Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Water Supply Project


  
1. Project Data:   
Project ID:
P008071
Project Name:
Water Supply Project
Country:
St. Lucia
Sector:
Urban Environment, Urban Development
L/C Number:
C2120; L3184
Partners Involved:
Prepared By:
Charles Derek Poate, OEDST
Reviewed By:
Tauno K. Skytta
Group Manager:
Roger H. Slade
Date Posted:
08/11/1998

2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs, and Components:

The project had two objectives: (i) the physical objective was to improve the reliability of and address the long-term requirements for potable water supply within the capital city of Castries and the northwest region of St Lucia; and (ii) the institutional objective was to strengthen the capabilities of WASA management, operation and maintenance, and to enhance resource mobilization capabilities.

Project components included: (i) The Roseau Dam water supply scheme which included construction of a dam and reservoir; water treatment and transmission; access roads; and environmental monitoring and mitigation schemes; (ii) Equipment purchase; (iii) Technical assistance and training; and (iv) Support to project management and administration.

Costs and financing: The total project costs were US$50.5 million (25% higher than at appraisal) of which the Bank financed US$8.13 million. The project was approved in FY90, made effective in 1991 and closed on schedule in FY97. Physical works were completed six months later than planned. Co-financing was provided by CIDA, CDB and OPEC .


3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:

The project succeeded achieving its physical objective of improving the supply of potable water through the construction of the Roseau Dam and associated works. Institutional objectives were only partially met. The specific objective to strengthen the capabilities and performance in the financial and commercial areas was not met, an appropriate tariff structure was not introduced, sound financial policies and commercial measures have not been introduced.

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

The project was successful in implementing all physical works, despite serious damage caused by tropical storm "Debbie" in 1994. The Government and CIDA increased their financial contributions to cover these extra costs. Environmental issues identified in the SAR were accomplished as planned with some additional local programs being undertaken.

5. Significant Shortcomings (include non-compliance with safeguard features):

Recommended tariff increases, discussed both during project preparation and in one of the study reports, were never activated due to political hesitancy. This has resulted in a precarious financial situation for WASA.
Unaccounted-for water was expected to decrease from 33% in 1989 to 25% in 1997 as a result of the introduction of a leak detection and control program and additional metering. At the time of loan closing UFW had increased to 35%.

6. Ratings:ICROED ReviewReason for Disagreement/Comments
Outcome:
UnsatisfactoryMarginally Unsatisfactory
    In fact the ICR provides a satisfactory rating for physical implementation and an unsatisfactory rating for institutional outcome, which fell far short of expectations. Combined this would result in a marginally unsatisfactory rating.
Institutional Dev.:
PartialModest
Sustainability:
UnlikelyUnlikely
Bank Performance:
SatisfactorySatisfactory
Borrower Perf.:
SatisfactoryUnsatisfactory
    Poor performance in financial and institutional improvements was serious and will negatively affect project sustainability.
Quality of ICR:
Satisfactory

7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

1. The Bank needs to be realistic about what can be achieved in terms of institutional development and how. The institutional, administrative, financial, legal and related framework should be very clearly defined, understood and necessary improvements should be agreed upon by all parties and include clear procedures not only for the conceptual phase, but also for making them operational.
2. Legal covenants need to be phrased such they do not just require parliamentary or similar legal approval, but such that they must also be shown to be implemented.

8. Audit Recommended?  No

          Why?  

9. Comments on Quality of ICR:

The ICR is satisfactory but there are a number of shortcomings. There was no aide-memoire and there is no evidence of Borrower input or comments on the ICR, but comments of two cofinancers are included. Moreover, ICR does not cover the future operation of the constructed facilities but rather talks about future investments. In addition to analyzing and rating the two major objectives of the project separately, the ICR should provided one overall rating for outcome and sustainability And as a matter of detail the supervision mission table is not in the required format.

© 2012 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions