, inclusion of women and the youth will bring on board
these vulnerable groups into income earnings from the project. Recruitment of casual labour
will bring on board some of the poor in the communities as well to earn fairly stable income
for the time of project. These will enhance and provide means of livelihoods to men and women
and bring about growth and development to them in many fronts. The road will facilitate
women, men and youth alike to have easy access to the markets, social facilities and more so,
enter new enterprise ventures in trading and value addition. It is also clear that, the proposed
project passes through areas that have had devastating impacts of the EVD as such, the planned
rehabilitation of this road will greatly assist the population in the region have reliable transport
to access much needed social and health facilities and general post recovery interventions. With
all these, the road project will contribute to national efforts of encouraging inclusive economic
growth in Sierra Leone as enshrined in the national constitution of the country and other
sectoral laws and policies dealing with inclusive growth.
3.2.10. Involuntary resettlement: Though the rehabilitation of the Bo-Bandajuma road will to
large extent follow the exiting alignment, a few re-alignments at populated settlements will
result in involuntary resettlement of more than 220 households. SLRA has therefore prepared
a Full Resettlement Action Plan (FRAP) that identified 295 households (2,807 Persons) who
will be affected by the project comprising of 233 dwelling houses, 29 dwelling houses with
shops and 33 community structures. Other assets to be impacted include uptake of hectares of
farmland 3,033 multi-purpose fruit trees including 1,118 bananas and 664 mango trees. The
FRAP outlines the compensation measures for affected properties, institutional arrangements
and timeline and grievance mechanisms. The loss of estimated 3,000 trees will be compensated
through deliberate tree planting along the road alignment. Its estimated budget is US$
1,451,048.50. The Government will however set aside a budget of US$ 1.73 million as
included in the project cost. The FRAP summary was published on the Bank’s website on 10
August 2015 along with the ESIA and will be locally disclosed in specific public spaces
accessible to the general public especially in the project zone of influence and through media
including local language newspapers. The FRAP implementation will be led by SLRA with
oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency and other stakeholders including, Anti-
Corruption Commission; Civil Society; Auditor General and; selected community leaders/
elders. For more information on Environmental and Social aspects, please refer to Detailed
Technical Annex B.8
4. IMPLEMENTATION
4.1. Implementation arrangements
4.1.1. SLRA will be the Executing Agency for the Project. SLRA has experience in managing
of similar road projects financed by the Bank including the recently completed Lungi Port
Loko road project and on-going rehabilitation of the Matotoka - Sefadu road. SLRA is also
14
implementing a number of other similar operations financed by multilateral development banks
including OFID, KFEAD, IsDB, SFD, IDA and IFAD. SLRA will rely on its organisational
structure to implement the project and mainly draw on lessons from similar Bank financed
operations. SLRA functions are not without challenges and management have identified a
number of notable areas needing improvement including strengthening of staff numbers and
capacity, updating of operations procedures manuals and training. The authority also cites lack
of consistent financing for project supervision that has hampered effective supervision of donor
financed projects.
4.1.2. Minimum implementation support to the SLRA will be provided to the project through
provision of some logistics in form of project operation recurrent costs, transport and office
equipment. To coordinate bank financed projects, SLRA presently has a designated project
coordinator and similar to the on-going transport operation will appoint a Project Manager as
the key contact person from within the institution acceptable to the Bank for the day to day
management of the project. In carrying out project activities, the PM will rely on existing
SLRA management systems in areas such as finance, procurement, monitoring and evaluation
and environment. The provision of a suitable person acceptable to the Bank will constitute a
condition prior to first disbursement.
4.1.3. In cognisance of the future regional importance of the road, the project includes a Study
to identify Trade Facilitation needs and assessment of Joint Border operations within the MRU
Transport Corridors. SLRA and Ministry of Trade and Industry (MoTI) will form an
interagency committee to manage this component of the project. These activities include but
not limited to evaluations, review and approval of reports. The outputs from this study are
expected to inform bankability of a likely Phase II multinational project with Liberia and that
would include the construction of one-stop border post and implementation of trade facilitation
measures. Similarly SLRA will form a similar committee with the Sierra Leone Road Safety
Authority (SLRSA) to assist with management of the road safety feature in the awareness
campaign activity.
4.1.4. Procurement: The procurements of civil works and selection of consultants services
under the project will be done in accordance with the Bank’s Rules and Procedures for
Procurement of Goods and Works ((May 2008 edition, revised July 2012) or the Bank’s Rules
and Procedures for the Use of Consultants (May 2008 edition, revised July 2012), using the
Bank’s standard bidding documents, and with the provisions set out in the financing
agreements with the country.
4.1.5. The Sierra Leone Roads Authority shall carry out procurement for all civil works
contracts and consultancy services for this project through the existing procurement structures.
The institutional capacity of SLRA was assessed and it was found that they have established
procurement unit staffed with procurement personnel such as Procurement Manager, two
Procurement Officers and an assistant. The procurement manager has acquired formal training
in the procurement of works and consultancy services for World Bank projects and has also
gained experience on the Bank’s rules and procedures for goods and works and consulting
services through his involvement in the implementation of two similar projects.
Financial Management, Disbursement Arrangements and Project Audit
4.1.6. Financial Management: The SLRA will be responsible for the Financial Management
(FM) functions of the Project. The SLRA has adequate staffing to carry out FM work and is
15
thus familiar with the Bank’s FM requirements for projects. Marginal improvement was noted
in the FM performance of ongoing Bank financed projects, albeit, Fiduciary Risk was
considered high. Thus, the FM system of SLRA would need to be strengthened in order to
satisfactorily discharge its fiduciary requirements of the project. This will include provision of
appropriate accounting software along with support equipment to appropriately operate the
software, revision of the accounting and procedures manual, and training of FM and
procurement staff in short term project management courses including FM and Procurement.
This will enhance and underpin the FM system required to achieve the set project outcomes.
4.1.7. Disbursement: Disbursement will be direct payment method (similar to those ongoing
Bank funded projects) for the main works component, goods and services (including audit). A
Special Account (SA) will be established to facilitate project management operation costs and
will follow the normal procedure of operating the SA as per the Disbursement Hand Book.
4.1.8. Audit and Reporting: The Audit Service Sierra Leone (ASSL) is mandated to audit
all public funds and due to capacity constraints, some audits are outsourced to private firms.
Accordingly, the ASSL audits the main SLRA accounts while projects’ audit are outsourced
to private firms; similar audit arrangement would be retained for the proposed Bank project.
Therefore, external Project audit by an independent auditor acceptable to the Bank will be
conducted annually to ensure submission of audited financial statements within six months
following the year audited. Quarterly unaudited interim financial statement will be required to
be submitted to the Bank 45 days following the end of each quarter.
4.1.9. The overall conclusion of the FM capacity assessment is that, based on the above, the
proposed project can be considered to utilize the existing country FM system in full which
after addressing the agreed FM action plan (see Annex B4) will have adequate capacity to
manage the FM inclusive of disbursement and audit. Therefore the residual risk is moderate.
4.2. Monitoring
4.2.1. The project will be monitored during implementation by the Works Supervision
Consultant and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Consultant, Executing Agency [Project
Coordinator/SLRA] and through the Bank Missions; and during the operations maintenance
phases (by the Executing Agency - SLRA). The M&E consultant will also monitor cross-
cutting issues in liaison with the EA, Relevant Sector Ministries, Communities, NGOs and
CSOs.
4.2.2. Monitoring is aimed at close oversight to ensure adherence to the set out delivery
timelines, quality and quantity standards, early detection of problems/challenges and provision
of timely remedial measures. The various targets specified in the Results based log-fame
provide a basis for monitoring activity, output and outcome levels by relevant project
stakeholders. The Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant to be engaged by the Executing
Agency will assist with refining the framework for monitoring the project indicators. In
addition to the day-to-day project oversight by the Works Supervision Consultant, M&E
Consultant and the Project Coordinator assigned to be assigned by SLRA, the Bank’s
monitoring strategy includes: semi-annual supervision missions, review of quarterly project
progress reports from SLRA, mid-term review and preparation of the project completion report
(PCR) at about 85% completion of the project.
16
4.2.3. The Annual Technical, and Financial Audits are some of the measures that will monitor
adherence and compliance to the agreed upon project standards/deliverables. Special attention
will be made on the monitoring of the implementation of the Environmental and Social
Management Plan activities to be executed by the Supervision Consultant and SLRA. Other
Ministries and agencies such as the Ministry of Works, Housing and Infrastructure,
Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children Affairs,
Ministry of Health and Sanitation, NGOS and CSOs will also be encourage to do independent
monitoring.
4.3. Governance
4.3.1. While Sierra Leone still performs significantly below world and regional averages in
many areas of governance, most indicators reflect positive governance trends since President
Ernest Bai Koroma took office in 2007. The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators
shows Sierra Leone scoring 35.4 on a 0 to 100 scale in 2010 in terms of control of corruption,
compared to 28.1 in 2005. However, there has been some reversal in the gains made and the
score has dropped to 27.5 in 2014 due mainly to the general perception that graft incidences
are still high. 4.3.2 Both the Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance and the ADB’s CPIA
indicator has shown marked progress. Sierra Leone has improved from a rank of 48th in 2011
to 30th of 52 African countries in 2012 and moved five places up to 25th in 2014 with a
remarkable score of 51 on a 0 to 100 scale. In the former, and in the public sector Management
and Governance rating of the AfDB CPIA, rating moved from 2.5 in 2005 to 3.0 in 2012 and
further improved to 3.5 in 2014 CPIA calculation. This consistent improvement is a
manifestation of the ongoing wide scale governance reforms and institutional strengthening
programs supported largely by development partners. Its ranking in the Transparency
International Corruption Perception Index has improved slightly, from 123th in 2012 to 119th
in 2014 of 175 countries but still maintained a score of 31 out of 100 in both instances.
4.3.2 Although significant challenges remain, weak institutions, low public sector salaries,
lack of training and limited capacity, as well as insufficient and cumbersome regulations have
created both incentives and opportunities for corruption across the public sector. There has
also been marked improvement in open budget index done every two years with a score of 31
in 2013 to 51 in 2015 with the country leading in open and transparent budgeting in the West
Africa sub region. The project has included in its design governance risk mitigation measures
such as (i) the appointment of external and independent financial / technical audit firms to
ensure that funds are used efficiently and for the intended purposes; and (ii) Bank’s prior review
and approval of all project procurement activities.
4.4 Sustainability, Institutional and Road Sector Reforms
4.4.1. Sierra Leone has made some positive steps to reform the road sector institutional and
regulatory environment though much still remains. Positive steps include creation of the Sierra
Leone Road Authority (SLRA) in 1993 as semi-autonomous government entity that is
responsible for the development, maintenance, administration, control and maintenance of the
road network. A Road Fund to finance road maintenance was also created in 1998 and its
operations were streamlined through the creation of a third generation Road Fund, the Road
Management Fund Administration (RMFA) in 2003. As part of rationalizing road network
management, the local government act was passed in 2004 that devolved management of the
feeder and chiefdoms roads network to the Local Government Authorities. In addition cross
cutting regulatory reforms in environment management made it mandatory to undertake
17
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) reports for all major road projects and
the factories act have reinforced the need for employers to provide mandatory protective
clothing to workers on construction sites
4.4.2. Key sector challenges that could invigorate the contribution of transport to economic
prosperity however remain and include: improving the quantity and quantity of trunk and
feeder roads; unlocking market access to productive areas of the country through all-weather
roads; improving connectivity to neighbouring countries; and provision of adequate sustainable
maintenance of the existing road network.
4.4.3. Concerning maintenance, Sierra Leone has since 1990s put in place a road fund whose
operation remained within the SLRA until 2010 when the Road Fund Administration Act of
2010 established the Road Maintenance Fund and an administration to administer the funds.
RMFA is a 3rd generation road fund, governed by a board of directors from a wide stakeholder
representation and is administered by a lean management of professional staff. RMFA’s main
mandate includes management and administration of the maintenance funds, monitoring of
monies allocated from the fund; approval of applications for financing of maintenance
activities from designated bodies. In approving maintenance plans, RMFA is guided by the
Integrated Transport Policy, Strategy and Investment Strategy (ITPSIP) current policy to
prioritize preservation of all roads that are in good and fair condition by channeling funds first
to routine maintenance and then to periodic maintenance.
4.4.4. Contributions to the road fund consist of road user charges levied on fuel, vehicle
licence fees, vehicle registrations fees and other licenses collected under the road traffic act,
capital gains and or profits from investments; and donations/grants and any other road user
charged that may be allocated to the fund from time to time. There has been a general increase
in revenue from about US$ 8.6 million in 2011 to US$ 16 million in 2013 and projected to rise
to US$ 23 million for 2014. Maintenance funds though still remain considerably below needs
with a huge backlog of roads in need of major maintenance. In the absence of accurate data,
Sierra Leone’s annual routine maintenance budget on the paved core road network is estimated
at US$ 12.6 million. Based on audited accounts, road fund user receipts have averaged US$11
– 14 million over the past four years and it would appear that the current receipts are just about
enough to cover routine maintenance, including this project, though not sufficient to cover
periodic maintenance.
4.4.5. RMFA cites the mobilization of additional revenue to the fund as one of the major
challenges and is increasingly looking to means of expanding its revenue base. PPPs present
an opportunity that could be exploited with assistance of the Bank to crowd in financial support
and leverage government financial commitments in the road sector. The project design
therefore includes as condition provision of evidence on GoSL commitment to implement
measures aimed at increasing other local revenue resources to the Road Fund.
4.4.6. With regard to quality of work, the impact of the recurrent maintenance cost on the
government is minimal, due to the selected technical solution. The choice of asphaltic concrete
is most appropriate and improves the overall efficiency of the project with regard to
maintenance. The construction and maintenance costs spent over the pavement commonly
referred to as life cycle costs are significantly lower with asphalt concrete when compared to
other paving interventions. In addition maintenance of asphalt road is often less disruptive and
can realised within a shorter period and save often ignored significant user delays costs.
18
4.4.7. To ensure physical sustainability, there is need for Sierra Leone to ensure enactment of
the draft policy reform on axle load control and to finalise the institutional framework for its
management. Previously the Bank supported SLRA under the Matotoka - Safedu Road Project
to purchase road weigh bridges and went further to include a project condition that required
government to report on a programme for the rolling out of vehicle overload and axe load
control in Sierra Leone. The Bank is currently, monitoring the programme albeit slippages and
will continue to encourage government along this process through another condition on this
project that will monitor implementation related aspects.
4.5. Risk management
4.5.1. The potential risks at outcome and output levels have been identified and mitigation
measures have been highlighted.
Outcome Risks
4.5.1.1. Sustainability: Inadequate Institutional and Financial Capacity to maintain the
paved road. In addition lack of axle load management system may lead to pre-mature failure
of the road due to overloading. GoSL has drafted Axle load Control Policy and is working on
an institutional framework. GoSL maintenance funds are increasing annually and other forms
of financing like PPPs are actively being pursued.
Output Risks
4.5.1.2. Cost overruns (price volatility of construction materials): Considering the project
location some 250 km from the nation’s capital Freetown, the cost of commodities are normally
above market rates and it is likely that bidding contractors will factor in adequate and or
excessive risk to cover likely sharp increase in cost of construction material mostly oil products
and cement. Adequate price contingencies have been included in the project’s detailed cost
estimates.
4.5.1.3. Project Control: The incompetence of the Contractor and or supervisor will lead to
delayed completion of the Project. The Contractor will be procured through the International
competitive bidding (ICB) to improve chances of getting a better qualified and experienced
Contractor. Similarly the selection of the Consultant will be carried out through a competitive
procurement process. The Project works will also be closely monitored to ensure adherence to
quality, cost and timelines by the Supervision Consultant, SLRA, Technical Audits and the
Bank through the Field Office and Bi-annual Supervision Missions. The project also includes
minimal project logistics support to provide effective client supervision.
4.5.1.4. Erratic payments of counterpart funds: The project includes GoSL financial
contribution in form of counterpart funding. Delays in honouring payments may lead to project
implementation slippages. As mitigation, government has provided a letter committing to
provide counterpart funding. In addition all critical project activities relating to civil works,
supervision and project management have all been placed under Bank and OFID financing.
4.5.1.5. Resettlement Action Plan (RAP): Timely implementation of the RAP is key for
smooth project implementation. It is thus recommended that the SLRA maintains the team
responsible for the elaboration of the RAP (environmental and social safeguard officers and
19
assistants) to supervise its implementation. In addition, it is expected that the resources
included in GoSL’s Budget for meeting the RAP implementation will be released timely for
Compensation of the Project Affected Persons (PAPs).
4.6. Knowledge building
Through this project the Bank continues to increase and consolidate its knowledge on working
in the Transport Sector of a Fragile. Additional knowledge has been accumulated during the
design phase and will continue to be consolidated during the implementation and post
construction phase. During design the Bank engaged the sponsor, client and consultant to
advise on study outputs that supported the project’s bankability and resulted in timely provision
of financing by the Bank and its partners. The Bank has gathered further knowledge on
mobilising and leveraging substantial co-financing instruments for the project. During
implementation the monitoring and evaluation components as well as awareness campaigns
will provide opportunities for further knowledge accumulation. The project will provide
specific valuable lessons on how provision of reliable transport infrastructure will affect the
EVD Post recovery efforts. All these efforts will facilitate Bank and GoSL to improve project
design and implementation activities that are not only unique to fragile states but other
operations across the Bank’s portfolio.
5. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS AND AUTHORITY
5.1. Legal instrument
5.1.1. The Bank instruments to finance this operation are an ADF Loan for an amount of UA
3.71 million from the TSF; and an ADF Loan of UA 3.23 million from ADF 13 PBA.
5.2. Conditions associated with Bank’s intervention
A. Entry into Force Conditions
i. Conditions Precedent to Entry into Force of the ADF Loan and TSF Pillar I Loan
Agreement: The entry into force of the ADF Loan Agreement and TSF Pillar I Loan
Agreement shall be subject to the fulfilment by the Republic of Sierra Leone of the
provisions of Se`ction 12.01 of the General Conditions.
B. Conditions Precedent to First Disbursement of the ADF Loan and TSF Pillar I Loan
Agreement
The obligation of the Fund/Bank to make the first disbursement of the Loan shall be conditional
upon the entry into force of the Loan Agreements, as specified above, and submission by the
Borrower, of evidence in a form and substance acceptable to the Fund/Bank of fulfilment of
the following:
i) Evidence of having developed and submitted to the Bank the updated Resettlement Action
Plan (RAP); the Works Schedule and Compensation Payment Schedule detailing: (a) each
section of the road under the Project and; (b) the timeframe for compensation and
resettlement of all Project Affected Persons (PAPs) in respect of each section under the
Project;
20
ii) Evidence of having compensated and/or resettled all PAPs with respect to the civil works
for the first section of the road identified under the Works Schedule under the Project. The
compensation shall be done in accordance with the Updated RAP and Compensation
Payment Schedule; and
iii) Evidence of the appointment of a Project Manager with terms of reference, qualifications
and experience acceptable to the Bank.
C. Other Conditions
i) Prior to commencement of civil works for each of the remaining sections of the road, the
Borrower shall have submitted evidence, in form and substance satisfactory to the Fund,
of having compensated and/or resettled all PAPs, with respect to such section of the road
in accordance with the Updated RAP;
ii) Within three (3) months of the date of signature of this Agreement, submit an
Environmental Impact Assessment Licence or Certificate of Approval from the authorised
approval agency in Sierra Leone;
iii) Within three (3) months of the date of signature of this Agreement, submit an
implementation manual agreed upon between the Borrower, the Bank and OPEC Fund for
International Development for common implementation arrangements including
institutional, procurement, disbursement, financial management, environmental and social
measures, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting arrangements for the execution of the
Project;
iv) Within three (3) months of the date of signature of this Agreement, submit evidence of the
Executing Agency having formed an interagency committee to manage the Mano River
Union Trade Facilitation needs Assessment component with the Ministry of Trade and
Industry; and
v) A committee will be established with the Sierra Leone Roads Safety Authority to assist in
implementation of the Road Safety awareness aspects of the Project.
D. Undertaking
(i) The Borrower undertakes to implement and report on the implementation of the
Environment and Social Management Plan, Environment and Social Impact
Assessment, and the RAP on a quarterly basis in a form acceptable to the Bank.
5.3. Compliance with Bank Policies
This project complies with all applicable Bank policies.
6. RECOMMENDATION
Management recommends that the Boards of Directors approve:
(i) The proposed Loan of UA 3.71 million from TSF Pillar 1 resources;
and ADF Loan of UA 3.23 million from ADF 13 PBA Allocation to the Republic
of Sierra Leone for the purposes and subject to the conditions stipulated in this report.
I
Appendix I Country’s comparative socio-economic indicators
II
Appendix II: Table of ADB’s portfolio in the country as at October 2015
Sector
Name
Longa Name Status of
Project
Approved
Amount
(UA million)
Cum.
Disbursement
(UA million
Cu. %
Disbursed
(UA million)
Investment Programme
1 ADF Power CLSF Sierra Leone Approved 14.50 0.00
2 ADF Power CLSD Rural
Electrification Sierra
Leone
On-Going 4.88 0.05 1.03
3 ADF Transport Matotoka – Sefadu Road
Rehabilitation Project
Section I Matotoka – Yiye
I
On-Going 22.00 10.29 46.76
4 ADF Agriculture Addax Bio-energy Project On-Going 22.10 22.09 99.95
5 ADF Water
Supply /
Sanitation
Rural Water Supply and
Sanitation Project
On-Going 14.59 0.42 2.91
6 ADF Water
Supply /
Sanitation
Three Towns Water
Supply Project
On-Going 28.50 17.36 60.93
Institutional Support Programme
7 FSF Multi-
Sector
Technical Assistance and
Capacity Building Support
to Ministry of Energy and
MCC (TCB-ERPU &
MCC)
Approved 0.45 0.00
8 FSF Finance Central Bank of Sierra
Leone Capacity Building
Component
On-Going 0.81 0.57 70.65
9 FSF Multi-
Sector
Public Financial
Management and Business
Enabling support Project
On-Going 4.00 2.42 60.61
10 FSF Multi-
Sector
PFM Improvement and
Consolidation (PFMIC)
On-Going 2.30 0.00
11 FSF Multi-
Sector
Technical Assistance and
Capacity Building to
support mineral and
extractive revenues
governance.
On-Going 1.20 0.24 19.74
12 FSF Social Institutional Support –
Mano River Union II
On-Going 0.94 0.21 22.72
Emergency / EVD Assistance Programme
13 FSF Social Strengting West Africa’s
Public Health Systems
Response
On-Going 1.20 0.00
14 ADF Social Crisis Response: Technical
Assistance to support
countries
On-Going 1.80 1.43 79.62
15 ADF Social Ebola Fight Back
Programme
On-Going 33.00 33.00 100.00
Active Portfolio as at 31 August 2015 15 152.27 88.09 57.89
III
Appendix III: Key related projects financed by the Bank and other
development partners in the country
No. Project Name / Description Length
(Km)
Revised
Start / Finish
Date
Funding
Agency
Initial
Project Cost
(US$’ million)
Type of
Funding
1 Kenema – Pendembu 86 Dec 2009 / Dec.
2015
OFID, SFD,
IDB,
BADEA,
KFAED +
GoSL
58,7 Loan
2 Pendembu - Kailahun Road 28 Feb. 2015/ Feb.
2017 IDB + GoSL 27,6 Loan
3
Targrin - Lungi -
Konakridee (Targrin - Lungi:
Dual Carriageway 14Km x
2)and (Lungi - Konakridee
(14Km)
25.8 Nov 2015 / Jan
2016 GoSL - Loan
4 Lumley – Tokeh (21Km-
Original Contract 21
Jul 2009 / Jul
2016
KFAED +
OPEC Fund +
Abu Dabi +
GoSL
27,7 Loan
5 Restoration Works on
Waterloo - Kent Road 17
Jan. 2013 /June.
2015
KFAED +
OPEC Fund +
GoSL
- Loan
6 Hill Side By Pass Road
Construction (Phase I) 1.5
April 2010/
Dec. 2015
BADEA +
GoSL +
OPEC
13,3 Loan
7 Hill Side By Pass Road
Construction Phase II 2.2
April 2015/ Feb.
2017
KFAED +
GoSL 30,0 GoSL
8
Magbele, Mabang,
Kpangbama, Moyamba
Bridges and Moyamba –
Moyamba Junction
36
Sept 2014 / Sep
2015 EU + GoSL 52,9 Grant
9 Matotoka - Sefadu (Section
1: Matotoka - Yeyie) 70
Dec. 2013 /Nov.
2015
AfDB, OFID
+ GoSL 46,8
Loan +
Grant +
GoSL
10
Matotoka -
Sefadu (Section 2: Yeyie -
Sefadu)
50
commencement
date yet to be
established
KFAED +
GoSL 30,1 Loan
11
Reconstruction of the
Bandajuma - MRU Bridge
and 3 Bridges
108 March 2014 /
March 2018 EU + GoSL 174,6 Grant
12
Priority Infrastructural Works
Lot 1: Makeni - Kabala Road
and Seven (7) Bridges on the
Bo - Masiaka Highway
2013 - 2014 EU + GoSL 12,6 Grant
13
Priority Infrastructural Works
Lot 2: Cape Road, Rue De
La Paix
2013 - 2014 EU + GoSL 12,8 Grant
IV
Appendix IV: Map of the Project Area
Source: Updating of Studies for the Bo-Bandajuma Road, 2015, DIWI Germany GmbH. The map is only for the
purposes of showing the location of the project road.