Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Pilot Water Supply

1. Project Data:   
ES Date Posted:
Project Name:
Pilot Water Supply
Project Costs(US $M)
 5.4  5.4
Loan/Credit (US $M)
 5.0  5.0
Sector, Major Sect.:
Rural Water Supply & Sanitation,
Water Supply & Sanitation
Cofinancing (US $M)
L/C Number:
Board Approval (FY)
Partners involved
Closing Date
12/31/2000 12/31/2000
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Group Manager: Group:  
Ronald S. Parker
Madhur Gautam Alain A. Barbu OEDST

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
The Pilot Project had three objectives: 1) to improve the design and implementation arrangements for a follow-on project through a "learning by doing" approach; 2) to speed up the implementation of the full-scale project through early completion of detailed engineering designs and bidding documents; and 3) to develop and test cost recovery schemes.

b. Components
The project consisted of two components: an investment component to rehabilitate a water supply scheme in a peri-urban area, and a technical assistance component to develop a management and supervision arrangement and prepare detailed engineering designs for the full-scale project.

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates
The total project cost was US$5.408 million with a Bank loan of US$5.0 million. Parallel to the preparation of the Pilot Project, a full scale project was developed. The full scale project -- the Uzbekistan Water Supply Water Supply, Sanitation and Health Project (Loan 42160-UZ) -- was approved only four months after the pilot project. During negotiations of the full scale project, the GoU requested the cancellation of Loan 40900-UZ for the Pilot Project and its full repayment from the full scale project after effectiveness.

3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:

All activities and objectives of the Pilot Project were absorbed into the full-scale project.

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

The Pilot Project facilitated preparation of the full scale project by providing bridge funds to initiate the engineering designs.

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

The early cancelation of the pilot project and the implementation difficulties of the full scale project in its first two years make it difficult to understand why this project was prepared and then closed prematurely.
6. Ratings:ICROED ReviewReason for Disagreement/Comments
Not RatedNot RatedAlthough the loan was fully disbursed, the PCN only reports that a consulting contract for preparation of engineering designs was let.
Institutional Dev.:
Not RatedNot RatedThe consultants began to plan management and supervision aspects for the full-scale project, but they did not achieve the objective before the refinancing.
Not RatedNon-evaluable
Bank Performance:
Not RatedNot Rated
Borrower Perf.:
Not RatedNot Rated
Quality of ICR:

7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

The PCN suggests that a Project Preparation Facility or other instrument with lower transaction costs for the Bank, would have been equally effective in facilitating the preparation of the full scale project.

8. Audit Recommended?  No


9. Comments on Quality of ICR:

The Project Completion Note could have attempted to rate the quality-at-entry and the relevance of doing a pilot, and provided some more details on the use of the funds actually disbursed (US$ 3.1 million). A detailed assessment of the relevance and implementation of the pilot project should be included in the ICR for the full-scale project.

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