|1. Project Data:
ICR Review Date Posted:
|India: Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project
Project Costs(US $M)
Loan/Credit (US $M)
Cofinancing (US $M)
|Government of India
Board Approval Date
|Housing construction (69%), General agriculture fishing and forestry sector (12%), Other social services (10%), General water sanitation and flood protection sector (9%)|
|Natural disaster management (33% - P)
Rural services and infrastructure (17% - S)
Participation and civic engagement (17% - S)
Social safety nets (17% - S)
Land administration and management (16% - S)|
||ICR Review Coordinator:
||Robert Mark Lacey
|2. Project Objectives and Components:|
The development objective of the project stated in the Memorandum and Recommendation of the President (MRP, page 4) and in the original Development Credit Agreement (DCA, Schedule 2, page 20) was:
“to support the efforts of the governments of India, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to revive livelihood and promote recovery in the tsunami-affected areas".
At the Government’s request the project was restructured (Level 1) in August 2009. The revised development objectives, as stated in both the Project Restructuring Paper and the amended DCA, were:
“to assist the Borrower and the Project States to revive livelihood and promote recovery in the Tsunami Affected Areas in the short-term, and to reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities to a range of natural hazards such as cyclone, storm surge, flood and tsunami over the long-term."
At the time of the restructuring, US$77.17 million of the IDA Credit had been disbursed, representing 47.8% of the amount disbursed at project closure.
b. Were the project objectives/key associated outcome targets revised during implementation?
If yes, did the Board approve the revised objectives/key associated outcome targets?
Date of Board Approval: 08/13/2009
1: Housing Reconstruction (appraisal US$596.8 million; actual US$81.6 million). This component consisted of three sub-components: (a) provision of transit shelter as needed and upgrading of services in temporary shelter sites; (b) repair and reconstruction of existing houses, construction of new houses, and the necessary related services and community infrastructure; and (c) resettlement of families affected by the project.
2: Restoration of Livelihoods (appraisal US$36.4 million, actual US$11.81 million). The assistance to fisheries included: (a) restoration of damaged fisheries infrastructure, such as harbors, patrol boats, clearing bar mouth and estuaries to maintain estuarine habitats, and aquaculture infrastructure; and (b) re-establishment of safety-at-sea systems/services; and assistance to agriculture, horticulture and livestock; and (c) promotion of sustainable management of coastal land and water resources.
3: Public Buildings and Public Works (appraisal US$19.5 million; actual US$17.69 million). This component provided financing for small public works, such as repair, reconstruction and upgrading of damaged hospitals, public health centers/sub-centers, educational institutions, cyclone shelters and other public buildings, restoration of damaged river and drain banks, and plantation/replanting of mangroves and shelter belts in Tamil Nadu.
4: Technical Assistance and Training (appraisal US$111 million; actual US$2.15 million). This component financed: (a) technical assistance and capacity building for housing reconstruction; (b) preparation of social and environmental management plans in accordance with the Environmental and Social Management Framework; (c) community participation efforts to ensure involvement of the affected communities; (d) studies to assess the vulnerabilities and longer-term issues associated with coastal zone protection; (e) environmental studies on coastal water quality, ground water quality, pollution of tidal influenced water bodies in urban areas; and (f) capacity building among various stake holders and hazard risk management.
5: Implementation Support (appraisal US$19.0 million; actual US$11.0 million). This component financed the project management and incremental operating costs such as: (a) quality assurance and technical audits to ensure adequate quality of reconstruction works; (b) project monitoring and evaluation (M&E), including continuous social and environmental impact assessments as outlined in the environmental and social management framework; (c) project management and incremental operating costs; and (d) project financial audits.
Tamil Nadu - At the time of the level 1 restructuring in 2009, a new component, Vulnerability Reduction of Coastal Communities (VRCC - Vulnerability Reduction Component for Tamil Nadu) was introduced and financed from the accumulated savings from the other components (US$136.4 million, ICR page 4). The new component included: a) emergency evacuation and early warning facilities (US$39.1 million); b) reconstruction of risk-prone houses to multi-disaster resistant standards (US$87.3 million); and c) technical assistance and implementation support (US$10.1 million). At the same time, and for Puducherry only, the Agriculture sub-component under the Livelihood component (2b) was removed from the project because the rehabilitation works were completed using Government of Puducherry’s own funds.
Puducherry - No specific activities were included to attain the long-term objectives in Puducherry.
d. Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates
Project cost at completion was US$186.5 million, 27% of the appraisal estimate of US$682.7 million. During the first two years of project implementation, a significant amount of grant funding through NGOs and assistance from the private sector was mobilized by the Government of India, particularly for housing reconstruction (40,000 houses for Tamil Nadu), and this substituted for about US$220 million of the IDA Credit. In addition, housing reconstruction needs were significantly overestimated during the initial damage assessment (ICR page 6). However, some of the reduction in expenditure from the Credit was due to slow implementation and non-completion of expected reconstruction/rehabilitation targets before the project closed. Thus, in July 2009 the budget for housing reconstruction in Tamil Nadu was reduced from US$423.0 million to US$201.9 million, and US$136.4 million was allocated to the new Vulnerability Reduction Component for Tamil Nadu.
The IDA Credit was only one of several sources of post-disaster relief. NGOs played an important role in empowering communities to make them disaster resilient by mobilizing them and assisting to form self-help groups. In addition, other international organizations also assisted tsunami-affected communities with their specific organizational expertise: UN agencies with hazard risk management, health and education; the Asian Development Bank with micro-enterprise development; and the International Fund for Agricultural Development with livelihood support to fishing communities. Specific financial contributions of these other partners are not provided in the ICR.
The original Credit was for US$465.0 million. Over the life of the project this increased to US$473.5 million because of the appreciation against the US dollar of Special Drawing Rights in which the Credit was nominated. A total of US$304 million of the Credit was cancelled: in November US$69.0 million (US$67.6 million from Tamil Nadu and US$1.4 million from Puducherry) because it was determined that the project could not disburse this amount before closing; and, in December 2011, a further amount of US$235.0 million remained undisbursed at closure and was cancelled.
The original Borrower contribution was estimated to be US$ 217.7 million; the actual contribution was US$25.22 million, or 9% of the planned amount. This was mainly due to the mobilization of grant funds which substituted for Borrower financing.
The project’s original closing date was extended by three years (from April 30, 2008 to December 31, 2011) to accommodate the restructuring process. The total project period was 73 months, instead of the original plan of 36 months. A second request from the Government of India to extend the closing date further so that both state governments could complete the remaining work was not approved by the Bank.
|3. Relevance of Objectives & Design:|
a. Relevance of Objectives:Original Objective - High
The tsunami of December 26, 2004 caused extensive damage in the Union Territory (UT) of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and along a 2,260 km stretch of coastline in Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory Puducherry. An estimated 2.7 million people, especially in the fishing and agriculture communities, were affected by the disaster.
The project was requested by the Government of India, who asked the World Bank and other external partners to put together a joint team to undertake an assessment of the tsunami’s socioeconomic and environmental impact in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry. The project contributed to two of the three pillars of the 2004 Country Assistance Strategy. It supported improvement of government effectiveness through improved service delivery to the affected coastal communities, and it encouraged their active involvement in project implementation. It also contributed to the second pillar of the Strategy that focused on development of rural livelihoods. The project's objectives were also relevant to addressing the cross-cutting environmental and natural hazard issues as recognized in the Strategy.
The objectives of the project remain relevant to the Country Partnership Strategy for Fiscal Years 2009-2012 (Annex 7, page 7): “the disaster management agenda, especially post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation, includes a wide ranging and complex set of issues, which cannot be addressed through one project solely focusing on emergency response.” Under the “ensuring sustainable development” pillar, project objectives were relevant to assisting the most vulnerable people to adapt to climate change and natural disasters. The latest Country Partnership Strategy also emphasizes strengthening country systems to ensure close working partnership with government counterparts (including private sectors and donors) and strengthening citizen’s’ capacity to demand transparency and accountability.
Revised Objectives - High
The revised objectives expanded the scope of the project by adding long-term emergency risk management as well as preventive measures. The revised objectives were highly relevant based to the Borrower's need for longer-term emergency preventive measures, such as establishing early warning systems. It was relevant for the Bank to be engaged in the area of building resilience for the natural disasters based on its global knowledge and experiences.
b. Relevance of Design:Original Objective- Modest:
The statement of project objectives and project description in the MRP and original DCA was straightforward and appropriate for tsunami emergency reconstruction operations. However, being an emergency project, design lacked a thorough Results Framework. The Framework consisted largely of outputs and lacked a chain of causal links between project inputs and the expected impacts on restoring livelihoods and promoting recovery in the tsunami-affected areas.
Revised Objective - Modest
The revised design, with a long-term goal of attaining the resilience among tsunami-affected communities were laid out clearly with an additional component, “Vulnerability Reduction of Coastal Communities.” The Project Paper of August 2009 notes that this new component was intended to support the construction of about 78 new evacuation shelters, to construct/improve about 150 km of evacuation routes, and to install early warning systems in villages within 1,000 meters of the High Tide Line in Tamil Nadu. The time frame to complete this additional component, which included the provision of technical assistance and implementation support was about 22 months; implementing a whole new disaster risk reduction management system within such a time frame was highly ambitious.
In addition, design overlooked an important aspect of longer-term post-disaster reconstruction project, namely the psychological support for the affected population who might have lost not only their housing, other assets and employment, but also their families and loved ones. Design included no activities related to human development aspects which are central to post-disaster recovery and restoration of livelihoods..
|4. Achievement of Objectives (Efficacy) :|
There were important differences in the degree of achievement of both the original and revised objectives in Tamil Nadu and in Puducherry. The capacity of project management units was the main cause of these differences (ICR page 15). Tamil Nadu showed some achievement in the area of urban housing construction, livelihood support including training on livelihood restoration, and rural housing with water and sanitation systems. On the other hand, Puducherry had completed the reconstruction of only 550 housing units out of a total of nearly 2,000 by the time of ICR preparation. Most of the fisheries-related activities in Puducherry were initiated but not completed. As a result, the project key objective of improving livelihood opportunities for potential beneficiaries was barely attained. Subsequently, Puducherry requested a follow-up project to complete most of the unfinished work, but the request was not approved by the Bank.
"To support the efforts of the governments of India, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to revive livelihood and promote recovery in the tsunami-affected areas". Modest.
(a) Housing and related infrastructure construction and reconstruction
- About 40,000 houses in Tamil Nadu and 4,303 houses in Puducherry (ICR page 52) were constructed/reconstructed with the support of NGOs and private sector. This was well short of the target number of about 140,000 damaged houses in both areas combined (MRP, page 4). While around 44,300 people benefitted from the housing reconstruction, there was no quality control from the Bank team.
- The ICR provides a list of outputs, but lacks target values and clear output and outcome indicators (for infrastructure reconstruction, electricity connections, repairs of damaged dwellings etc.).
The main outputs delivered with the support of the IDA Credit were (ICR page 39):
- 4,526 ready-built tenements were purchased and installed and 3,948 were allotted to eligible beneficiaries.
- 121 public buildings and facilities were repaired or reconstructed for 40,000 beneficiaries in 18 tsunami-affected towns. These included community halls, bus shelters, cremation sheds, shopping complexes, and library buildings. 71 health facilities (public health centers, Government hospitals, primary health centers, and health sub-centers), 112 veterinary hospitals, dispensaries, and district extension centers, and 33 Government high schools and higher secondary schools were built or rebuilt.
- 31,855 km of roads and 4,257 km of drains, and water supply connection to 1,472 houses, and eight public buildings were built or reconstructed.
- Electricity connections were installed for about 23,000 houses and 2,360 street light connections in 200 villages in 50 panchayats in eight tsunami affected coastal districts.
- De-silting and strengthening of river banks was completed for 123 km of water ways in Nagapattinam District
- Shelterbelts were planted for 4,478 ha (+900 ha for private lands) and mangrove plantations covered 2,162 ha.
- On the All India Radio site, 3,600 tenements were completed with water supply and sewerage works.
- At Okkiyum Thuraipakkam, newly built tenements were structurally completed in 2010, and infrastructure works (water supply, sewerage, roads and drains) were scheduled to be completed by December 2012. Of the 2,468 transit shelters,1,200 shelters were occupied by residents.
- Of the planned Marina Reconstruction Schemes, 628 tenements were structurally completed at Nochinagar, and fitted out by June, 2012. At Nochi Kuppam construction of about 800 tenements did not commence as only 417 out of 780 occupants vacated and moved to the transit houses.
- Sanitation infrastructure was rehabilitated. This included 67.85 km of collection systems, 3,594 manholes, 1,021 interceptors, 49 pump rooms with 116 pump sets and 47 treatment systems.
- 300 houses for relocated families were completed by contracted constructors, and a further 550 houses were built/rebuilt through a beneficiary-driven approach. At project closing 1,200 houses were incomplete so that target achievement was 41%. There was a one-year delay in housing construction starts in Puducherry due to the need to establish land titles for the beneficiary-driven housing component (ICR page 9).
(b) Restoration of livelihoods
- Agriculture: 8,175 hectares of sand cast agricultural lands were reclaimed, and agriculture machinery and equipment and drip irrigation sets were supplied. Training programs and public awareness campaigns were conducted for 13,500 beneficiaries.
- Horticulture: About 670 hectares of horticultural land was reclaimed with the participation of 169 self-help groups.
- Animal Husbandry: Laboratory equipment for 18,000 livestock were purchased and distributed. 10,000 farmers were trained on animal rearing, animal feeding and management, and de-worming; and 80 community-based veterinary workers were trained on first aid, artificial insemination, vaccination and de-worming.
- Forestry: 5,400 hectares of forest shelter belts and mangroves were established.
- Fisheries: The following activities were initiated but had not been completed by project closure: reconstruction and modernization of fishing harbors; provision of permanent stability at river openings; fish landing centers and an ice plant.
- Agriculture: The agriculture sub-component under the Livelihood component was removed at the time of restructuring since the Government of Puducherry managed to complete the activities with its own funding (ICR page 4).
- Fisheries: According to the ICR (page 15), none of the planned activities (work shelters, fish markets, and fishing harbor) was completed. Planned fisheries training was dropped due to a delay in identifying appropriate consultants.
- Housing and related infrastructure: as noted in Section 2d above, practically all the house building and residential reconstruction activity was not financed by the IDA Credit and was not subject to any form of quality control by the Bank; no information is available in the ICR regarding the cost or the quality of construction of these houses.
- Agriculture: 90% of restored agricultural and horticultural land and reconstructed animal husbandry infrastructure in Tamil Nadu was being used by project closure, thereby achieving the targets. For Puducherry, no information is provided.
- Fisheries: There were no outcomes recorded since the activities were incomplete at project closure.
“To assist the Borrower and the Project States to revive livelihood and promote recovery in the Tsunami Affected Areas in the short-term, and to reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities to a range of natural hazards such as cyclone, storm surge, flood and tsunami over the long-term” Negligible.
Activities related to this objective took place only in Tamil Nadu.
- 4,121 houses built to disaster-resistant standards had been completed by project closure compared to an original target (at restructuring) of 17,000 and a revised target (in June, 2010) of 14,370. According to information provided subsequently by the project team, about 12,000 disaster-resistant houses had been completed by mid-May, 2013, with the balance expected to be finished by December 2013.
- Work on the planned multi-purpose evacuation shelters had not been started by project closure. The project team reports that it was commenced in May 2012, and is scheduled for completion under the follow-on Disaster Risk Reduction Project (as of mid-May, 2013, contracts for 28 shelters had been awarded, and the balance of 93 were at the tendering stage).
- By project closure, only preparatory work had been carried out for evacuation routes and early warning system. 45 kilometers of evacuation routes were expected to be completed by September 2012 (ICR, page 30). According to the project team, the work on evacuation routes was "nearly complete" as of May, 2013. The bidding process for the early warning system is ongoing as of May, 2013, and a contract is expected to be awarded in June, 2013.
- 29% of the target number of disaster-resistant houses were completed. None of the other disaster preparedness and community resilience activities had been taken beyond the early preparatory stage by project closure, so that there are no outcomes to report.
As an emergency operation (processed under OP 08.50), an economic and financial analysis was not required at appraisal. Given the nature of the infrastructure works financed under the project, and also the fact that there was a major restructuring with reallocation of funds in 2009, an economic analysis could have been prepared before the Level 1 restructuring to determine the most cost-effective ways of using the amount still available under the IDA Credit. Moreover, an ex-post analysis of the efficiency with which project resources were used could have been carried out for the ICR.
There were major operational and administrative inefficiencies. There were substantial delays on civil works, many of which were not completed by project closing, and coordination among the agencies was poor. Even though the project duration was more than doubled, only 34% of the original commitment was disbursed.
Efficiency is assessed as negligible.
a. If available, enter the Economic Rate of Return (ERR)/Financial Rate of Return at appraisal and the re-estimated value at evaluation:
* Refers to percent of total project cost for which ERR/FRR was calculated