Morocco - Port of Casablanca and Mohammedia Project

Doanment of The World Bank FOR OFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 13594 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT KINGDOM OF MOROCCO PORT OF CASABLANCA AND MOHAMMEDIA PROJECT (LOAN 2657-MOR) OCTOBER 11, 1994 Infrastructure Operations Division Maghreb and Iran Department Middle East and North Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used bv recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Currency Unit = Moroccan Dirham EXCHANGE RATES Appraisal Year Average US$1 = Dh 10.4 Intervening Year Average US$1 = Dh 8.6 Completion Year Average US$1 = Dh 9.5 GLOSSARY DP Ports Directorate DPCM : Casablanca-Mohammedia Ports Directorate ERR Economic Rate of Return ICB International Competitive Bidding LCB : Local Competitive Bidding MOT : Ministry of Transports MPW Ministry of Public Works ODEP Office d'Exploitation des Ports RAPC : Regie d'Acconage du Port de Casablanca SAR Staff Appraisal Report TRAINMAR UNCTAD Training Program for the Maritime Sector UNCTAD United Nations Conference for Trade and Development VTS Vessel Traffic System FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December 31  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY THE WORLD BANK Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Office of Director-General Operations Evaluation October 11, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Morocco Port of Casablanca and Mohammedia Project (Loan 2657-MORI Attached is the 'Project Completion Report on Morocco - Port of Casablanca and Mohammedia Project (Loan 2657-MOR)". The PCR was prepared by the Middle East and North Africa Regional Office and Part II contains the Borrower's observations. The US$22 million equivalent loan was approved in February 1986 and closed on June 30, 1993, two years behind schedule. The project was to improve port performance by rehabilitating infrastructure and supplying new maintenance and cargo handling equipment, and to strengthen, through technical assistance, ODEP, the major public enterprise in the port sector. The PCR contains an adequate account of project preparation, implementation and results. The project started slowly, mainly because of protracted procurement procedures. Further delays were caused by adjustments to the project scope and by the need for supplementary investigations during works execution. All physical works were satisfactorily completed and the two extensions of the loan closing date were justified. Project components related to technical assistance, studies and staff training were also satisfactorily completed. The Project outcome is rated as satisfactory, its sustainability as likely, and its institutional impact as substantial. No audit is planned. Robert Picciotto by H. Eberhard K5pp Attachment This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.   FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT KINGDOM OF MOROCCO PORT OF CASABLANCA AND MOHAMMEDIA PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .........................i EVALUATION SUMMARY ........................ - .u Project Objectives ........................ ii Implementation Experience ........................ ii Results ........................ iii Sustainability ....................... iv Findings and Lessons ....................... iv PART I: PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE .... ......... 1 A. PROJECT IENTITY ........1.......................... I B. BACKGROUND . ..................................... 1 Transport and the Economy .................................. 1 Port Facilities . ......................................... 1 Port Organization . ....................................... 2 Traffic ............................................... 3 C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................ 3 D. PROJECT DESC IP ON ................................ 4 E. PROJECT DESIGN AND ORGANIZATION .................... 5 Engineering Aspects . ..................................... 5 Cost Estimate .......................................... 5 Project Organization . ..................................... 5 F. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........................... 6 Part A .............................................. 6 Rehabilitation Works .................................. 6 Technical Assistance and Studies .......................... 6 Training . ......................................... 7 Additional Project Components ........................... 7 Part B .............................................. 8 Rehabilitation Works . ................................. 8 Equipment ........................................ 8 Technical Assistance and Studies .......................... 8 Training .......................................... 8 Additional Project Components ........................... 8 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.|  Table of Content (Cont'd) Pages No. G. MAJOR PROJECT RESULTS .......................... 9 Achievements of Project Objectives ........................... 9 Achievement of Physical Targets ........................... 9 Institution Building .......................... 9 Project Costs .......................... 10 Disbursements .......................... 10 Economic Reevaluation ........................... 10 Financial Performance.. . ........................ 10 Environmental Impact .......................... . 12 H. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY ............................ 12 I. BANK'S PERFORMANCE ........................... 12 J. BORROWER'S PERFORMANCE ...........................13 K. PROJECT RELATIONSHIP ........................... 14 L. CONSULTANT SERVICES ........................... 14 M. PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AND DATA ................... 14 PART HI: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE. . . . 15 PART mH: STATISTICAL INFORMATION ................. .. 27 Table 1: Related IDA Credits and Bank Loans ........... .. 28 Table 2: Project Timetable ................... .. 29 Table 3: Cumulative Loan Disbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 4: MIS Disbursement Information .............. . 32 Table 5.1: Project Costs - Part A . ............... . 34 Table 5.2: Project Costs - Part B . ............... . 35 Table 5.3: Detailed Costs of Added Components . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Table 5.4: Total Project Costs: ; ; ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Table 6.1: Project Financing - Part A. 38 Table 6.2: Project Financing - Part B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table 6.3: Total Project Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 7 : Status of Covenants .................. . 41 Table 8 : Economic Reevaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Table 9.1: ODEP Income Statements ................ . 43 Table 9.2: ODEP Balance Sheet .44 Table 9.3: ODEP Source and Application of Funds .45 Table 10: Project Studies .46 Table 1: Mission Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Table 12 : Staff Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 IBRD - 25842 IBRD - 18693  KINGDOM OF MOROCCO PORT OF CASABLANCA AND MOHAMMEDIA PROJECT (Loan 2657-MOR) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PREFACE This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the Port of Casablanca and Mohammedia Project in the Kingdom of Morocco. for which a loan 2657-MOR in the amount of US$ 22 million equivalent was signed on May 9, 1986. The Borrower was the Office d'Exploitation des Ports (ODEP), the Kingdom of Morocco being the Guarantor. The Loan became effective on December 30, 1986 and was closed on June 30, 1993 after two extensions (original closing date: June 30, 1991). The loan has been fully disbursed except for US$44,292 equivalent which have been cancelled. The Preface, Evaluation Summary and Parts I and III of the PCR were prepared by the Infrastructure Operations Division of Country Department I, Middle East and North Africa Region. The Part II was prepared by the Borrower in cooperation with the Direction des Ports de Casablanca et Mohammedia (DPCM) under the Ministry of Public Works. Preparation of this PCR started during the two last Bank supervision missions in January and June 1993, and was based, inter alia, on the Staff Appraisal Report, the Loan Agreement, supervision reports, correspondence between the Bank and the Borrower, internal Bank memoranda and data provided by the Moroccan authorities to the completion missions.   ii KINGDOM OF MOROCCO PORT OF CASABLANCA AND MOHAMMEDIA PROJECT (Loan 2657-MOR) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT EVALUATION SUMMARY Project Obiectives 1. Project objectives were to improve operational performance of the country's major port by rehabilitating port infrastructure and supplying new maintenance workshop and cargo handling equipment, to integrate port activities into the country's efforts to promote exports and to improve the management and financial viability of the major public enterprise in the sector, the Office d'Exploitation des Ports (ODEP), through technical assistance to ODEP and the Direction des Ports de Casablanca et Mohammedia (DPCM). Implementation Experience 2. The project was divided according to the different administrative responsibilities in Part A (ODEP) and Part B (DPCM). However, the Loan Agreement asked for a single project management responsibility, which was to be assumed by ODEP as the Borrower, and complemented by an agreement dated January 23, 1986, between the Guarantor and the Borrower, by which the Borrower agreed to carry out Part B of the project for the account of the Guarantor. In this agreement ODEP and DPCM defined the sharing of administrative and technical tasks for the Part B of the project: the technical management of Part B remained with DPCM while administrative and financial management were to be carried out by ODEP together with its own Part A. On the financial side, this agreement also stated that the expenses borne by ODEP in implementing the Part B of the project, i.e. cost of the borrowing and local complementary funding, will be deducted from the annual fee payable by the Borrower to the Guarantor for the use of port assets in connection with its operations. 3. While this arrangement seemed a clever solution to include both ODEP and DPCM in the project design when taking advantage of the managerial flexibility of ODEP as an autonomous enterprise, and actually lived up to the expectations to a large extent, some drawbacks appeared mainly towards the end of the implementation period: (a) the two-steps system for procurement of Part B operations, technical decision- making by DPCM and administrative/financial process by ODEP, brought in some instances additional delays to the procurement and subsequent payment process to the suppliers and contractors; and  iii (b) the resolution of contractual problems with suppliers on Part B contracts became sometimes difficult to manage since the final decisional power remained with ODEP while DPCM was handling the daily relationship in the field. We may accordingly take into account these difficulties when thinking of bringing two separate implementing agencies under the same loan umbrella. 4. The loan closing date had to be extended twice due to procurement delays, mostly incurred at the beginning of project implementation, and to changes in some components. Main changes were prompted by severe operational issues experienced before project effectiveness and requiring anticipated action under several components, which ODEP then decided to finance out of its own budget. Other changes came, for instance, as a result of the Navy bringing in its own shiprepair facilities, which upset the rationale behind the shipyard rehabilitation component, which was finally dropped. Results 5. The project has been very conducive in helping ODEP and DPCM to achieve major improvements in port operations and management, through the implementation of the rehabilitation works, the different studies, the technical assistance and the training provided. In particular, the active Bank involvement in port reorganization and shaping out of ODEP throughout preparation is worth mentioning. By providing advice and working closely with the Government in this field. the Bank helped the country reach a good decision which translated into a significant improvement of the sector's efficiency. 6. The rehabilitation works enabled the ports of Casablanca-Mohammedia to improve significantly the handling and storage conditions of the goods shipped through the ports, thus reducing losses and increasing the overall efficiency of transit operations. The strengthening and maintenance works carried out on the breakwaters and the dredging of the port basins allowed the ports to keep on operating without any disruption, which could have proved unlikely, should these works not have been done on time. 7. The project studies contributed to lay down some major elements of the port management framework. The tariff study provided a detailed analysis of the port operating costs, along with a fully new tariff structure and a working pattern to elaborate the subsequent updates. The ODEP organization study set up a management and operating structure which was later implemented and led to the present operating scheme. Both actions were conducive to increased operational and financial effectiveness of ODEP as an autonomous enterprise. 8. The technical assistance aimed at helping ODEP and DPCM to implement more efficient practices in traffic management, including monitoring of ship calls, cargo handling techniques and the relationships with customs in order to facilitate the traffic flows through the port system. A specific operation has been added to the project scope during implementation to assist ODEP in designing and implementing a computerized port management information system. These actions can clearly take credit for part of the results achieved during the project period in terms of port productivity, as epitomized by the outstanding increase in cargo handling productivity and the significant decrease in the dwelling time of containers in the port area. 9. Economic performance of the project is actually quite satisfactory, the quantified gains coming from the operational improvements and from the adequate maintenance of port assets being  iv assessed to yield a 29% economic rate of return on the costs incurred, compared to more than 30% estimated at appraisal. 10. ODEP's financial condition appears quite healthy. First, ODEP generated gross internal funds of about DH 37 million in 1985 and DH 289 million in 1991, and a net cash flow of about DH 69 million in 1985 and DH 176 million in 1991, which covers in average more than 42% of its investment program. and 3.6 times its debt service over the review period. Both ratios are above loan agreement requirements fixed at about 40% and 1.5. Second, debt over equity and debt over debt and equity ratios are kept within an acceptable limit of about 42% by end of 1991. Finally, ODEP's rate of return on net fixed assets is about 11.5 % based on historical value and about 7% based on revalued assets close to the loan agreement requirement of 7.5%. Sustainability 11. There is little doubt the project will continue to generate the economic benefits expected throughout the economic life of its physical components and very likely beyond. Actually the basic institutional studies carried out and the technical assistance provided laid down an operational framework which already proved appropriate in bringing about significant physical and financial productivity increases when implemented. The superstructure upgrading and rehabilitation works clearly contributed to improved performance of the port, duly acknowledged by many of its customers, and the introduction of an effective assets management system under the project offers a good guarantee of adequate maintenance in the future. Furthermore, the project achievements will be complemented and further secured during the implementation of the Port Sector Project now underway. Findings and Lessons 12. Due partly to the long period of time spent between project identification and loan effectiveness (four and a half years), the structure of the project components had to undergo some significant adaptation throughout the project implementation period, some components being deleted while new ones were endorsed. Although the overall process clearly improved project effectiveness, it would have been quite useful to have held a formal mid-term project review in order to update the project schedule according to the actual circumstances in the field. This could have made the project supervision and administrative monitoring easier to carry out, and would have given a clear picture of the project renewed architecture, which is especially useful when the supervising staff changes during project implementation. 13. The project adaptation was also responsible for delay in project completion, because of the changes and updating made necessary due to the long period of time between appraisal and implementation. As a consequence, it entailed late procurement actions which in turn made time extension necessary. This delayed procurement, together with a somewhat lengthy local administrative process, resulted in disbursements lagging behind schedule alongwith project implementation, and picking up in the last two years only. Under these circumstances, however, the project management by the Borrower was always thoroughly carried out and can take credit for the successful achievement of the final project schedule. 14. The administrative arrangement implemented for managing the two parts of the project under ODEP single monitoring, which worked fairly well during most of the project implementation, proved a limited efficiency when it had to deal with compliance problems involving suppliers for Part B managed by ODEP on behalf of DPCM. It may be questionable whether such a double-headed  V arrangement (one technical, one administrative) is actually suitable since it seems prone to complicate matters when any contractual difficulty occurs between a contractor/supplier and the executing agency. 15. The main lesson of this operation is the obvious impact of the Borrower's commitment, which existed from the outset, on the successful achievement of the program and on the quality and sustainability of the project outcome. The outstanding local leadership and competence, and the perfect meeting of minds between ODEP's general management and the overseeing Minister, further contributed to enhance the quality of project management and ownership. Despite the project's evolving schedule during implementation, and the related difficulties to be consequently overcome, the continuous involvement of the Borrower, from the top management to the field units, made possible an optimal allocation of the resources made available and finally ensured the best possible utilization of the loan's proceeds.  KINGDOM OF MOROCCO PORT OF CASABLANCA AND MOHAMMEDIA PROJECT (Loan 2657-MOR) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PART I: PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE A. Proiect Identity - Project Name Port of Casablanca and Mohammedia Project - Loan No 2657-MOR - Loan Amount US$22 Million - RVP Unit Middle East and North Africa Region - Country Kingdom of Morocco - Sector : Transportation - Subsector Ports B. Background Transport and the Economy 1. The Moroccan transport sector plays an important role in the development of the economy. It provides direct support to industrial and agricultural development, plays a key role in encouraging exports, and reducing the cost of imports, and supports the growth of tourism. The land transport system is well-developed and includes some 28,000 km of paved roads out of a total network of some 58,000 kim, and a railway network of about 1,800 km, of which about 970 km are electrified, and 240 km are double-track. There are 11 commercial ports, and about 20 airports handling scheduled flights. 2. The government agencies involved in the administration of the transport system are: (a) the Ministry of Public Works (MPW), which is responsible for the construction and maintenance of roads and ports infrastructure through its Road and Port Directorates; it also oversees cargo handling and port operations which is the responsibility of the Office for Port Operations (ODEP); (b) the Ministry of Transport (MOT), which regulates road transport, and supervises the railways, civil aviation, the state-owned bus company, and the state-owned freight forwarding agency; (c) the Ministry of Fishing and the Merchant Marine which supervises shipping; and (d) the Ministry of Interior as the supervising body for local authorities, which are increasingly involved in the planning and maintenance of local road networks. Port Facilities 3. Morocco's port infrastructure has been rapidly expanded to cope with increasing demands on maritime transport and maritime activities. Until 1961 Morocco had only nine ports. It has now a total of 20 ports along its coast line of 3,500 km. There are 11 commercial ports forming three main groups: a northern group comprising Tangiers and Nador; a central group comprising Kenitra,  2 Mohammedia, Casablanca, and Jorf-Lasfar; and a southern group comprising Safi, Agadir, Tan-Tan, Laayoune. and Dakchla. Agadir, Nador, and the main port, Casablanca, are well diversified. Some ports are somewhat specialized: petroleum products are handled essentially at Moliammedia, phosphate products at Jorf-Lasfar and Safi, and passenger traffic at Tangiers. Commercial ports also provide facilities for the Navy. In addition, there are nine small ports devoted to fishing activities and pleasure navigation. These ports are: Ras Kabdana, Al Hoceima, Jebha, M'Diq, Larache, El Jadida, Essaouira, Tarfaya, and Sidi Ifni. Recently. four ports have been developed exclusively for pleasure navigation. These ports are: Asilah, Restinga, Smir, and Sables d'Or. 4. The 1 1 commercial ports have a total of 150 berths with an overall length of about 21,500 meters and an average length per berth of 150 meters. All ports use either mobile or fixed cranes (about 160) for vertical lifting of general cargo. Specialized equipment is available for solid bulk commodities, such as minerals and cereals (nine gantry cranes). Miscellaneous cargo handling equipment comprise 548 tractors and forklifts, 70 loaders including portable belt loaders, 30 grain loaders, and 29 units of container handling equipment. Port Organization 5. In December 1984, the Government carried out a reorganization in the port sector. The prominent feature of the new organization was to transfer all commercial port activities from the civil service to an autonomous enterprise. However, the Ministry of Public Works (MPW) retained overall responsibility for port administration, planning, construction, maintenance, dredging as well as safety of port operations. Since 1985, MPW discharges its responsibilities through the Ports Directorate (DP) in Rabat and the Office for Port Operations (ODEP). DP is under the civil service. DP is in charge of port planning and port policies. It also oversees port investment programs, coordinates non-commercial port activities, and regulates port operations. ODEP is a financially autonomous enterprise with an industrial and commercial character which took over cargo handling from the former Regie d'Acconage du Port de Casablanca (RAPC). Its responsibilities encompass a wide spectrum of port operations, especially cargo handling, and maintenance. 6. The Ports Directorate is in charge of maintenance of breakwaters, dredging, and all harbor master functions: control and safety of ship movements, berth allocation, coordination of users toward maximizing port productivity, goods security, and leasing of port facilities to users. DP also plans investments in new port infrastructure, mostly breakwaters and quays. DP carries its maintenance responsibilities either with its own staff, or through contracting out, e.g. for dredging. DP discharges its activities through local representatives of MPW at the port level. However, at Casablanca, the local representative of MPW is a directorate, the Casablanca and Mohammedia Port Directorate (DPCM). This special status is warranted by the size and importance of the port of Casablanca and the proximity of the specialized oil port of Mohammedia. 7. The Ports Directorate has four departments: operations, engineering, studies and planning, and lighthouses and beacons. The Casablanca and Mohammedia Port Directorate has four Departments: administrative services, engineering, Casablanca port operations, and Mohammedia port operations. The local representatives of MPW and DPCM have the following responsibilities: security of ships and goods movements, maintenance of the breakwaters and control towers, and dredging. They also have a supervisory role over the other entities licensed to operate in the ports areas, in particular: (a) ODEP; (b) the towage companies; (c) the pilots stations; (d) the grain silo operator, ONICL, which leases areas for its facilities; (e) OCP, the phosphate exporting enterprise, operating berths or piers which  3 are leased on a long-term basis; and (f) the customs office which operates under the control of the Ministry of Finance. 8. ODEP's principal functions are: (a) to operate the following 11 commercial ports: Casablanca and Mohammedia, Agadir, Dakhla. Jorf-Lasfar, Kenitra. Laayoune, Nador, Safi, Tangiers, and Tan- Tan; (b) to handle cargo without exercising a monopoly: concessionary arrangements with other entities including private operators can be signed; (c) to maintain all port infrastructure except for: breakwaters and dredging which is done by the Ports Directorate, and other infrastructure operated by specialized users such as the phosphates operator. OCP, and the grain silo operator, ONICL; (d) to collect revenues from cargo-handling tariffs as well as the port dues; and (e) to undertake, at Government's request, and for its account: (i) construction of new port infrastructure with proven financial viability; (ii) maintenance and repair of port facilities in the ports of Al Hoceima, El-Jadida, and Essaouira; and (iii) maintenance and repair of lighthouses and beacons in ports operated by ODEP. 9. ODEP is managed by a Board of Directors with a strong ministerial representation. The Board, chaired bv the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of the Prime Minister, includes representatives from nine other ministries, customs, DP, and DPCM. Users, such as ship operators, freight forwarders and prominent shippers, are also represented by six directors having the right to vote. The Board meets twice a year; between sessions, authority is delegated to the Management Committee, which meets once a month, and to the General Manager of ODEP who is appointed by MPW. The Management Committee is chaired by the Secretary General of MPW. It includes representatives of the Ministries of Finance, Interior, Merchant Marine, Commerce and Industry. Traffic 10. Total Moroccan import-export port traffic was about 34 million tons in 1984, at the time of appraisal. It reached over 39 million tons in 1992. Imports accounted for 21 million tons (54%) and exports for 18 million tons (46%). In addition, domestic coastal traffic (mainly petroleum products) reached 1.8 million tons, up by 31% from 1991, bringing the overall port throughput up to 40.8 million tons. This total traffic volume includes about 50% of solid bulk cargo, 31 % of liquid bulk products, and 19% of general cargo among which 4% are containerized. Four major ports handle 83% of the total port traffic. These are: Casablanca (39% of total traffic), Mohammedia (19%), Safi (12%), and Jorf-Lasfar (13%). C. Proiect Obiectives 11. The main objectives of the project were to improve operational performance of the country's major port. to integrate port activities into the country's efforts to promote exports, and to improve the management and financial viability of the major public enterprise in the sector. These objectives were to be reached through the carrying out of a program to: (i) rehabilitate the Port of  4 Casablanca and improve its administration and operations; (ii) maintain the breakwater of the Port of Mohammedia; and (iii) prepare a plan for the rational expansion of the infrastructure of the Guarantor's ports and improvement of the management and operations of such ports. D. Proiect Description 12. After negotiations, the project comprised the following components: Part 1: ODEP (a) Rehabilitation and upgrading of existing infrastructure of the Port of Casablanca, including paved areas. drainage, water and electrical systems, transit sheds, ship repair facilities, workshops, and roll-on/roll-off ramps; (b) Carrying out of a program to upgrade the ports maintenance capability of the Borrower, including the provision of workshop equipment for the Borrower's workshops in Casablanca; (c) Carrying out of a review of the Borrower's organization, operations, administrative and financial policies, and procedures in order to identify, evaluate, and implement appropriate measures to improve the Borrower's organizational structure, administrative and financial management, and technical operations; (d) Carrying out of a study of the structure of port tariffs in order to identify, evaluate and implement appropriate measures to improve the structure of such tariffs; and (e) Provision of fellowships and on-the-job training for the Borrower's engineering and other staff, and development and application of a suitable training system to improve the skills of the Borrower's port staff and labor force. Part B: DPCM (a) Dredging of the Port of Casablanca to increase the available depth in front of deep water berths and the port basin by about one meter; (b) Rehabilitation of the breakwater and of the control tower of the Port of Casablanca, and provision of communications equipment required for said control tower; (c) Carrying out of a program to maintain the breakwater of the Port of Mohammedia, including the provision of a heavy-lifting crane, concrete mixer, and transport equipment required thereof; (d) Carrying out of a review of procedures for the transit of goods through the Guarantor's ports and general port operations in order to identify, evaluate, and recommend appropriate measures to streamline such procedures and improve management of general port operations; and  5 (e) Provision of fellowships and on-the-job training for engineering and other staff of the Guarantor responsible for port operations. The project was expected to start formally on July 1986, and to be completed by December 31, 1991. E. Proiect Design and Organization Engineering Aspects 13. The scope and type of the proposed works were based on investigations and studies carried out by DPCM's engineers and revised and updated by the preappraisal and appraisal missions. Tender documents had been prepared by DPCM's engineers, and reviewed by the Bank to make them acceptable for ICB. Engineering consultants financed under the project prepared final engineering, and adapted the tender documents as required. Cost Estimate 14. The total cost of the project (Parts A and B) was estimated at US$41 million equivalent during appraisal, of which about US$22 million (54%) was the foreign exchange component. Part A was estimated to cost US$26 million equivalent of which some US$13 million in foreign currency, and Part B was estimated to cost US$15 million equivalent of which about US$9 million in foreign currency (Table 5.4: Total Project Costs). The actual final level and distribution of costs between the project components appear somewhat different from the SAR estimates, reflecting the steps taken in the course of the implementation to adapt the project to the evolving needs of the Borrower, as we will see hereafter in Chapter F. Proiect Organization 15. The project was divided according to the different administrative responsibilities in Part A (ODEP) and Part B (DPCM). However, the Loan Agreement asked for a single project management responsibility, which was eventually assumed by ODEP as the Borrower, and complemented by a Project Implementation Agreement dated January 23, 1986, between the Guarantor and the Borrower, by which the Borrower agreed to carry out Part B of the project for the account of the Guarantor. In this agreement ODEP and DPCM defined the sharing of administrative and technical tasks for the Part B of the project: the technical management of Part B remained with DPCM while administrative and financial management were to be carried out by ODEP together with its own Part A. On the financial side, this agreement also stated that the expenses borne by ODEP in implementing the Part B of the project, i.e. cost of the borrowing and local complementary funding, will be deducted from the annual fee payable by the Borrower to the Guarantor for the use of port assets in connection with its operations. This arrangement was designed to ensure the coordination of tasks between the two entities operating in the same port, when taking advantage of the managerial flexibility of ODEP as an autonomous enterprise. 16. ODEP agreed that contracts under the project would be awarded on the basis of ICB in accordance with Bank Guidelines, except for minor ancillary works and goods for sewer, electricity, control tower, and shed repairs and replacements which would be awarded on the basis of LCB. These arrangements have been consistently respected throughout the project implementation.  6 17. Loan covenants covered the usual requirements related to orderly project execution, as well as the requirements to submit to the Bank annual audit reports on project accounts nine months after the end of each fiscal year. These covenants were to a large extent satisfactorily complied with (Table 7: Status of Covenants). F. Proiect Implementation 18. The loan became effective on December 30, 1986, the original implementation timetable providing for the loan to be closed on June 30, 1991 and for the project itself to be completed by December 31, 1991. As a consequence of a somewhat slow procurement process in the early stages of the project, of the technical adjustments brought to the project scope during implementation , and of the supplementary investigation required by the rehabilitation component, the loan closing date had to be extended twice and was finally set on June 30, 1993 (Table 2: Project Timetable). Part A Rehabilitation Works 19. The rehabilitation of existing port infrastructure in Casablanca, which included: paved areas: drainage, water and electrical systems; transit sheds; and ro-ro ramps were fully carried out according to the project's original design. Due to the actual urgency of this task, ODEP in fact undertook the paving works even before the loan became effective and finally financed it on its own resources, therefore making possible to add some complementary operations at a later stage (paras.27/29). 20. The modernization of ODEP workshops was finally abandoned due to the change in ODEP's maintenance policy. ODEP actually shifted from the previous policy of full in-house maintenance to a scheme in which most of the maintenance is contracted out to private service providers. This appears in fact fullv in line with the policy now advocated by the Bank as far as port equipment maintenance is concerned, and the results of it in this very case demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of this way of doing. 21. The works pertaining to the rehabilitation of the ship repair facilities were finally cancelled after a first technical design study has been carried out, due to the fact that the potential market conditions were significantly altered in the meantime when the Navy brought in the port of Casablanca a floating dock to take care of its own ships. The economic rationale of the original project, clearly established at the outset, was then threatened, all the more than the cost estimate of the rehabilitation program exceeded by far the first cost assumptions. A new market survey was therefore judged necessary before launching any significant upgrading program, and the corresponding study was put to tender and awarded in the spring of 1993. However, since the study timetable did not comply any longer with the loan time frame, ODEP decided to finance it from its own resources. Technical Assistance and Studies 22. Tender documents were prepared with the assistance of foreign and Moroccan consultants. Specific technical assistance programs were carried out in the fields of port operations and maintenance, including containers handling and storage, according to the project description. Specific interest was paid to reducing the dwelling time of goods on the port area, in relation with discussions with Customs in order to reach an agreement on streamlined clearances procedures. Some significant improvements were actually achieved, but the negotiations with Customs are still a long way to go before coming close to developed countries standards in terms of smoothness and efficiency. As a matter of fact,  7 this very issue is still being addressed in the Port Sector Project now underway, which provided for specific actions in trade facilitation and improvement of administrative procedures. Generally speaking, the technical assistance worked in close cooperation with ODEP executives and found a very efficient understanding with its Moroccan counterparts. 23. The development of the SIPOR port computerized information system has been undertaken by ODEP with the assistance of a Moroccan consultant. The works began in December 1987 and the commissioning of the different operating softwares took place between January and September 1993. 24. The study on the reorganization of ODEP's administration and of the financial management procedures has been carried out between October 1985 and May 1988. It laid out the principles and organization schemes ODEP followed in implementing its revised operational and management pattern, which is in force since then. 25. The study of the new ODEP tariff structure has been carried out between February 1984 and December 1988. thus exceeding by far the original 11-months time frame. This has been the consequence of numerous additional analysis carried out by ODEP and the Consultants at a time when ODEP has just been established and was willing to draw a comprehensive picture of its tariff framework in order to set up a clearly cost-related tariff policy. The study actually met its objectives and provided ODEP with an in-depth analysis of costs and revenue centers, together with a computerized tool to translate the financial and commercial policy targets into the corresponding tariff schedule. This formed the basis of the new tariff policy now implemented by ODEP since 1988. Training 26. The training of ODEP's staff has been carried out under the project partly through local implementation of the UNCTAD TRAINMAR program, partly through periods abroad for engineers and managers, and partly through on-the-job training for skilled and semi-skilled labor carried out by the technical assistance experts. Additional Project Components 27. A berth in Casablanca fishing port was found in need of urgent repair and has been rehabilitated between December 1987 and September 1988 using some of the loan proceeds made available due to ODEP own financing of the paving of operating areas. 28. During the preparatory works undertaken to define the following Port Sector Project now underway, the need to set up a dedicated access to the new planned container terminal was acknowledged. It was therefore agreed to use some of loan proceeds to finance the building of an access bridge at the location of the present Gate 4 of the Casablanca Port. Later on, since some more funds were made available when the shipyard rehabilitation works were cancelled, it was agreed to use them for financing the complementary access roads to the bridge. These works were carried out between January 1991 and September 1993. 29. Finally, it was agreed to use the last available funds to help finance the fitting out of the Casablanca Port Training Center and the related training equipment. This operation complemented in fact quite well the training efforts already financed under the project (para.26).  8 Part B Rehabilitation Works 30. The dredging of the Casablanca port basins to achieve originally available depth, and the removal of ship wrecks, have been carried out between February 1989 and May 1990 according to the project design. 31. The control tower of the port of Casablanca has been rehabilitated and fitted out between November 1989 and December 1991. Two successive contracts were required since the first selected contractor went bankrupted during the works and left them uncompleted. Equipment 32. The handling equipment required for the maintenance of the Mohammedia breakwater, including cranes and transport means for concrete blocks, has been procured in separate packages between 1987 and 1991. Among the supplies, two tractors finally had to be rejected because they repeatedly failed to meet the technical requirements asked for in the tender documents. Since this final decision occurred late during the last project year, it has not been possible to initiate a complementary purchase to replace them. 33. The Casablanca control tower has been equipped through the implementation of a vessel traffic system (VTS) enabling the harbor master's office to manage the port maritime traffic with an increased safety. The corresponding phone network and related equipment has been supplied simultaneously. Technical Assistance and Studies 34. An expert in general cargo and containers operations worked in Casablanca from September 1986 to August 1988 and provided a technical assistance in the field of ship calls management, handling operations, and administrative streamlining. Specific technical assistance was also provided by a foreign port to follow-up on the implementation of the new VTS system in the Casablanca control tower. 35. Studies on the strengthening of the quaywall of Casablanca Moulay Youssef breakwater were carried out and tender documents prepared. The corresponding works are now being carried out with financing provided under the ongoing Port Sector Project. 36. The study of the strengthening of the Moulay Youssef breakwater itself has been carried out between September 1992 and September 1993. Stability tests of the proposed new breakwater profile in a swell race were carried out in a Moroccan laboratory to optimize the technical solution. The strengthening works themselves are possibly to be financed under the ongoing Port Sector Project. Training 37. Engineers and executives from the DPCM followed the training actions referred to in para.26 above, which were managed by ODEP for both entities' staff. Additional Project Components  9 38. The Operations Division of the DPCM was computerized through the supply of three personal computers and benefitted from the related technical assistance and training from the supplier. 39. Due to the maintenance requirements of the Mohammedia breakwater, it was agreed to finance under the project a first maintenance contract for the making and laying of concrete blocks to strengthen the breakwater's armor. G. Maior Proiect Results Achievement of Proiect Objectives 40. The project has been very conducive in helping ODEP and DPCM to achieve major improvements in port operations and management, through the implementation of the rehabilitation works, the different studies, the technical assistance and the training provided. The results achieved in terms of increased productivity contributed to reduce the unit costs of the port transit operations, while the new organizational and financial framework allowed the port managers to answer in a more relevant way the users' needs without jeopardizing the port's financial balance. This in turn helped to integrate the port activities into the country's efforts to promote exports. Achievement of Physical Targets 41. The rehabilitation works were all completed according to the project design, and some additional works were made possible due to the rescheduling of some operations. These works enabled the ports of Casablanca-Mohammedia to improve significantly the handling and storage conditions of the goods shipped through the ports, thus reducing losses and increasing the overall efficiency of transit operations. The strengthening and maintenance works carried out on the breakwaters and the dredging of the port basins allowed the ports to keep on operating without any disruption, which could have proved unlikely, should these works not have been done on time. All the pieces of equipment were delivered according to the project schedule, except two tractors for the DPCM which had to be returned to the supplier for insufficient performance. Institution Building 42. The project studies contributed to lay down some major elements of the port management framework. The tariff study provided a detailed analysis of the port operating costs, along with a fully new tariff structure and a working pattern to elaborate the subsequent updates. The ODEP organization study set up a management and operating structure which was later implemented and led to the present operating scheme. Both actions took part in the increase of operational and financial effectiveness of ODEP as an autonomous enterprise. 43. The technical assistance aimed at helping ODEP and DPCM to implement more efficient operating practices in traffic management, including monitoring of ship calls, cargo handling techniques and the relationships with customs in order to facilitate the traffic flows through the port system. A specific operation has been added to the project scope during implementation to assist ODEP in designing and implementing a computerized port management information system. These actions can clearly take credit for part of the results achieved during the project period in terms of port productivity, as epitomized by the outstanding increase in cargo handling productivity--25% on average over the period--and the significant decrease in the dwelling time of containers in the port area--minus 40% on average.  10 Project Costs 44. The final cost of the project exceeds by 18% the original SAR estimate, including contingencies (US$48.6 million versus US$41 million). The difference is unequally distributed between the Parts A and B, the Part A reaching US$36.6 million (41 % above SAR), whereas the Part B reaches only US$12 million (21 % below SAR). This is in fact the translation of the institutional trend noticed over the period, making ODEP a prominent actor of the port development, while the DPCM becomes more confined in the infrastructure maintenance. It must be noted, however, that in terms of allocation of the loan proceeds. the Part B exceeded its initial allocation due to the high proportion of expenses in foreign currency, while the operations financed under the Part A showed a much higher proportion of expenses in local currency than originally foreseen. The overall cost overrun is in fact due to the operations carried out by ODEP with its own financing before the loan effectiveness, which made possible the addition of complementary components to the project schedule (Tables 5.1 to 5.4). Disbursements 45. Table 3 compares actual with projected disbursements. The main delay in disbursement is attributable to a slow start up during the first two years. Disbursement has been picking up in 1992 and 1993, but finally fell short of US$44,292 due to the late last procurement operations, which amounts to 0.2% of the total loan. This amount was cancelled on November 24, 1993 (Tables 3 and 4). Economic Reevaluation 46. The economic analysis carried out at appraisal was based on the assumption that the rehabilitation works will improve operating conditions in the Port of Casablanca, reducing damage to cargo and mobile handling equipment as a result of repair and upgrading of surfaces. Working conditions and traffic safety were to improve as the flow of cargo would be directed by adequate traffic marking and signalling, while loss of cargo and damage to equipment caused by flooding during the rainy season would be avoided with the new drainage system. Improvements of the water supply network were to help eliminate costly wastes and abuses. Adequate dredging of the port would eliminate the need to top-off the largest calling ships and save the corresponding additional costs. The benefits of regular maintenance of the breakwaters would save the cost of reconstructing them after major damages. 47. The project actually met its objectives since the port witnessed an increase of 25% in average in operations productivity over the period, a significant part of this result being linked to the project implementation. The project benefits can be easily assessed for the water supply component, the water consumption having been divided more than three times over the period. As far as the cargo damage is concerned, we can rely on the ODEP reports on yearly damage and losses statistics, which shows that the damage and loss rate has been falling steadily since 1988, down to a very low 0.02% of total cargo value in 1992. We can therefore assume that the assumptions made at appraisal about a possible decrease of 2% of losses and pilferage on the general cargo only have been confirmed. The breakwater maintenance will also avoid the cost of heavy reconstruction estimated according to the occurrence probability stated in the SAR. The project would have therefore yielded a global rate of return of 29%, to be compared to more than 30% estimated at appraisal (Table 8). Financial Performance 48. ODEP had been regularly audited since its creation in 1985. The first two audits were limited to identifying issues in the accounting systems and procedures. ODEP's management made up the  11 financial and management accounts on the basis of auditors' recommendations and had solved approximately all issues identified by end of year 1993. However, despite the ODEP's effort in improving its overall management and accounting procedures, the Auditors have a qualified opinion which is likely to be cleared in 1994. According to auditor's reports minor discrepancies persist in the accounting system, mainly those related to risk allowances linked to previous RACP's accounting, confirmation of debt and arrears from lenders and suppliers, and public domain fees evaluation. 49. Taking into account auditor's remarks the summarized financial statements show that: (i) ODEP's operation profitability and financial equilibrium are satisfactory; and (ii) ODEP meets its financial covenants stated in loan agreement as measured by working and operating ratios, debt service coverage ratio and rate of return ratio. ODEP's consolidated financial statements for the period of 1985-1991 are presented in Tables 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3. 50. Operating revenues consist of about 62% on port dues on goods and ships and of about 26% on wharfage and use of infrastructure. The two components increased respectively from 409 million DH in 1985 to 618 million DH in 1990 corresponding to an average of 7% increase per year and from 101 million DH to 266 million DH or 25% increase per year. During the period under review the overall revenues are 20% higher than appraisal estimates and increased by 12% per year reflecting a combination of tariff increases implemented in 1987 and 1991, and port traffic increases of about 2% per year. The operating expenses are 44% higher than appraisal estimates. Salaries, maintenance, and depreciations represent ODEP's major operating expenses. They increased from DH529 million in 1985 to DH926 million in 1991 or 10% per year, compared to revenues they represents about 90% of the total revenues. Therefore, the net operating income is lower than forecasted but still at a satisfactory level. 51. During fiscal years 1985 and 1991, ODEP has generated an added value from its operations of about 62% in 1985 and 65% in 1991 of its total revenues, and a net operating income of about 12% and 9% of total revenues respectively compared to appraisal estimates of 10% in 1985 and 25% in 1991. The financial statements show that ODEP has had better control over its working and operating expenses which increased only by 10% compared to 12% increases in revenues. Accordingly, ODEP's performance during the period was satisfactory but less efficient than expected, working and operating ratio were about 64% and 91 % respectively, compared to projected ratios of 56% and 75%. Its net operating income steadily improved from DH61 million in 1985 to DH90 million in 1991 with the exception of 1989 that shows a drop in tendency (DH76 million compared to 81 in 1988) where adjustment of RAPC and ODEP accounts was made. 52. Regarding financial performance ODEP represents a healthy enterprise. First, ODEP generates a gross internal funds of about DH37 million in 1985 and DH289 million in 1991, and a net cash flow of about DH69 million in 1985 and DH176 million in 1991, which covers in average more than 42% of its investment program, and 3.6 times its debt service over the review period. Both ratios are above loan agreement requirements fixed at about 40% and 1.5. Second, debt over equity and debt over debt and equity ratios are kept within an acceptable limit of about 42% by end of 1991. Finally, ODEP's rate of return on net fixed assets is about 11.5% based on historical value and about 7% based on revalued assets close to the loan agreement requirement of 7.5%. 53. The above ODEP's financial results take into account an annual payment to the Government of a concession fee which amounted to DH 40 Million in 1987 and DH 55 Million in 1993. This concession fee is defined based on the reevalued value of Government-owned assets (breakwaters), maintenance, depreciation of these assets, and maintenance dredging costs of the ports' accesses. All  12 other port assets (infrastructure and equipment) have been transferred to ODEP, which has been maintaining and renewing them with its own resources since 1987. 54. In conclusion, the actual and forecasted financial performance of ODEP are satisfactory. However, watchful monitoring will be carried out during the ongoing Port Sector Project to ensure that ODEP's overall financial performance remains sound and that the minor problems raised by its Auditors are solved. Environmental Impact 55. The project had no adverse environmental impact resulting from the rehabilitation works carried out. Furthermore, the improvement of the drainage system will have contributed to a better monitoring of the surface pollution in the port area. H. Proiect Sustainability 56. There is little doubt the project will continue to generate the economic benefits expected throughout the economic life of its physical components and very likely beyond. Actually the basic institutional studies carried out and the technical assistance provided laid down an operational framework which already proved appropriate in bringing about significant physical and financial productivity increases when implemented. The superstructure upgrading and rehabilitation works clearly contributed to the strengthening of the port performance, as acknowledged by many of the port customers, and the implementation during the project of an effective assets maintenance policy ensures this progress will be fostered in the future. Furthermore, the project achievements will be complemented and further secured during the implementation of the Port Sector Project now underway. This linkage of activities over time ensures the project initiatives will be carried forward and their beneficial effects consequently sustained. 1. Bank's Performance 57. The Bank's contribution to the project was substantial. Missions and staff inputs are summarized in Tables 11 (Missions) and 12 (Staff Inputs). Bank staff worked in close cooperation with the Borrower's teams to initially define the project size and contents, and to adapt the original version to the financial possibilities realistically assessed by the Borrower. Furthermore, it appears worth noting the active Bank involvement, during the project preparation period, in the administrative reorganization of the port sector and the creation of ODEP. By providing advice and working closely with the Government in this field, the Bank helped the country reach a good decision which translated into a significant improvement of the sector's efficiency. In the course of implementation, the Bank agreed to amend the project scope by withdrawing or adding components reflecting new technical and commercial evolution of the sector and provided advice on the best possible use of the loans proceeds made available by these changes. To ensure continuous progress over time, the Bank agreed to undertake the appraisal of the now ongoing Port Sector Project to expand and complement this first operation in the port sector, and carried it out in parallel with the supervision of the Casablanca/Mohammedia Port Project. As a consequence, the Port Sector Project loans became effective a few months ahead of the expected closing date of the first project, therefore ensuring a smooth continuation of the modernization efforts. 58. Due partly to the long period of time spent between project identification and loan effectiveness (four and a half years), the structure of the project components had to undergo some significant adaptation throughout the project implementation period, some components being deleted while new ones were endorsed. The project was identified in May 1982 and preappraised in March 1983 as the  13 first Bank Port Project in Morocco. As such, it was first designed to address altogether institutional management, existing operational shortcomings and physical development issues. But this ambitious project scope asked for a corresponding high level of financial involvement from the national Moroccan budget, at a time when austerity budgetary measures were to be implemented by the Government. As a result, lengthy discussions took place both within the Bank and between the Bank and the Government in order to define the adequate project scope given the financial constraints the Government had to cope with. This explains why the appraisal mission was deferred three times and only took place 20 months after the preappraisal, when agreement was finally reached on the postponement of the physical development component of the project--the building of the Casablanca container terminal--which was later included in the ongoing Port Sector Project. 59. A legal issue cropped up during the run-up to loan negotiations about the possibility of making two loans, one to the Government and one to ODEP. The Bank eventually preferred a single loan, leaving the Government decide who should be the Borrower. After having at first stated that the Government would be the single Borrower, the Moroccan delegation asked during negotiations the loan to be made to ODEP, the Government being the Guarantor. Finally, loan effectiveness took place seven months only after loan signature because of delays in Morocco in getting the required legal documentation ready. 60. Although the overall adaptation process during implementation clearly improved the project effectiveness, it would have been quite useful to propose to hold a formal project review in order to update the project schedule according to the actual circumstances in the field. This could have made the project supervision and administrative monitoring easier to carry out, and would have given a clear picture of the project renewed architecture, which is especially useful when the supervising staff changes during project implementation. Such changes did actually occur during the last two years of the project, but without significant detrimental effect on the project monitoring by the Bank. J. Borrower's Performance 61. The high level of involvement of the Borrower at every step of the project cycle, together with the true commitment of the implementation team towards the project's success, proved quite conducive to meet the project's initial objectives. The Borrower set up a specific unit to manage the project and follow-up the administrative relationships with the Bank, and appointed a Project Coordinator who carried out his task quite efficiently. Quarterly progress reports improved steadily throughout project implementation, reaching finally a very satisfactory standing, and were always presented on time. 62. The project adaptation was responsible for delay in project completion, for it entailed late procurement actions which in turn made time extension necessary. This delayed procurement, together with a somewhat lengthy local administrative process, resulted in disbursements lagging behind schedule along project implementation, and picking up in the last two years only. Under these circumstances, however, the project management by the Borrower was always thoroughly carried out and can take credit for the successful achievement of the final project schedule. 63. The administrative arrangement implemented for managing the two parts of the project under ODEP single monitoring, which worked fairly well during most of the project implementation, proved a limited efficiency when it had to deal with compliance problems involving suppliers for the Part B managed by ODEP on behalf of the DPCM. It may be questionable whether such a double-headed arrangement (one technical, one administrative) is actually suitable since it seems prone to complicate matters when any contractual difficulty occurs between a contractor/supplier and the executing agency.  14 64. The main lesson of this operation is the obvious impact of the Borrower's commitment, which existed from the outset, on the successful achievement of the program and on the quality and sustainability of the project outcome. The outstanding local leadership and competence, and the perfect meeting of minds between ODEP's general management and the overseeing Minister, further contributed to enhance the quality of project management and ownership. Despite the project's evolving schedule during implementation, and the related difficulties to be consequently overcome, the continuous involvement of the Borrower, from the top management to the field units, made possible an optimal allocation of the resources made available and finally ensured the best possible utilization of the loan's proceeds. K. Project Relationship 65. Relations between the Bank and the Moroccan authorities were extremely friendly and effective. The Borrower made determined efforts to observe the Bank procurement requirements and to seek Bank's advice on technical issues whenever they cropped up. In every occasion the Bank sought to respond to the Borrower's request as promptly and thoroughly as possible. L. Consultant Services 66. The quality of work provided by all consultants was generally good and on time, with limited exceptions which did not jeopardize the project effectiveness. This include design consultants, management consultants, and technical assistance experts. The management studies, tariffs and organization, proved quite valuable in laying out the principles that will have governed ODEP's management orientation during the enterprise's modernization phase. M. Proiect Documentation and Data 67. The SAR provided a useful framework for the Borrower and the supervision missions, and the Loan Agreement was quite adequate and appropriate for achieving project objectives in the key organizational and financial areas. The project files kept in ECA/MENA Information Center are adequate and complete. However, as mentioned earlier, an update report on the changes brought to the original project scope might have been a useful complement to the existing documentation. 68. Data for preparation of the PCR were generally available, and ODEP provided a comprehensive Completion Report to be found under the Part II of the present document.  15 KINGDOM OF MOROCCO PORTS OF CASABLANCA AND MOHAMMEDIA PROJECT (Loan 2657-MOR) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PART II: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE SUMMARY I. EVALUATION OF BANK ACTIONS DURING PROJECT PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION, NOTABLY THOSE CONCERNING LESSONS FOR FUTURE APPLICATION 1.1 Bank actions prior to the signing date of the loan agreement: 1. 1. 1. Loan effectiveness date 1.1.2. Assessment of the conditions of loan negotiations set by the Bank 1. 1.3. Assessment of negotiations 1.2 Bank actions during project implementation 1.2.2. Assessment of disbursement methods 1.2.3. Assessment of a closing date for the completion of the Project II. EVALUATION OF ODEP'S ACTIONS DURING THE PROJECT PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 Establishment of a project monitoring unit 2.2 Establishment of guidelines for loan administration 2.3 ODEP's participation in various activities of the National Commission for the Facilitation of International Trade Procedures 2.4 Actions taken by ODEP to carry out the main project components financed under the loan: 2.4.1 Studies  16 Tariffs Organization Port Computerized Information System (SIPOR) 2.4.2 Assistance in workshop management and equipment maintenance, and in financial management, internal auditing, and budgetary control 2.4.3 Training - TRAINMAR Project - Overseas Training 2.4.4. Civil Works - Network rehabilitation - Construction of two ro-ro ramps - Complete renovation and modernization of warehouses - Construction of an access bridge to the port III. ASSESSMENT OF ODEP-WORLD BANK RELATIONS DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Assessment of Bank missions 3.2 Assessment of procurement procedures  17 ASSESSMENT OF ALL BANK ACTIONS DURING PROJECT PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION, NOTABLY THOSE CONCERNING LESSONS FOR FUTURE APPLICATION. 1.1 Bank actions prior to the signing date of the loan agreement: 1.1.1 Loan effectiveness date The loan became effective two years after the first project appraisal mission (December 1984). Meanwhile, ODEP launched several components originally financed by this loan: ODEP's organization and tariff studies. These components' expenditures were fully financed by ODEP, including the part eligible for financing under the loan, which placed a burden on ODEP's cash flow. This situation should be avoided in the future mainly by reducing the delay between the different steps up to loan effectiveness. 1.1.2 Assessment of the conditions for loan negotiation set by the Bank Among the conditions for loan negotiation for which considerable time was spent during negotiations was the concession fee that ODEP would be required to pay the State in exchange for using the port assets. In fact, this fee excluded deductions for the works executed by ODEP at the State's request. This calculation should be made using a coefficient that takes into account the volume of traffic reported in relation to the space efficiently used. 1. 1.3 Assessment of negotiations Negotiations took place in a pleasant, cooperative atmosphere. 1.2 Bank actions during the project implementation. 1.2.1 Assessment of disbursement modalities Based on finance charges incurred as a result of the opening of documentary credits (CREDOC), it is advisable for the Bank to accept the special commitment request without confirmation of the opening by the borrower's bank. The supplier's bank can confirm the CREDOC on the basis of IBRD's commitment to pay.  18 1.2.2 Assessment of the implementation schedule Since this project was the first for which ODEP requested Bank financing, the Bank could have recommended a feasibility study of the Casablanca and Mohammedia project with a view to confirming the list of subprojects to be completed. This step would have prevented the delay experienced. 11. EVALUATION OF ODEP'S ACTIONS DURING PROJECT PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION. 2.1 Establishment of a project monitoring unit A unit was set up to monitor the various phases of the Casablanca and Mohammedia project. Its tasks were to: - ensure that all procurement actions, such as tendering and bid evaluation, were in conformance with the Bank's guidelines, and draft progress and completion reports for projects financed by IBRD. 2.2 Establishment of guidelines for loan administration. To ensure the satisfactory management of all actions involved in the carrying out the project, some accounting guidelines were set up to allow for immediate retrieval of information on commitments for parts A and B of the project. 2.3 ODEP's participation in the various activities of the National Commission for Facilitation of International Trade Procedures (FITP). The National Commission for FITP was organized in 1985. It brings together entities engaged in international trade, including ODEP. ODEP's role within this Commission focusses on the review of port procedures and recommendations to simplify them. Due to the actions taken by ODEP to simplify port procedures, the dwelling time of the containers in the port was reduced from 21.5 days in 1988 to 15.5 days in 1991. A seminar on simplification of procedures for international trade was organized in April 1992 by ODEP for the various foreign and local operators. 2.4 Actions conducted by ODEP following the completion of the main projects financed by the loan:  19 5.4. 1 Studies a) Tariffs The completion of this study allowed: - a 5% tariff adjustment on all services in 1987; - the revision of port duties on ships in 1990 (structural change, level increase by 39%, foreign currency requirement for foreign shipowners); - the decrease in rates and ad-valorem tax for cargo handling in 1992; and - an improvement in port duty tariffication in 1992: all invoice statements calculated in ECUs for all shipowners (both Moroccan and foreign), the establishment of a minimum duty to be levied for the prevailing port traffic, and tariff adjustments on all services (5%). Following this study, some proposals were made: - a per unit tariff on handling and storing containers and TIR trucks, and removal of the ad-valorem tax; - restructuring of port duties on ships (cubic meter instead of the ship's capacity, and introduction of duties according to type of ship); and - progressive elimination of the ad-valorem tax for other traffic, as this kind of user tax is difficult to justify. Besides its accomplishments, this tariff study proved to be a rewarding experience for ODEP, as well as for its new organization, i.e., the establishment of Autonomous Production Centers (CPAs). From the outset, the simulation model of the tariff study provided a useful tool for distributing the costs of the various services and apportioning costs and revenues during the implementation period. b) Organization The study launched in 1985 was part of ODEP's plans to present a better image of the ports to its partners. The restructuring of ODEP was accomplished jointly with an international consulting firm and the active participation of the entire staff. This reorganization led to the setup of two tiers  20 management. - a general management responsible for defining the strategic framework; and - entities responsible for action monitoring and for meeting operational objectives (CPAs). To ensure the survival of its new organization, ODEP placed considerable importance on the development of its human resources by: - adopting new personnel management rules with productivity incentives; - implementing a human resource policy based on motivation, responsibility, and the rejuvenation of executive staff; and - formulating an ambitious training policy. In concert with these actions, ODEP launched a set of actions aimed at transforming itself into modern, viable enterprise; to wit: - the drafting of an enterprise's charter; and - the reinforcement of management structures and tools. c) SIPOR The completion of a Port Information System (SIPOR) resulted in the following procedural enhancements: 1. The decentralization of all administrative and documentation operations (included invoicing) towards Autonomous Production Centers, permitting the creation of a "client space" specialized in documentation services independent of the physical delivery of goods. This speeds up operations by closing the gap between the client and the operational centers. 2. The widespread use of the Guarantee System to cover port operations, which allows to pull cost recovery operations out of the critical path of port operations. The management information system will show an adequate amount to be deposited by bringing it near the level of each ODEP's monthly client invoicing amount. Tariff simplification should permit the development of an automated recovery system with all local banks.  21 3. The development of a service to provide users with information on port procedures, ship calls, and the status of their goods. 4. The issue of an acknowledgement stamp prior to the importer's obtaining a delivery slip should significantly reduce the transit time of the goods in the port. Aware that a management information system is only as sound as its environment, since SIPOR completion, ODEP consulted with port operators in order to integrate their informational needs. This defined a means of interface in external data collection and in the provision of services that would benefit all port operators. These external interfaces cover three areas: 1) ship calls management 2) import procedures 3) export procedures 2.4.2 Assistance Based on the diagnostic study of the workshops' initial conditions and their organization, experts proposed several scenarios to improve the maintenance function at ODEP. In light of these proposals, ODEP has developed an action plan to: - set up a new maintenance operation organization through the establishment of an equipment unit within ODEP; - set up a filing system to support maintenance supervision; and - equip the workshops. 2.4.3 Training a) TRAINMAR Project To strengthen the port modernization effort, ODEP created a permanent Port Training Center (CFP). Built with UNDP assistance, CFP is affiliated with TRAINMAR network. This center is endowed with qualified personnel and state-of-the-art training equipment. CFP serves as a clearinghouse and keeps port staff abreast of all the changes taking place in the sector through seminars, one-day workshops, and other actions on various subjects related to  22 port operations (seminar on containerization, port security, user fees, improvement in cargo handling techniques, port information). Besides these actions, CFP has trained the Algerian and Mauritanian port personnel within the framework of inter-Maghreb cooperation. In tandem with these actions, ODEP staff (engineers, managers, and supervisors) has benefitted from local and overseas study tours. 2.4.4 Works a) Water supplv network rehabilitation Prior to ODEP's takeover, the situation of the prevailing networks could be summarized in the following fashion: 1) Lack of an specialized entity responsible for management of the water supply network. 2) Lack of rigorous monitoring of water consumption as a way to prevent leaks. 3) Full depreciation of distribution pipes. 4) The number of regular hydrants and quay hydrants could not meet fire safety demands and ship water supply needs. To overcome these inadequacies, ODEP adopted a strategy to improve network management, i.e., leak detection and repair, in the port of Casablanca. The annual consumption of 2,450,000 m3 in 1985 to 700,000 m3 in 1992 can only be explained by the intensive rehabilitation efforts made for, inter alia, main pipes, secondary pipes, and quay hydrants. These efforts were directed to: 1) the creation of adequately staffed and equipped water supply services. 2) the launching of diagnostic studies on the network and the various problems causing their dysfunction. 3) the signing of maintenance contracts for the yearly maintenance of the network. 4) the establishment of a unit to monitor daily water consumption, record detected pipe leaks, and repair them immediately.  23 b) Construction of two ro-ro ramps The increase in traffic from 336,691 tons in 1986 to 684,598 tons in 1990, on the one hand, and the condition of the ro-ro ramps, on the other, brought on the following problems: - excessive ships' waiting time; - delay in exporting goods; and - frequent crashing against the docks due to inadequate installations to accommodate the new ro-ro vessels. The opening of two new ramps had a favorable impact on port operations by - increasing ro-ro traffic in terms of both ship arrivals and tonnage; - increasing capacity at berths to accommodate ro-ro traffic; - making it possible to accommodate larger ro-ro vessels; - satisfying the demands of maritirne agents and port operators; - increasing hourly output, enabling both import and export operations to be carried out simultaneously; - reducing ships' waiting time; - increasing the capacity to handle heavy cargo, up to 100 tons; - reducing the ramps' occupancy rate; and - enhancing the ramps' availability. c) Complete renovation and modernization of the warehouses: Prior to the completion of rehabilitation works, the general conditions of the warehouses showed considerable damage, which adversely affected operating conditions; to wit: - waterproofing of old covers; - lack of a rainwater removal system in the warehouses; - cargo structure damage due to rust;  24 - difficulty to manoeuver gates; - insufficient lighting; - office not adapted to the needs; - lack of security; These shortcomings prompted ODEP to take the following steps: - treatment of the metallic structure by sanding and painting; - cover repairs; - gutter repairs; - renovation of gates and replacement of rails; - lighting repairs; - office improvements; - installation of warning and fire safety systems; - post protection; and - masonry repairs. These actions have resulted in: - improved cargo handling; - improved store ventilation; - improved safety indicators and a lower accident rate; and - reinforced fire safety for persons and property. d) Construction of an access bridge to the port Within the policy framework of easing congestion entrusted to ODEP for the port of Casablanca, studies were made to ensure the steady flow of entry and exit traffic in the port area. The results of these studies enabled ODEP to build a bridge at the location of the present Gate 4 crossing over the railway lines and serving, at the same time, the new container terminal under construction. Traffic distribution through  25 gates and signposts (entry/exit) indicates that the opening of the access bridge brought about substantial changes in port traffic. This can be illustrated on the basis of the weekly traffic assessment of Gate 4: ENTRY EXIT (TU*) (TU) Before work completion 7,245 10,368 After work completion 12,507 21,392 Difference coming from 5,262 11,024 Gate 3 * TU = theoretical unit One truck = 3 TU One car =1 TU One motorcycle = 0.5 TU III. ASSESSMENT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE WORLD BANK AND ODEP DURING PROJECT PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION. 3.1 Assessment of Bank missions The various missions sent by the Bank during project implementation permitted ODEP's services to familiarize themselves with the various Bank's procedures. Also, during those missions, the Bank provided technical advice needed to carry out the various project components. Even though the Bank supervised the project supervision, the high turnover in Bank staff required sometimes additional periods of adjustment for the new staff assigned to the project. 3.2 Assessment of procurement procedures: Procurement procedures in force during project implementation caused some delays in contract execution. To illustrate this statement, we outline the procedure used: 1. Bidding documents 2. Forwarding to the Bank  26 3. Bank review ) ) 1 month 4. Revision of bidding documents ) 5. Return to the Bank ) ) 1 month 6. Agreement for consultation ) 7. Invitation to bid 8. Evaluation report 9. Forwarding of report to the Bank ) ) 1 month 10. Bank non-objection ) 11. Contract award 12. Contract forwarded to Bank ) ) 1 month 13. Bank agreement ) 14. Contract signature between the firm and ODEP 15. One copy of the contract forwarded to Bank To reduce this delay, it is proposed that the phase in which the corrected bid documents are returned to the Bank be eliminated, which would advance the invitation to bid from three months to two. As this was the first port project financed by the Bank, the Bank contributed significantly in familiarizing the various departments within ODEP with procurement procedures. Nevertheless, we noticed that the total delay for a contract to become effective was relatively long.  27 KINGDOM OF MOROCCO PORT OF CASABLANCA AND MOHAMMEDIA PROJECT (Loan 2657-MOR) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PART III: STATISTICAL INFORMATION  28 TABLE I RELATED IDA CREDITS AND BANK LOANS LOAN NUMBER | FY OF AND TITLE | PURPOSE |_APPROVAL |_STATUS Loans 3283/3284-MOR Improvement of the operational efficiency of 91 ongoing Port Sector Project the port sector through construction of a container terminal at Casablanca, of a coal terminal at Jorf-Lasfar, of new roll-onJroll- off facilities at Tangiers, and carrying out of a rehabilitation and maintenance dredging program; promotion of policies and institutional measures for improving the planning and coordination of the port operations through technical assistance, studies and training.  29 TABLE 2 PROJECT TIMETABLE ITEM | PLANNED REVISED [ ACTUAL Identification 05/82 Preparation Beginning 12/82 Preappraisal Mission 03/20/83 Appraisal Mission 09/83 04/84 12/10/84 08/84 12/84 Loan Negotiations 09/09/85 10/15/85 10/15/85 Board Approval 12/85 01/28/86 02/25/86 02/25/86 Loan Signature 05/09/86 05/09/86 Loan Effectiveness 08/09/86 11/10/86 12/30/86 01/12/87 Loan Closing 06/30/91 06/30/92 06/30/93 06/30/93 Project Completion 12/31/91 10/31/93 Comments on Proiect Timetable 1. The project was identified in May 1982 and preappraised in March 1983 as the first Bank Port Project in Morocco. As such, it was first designed to address altogether institutional management, existing operational shortcomings and physical development issues. But this ambitious project scope asked for a corresponding high level of financial involvement from the national Moroccan budget, at a time when austerity budgetary measures were to be implemented by the Government. As a result, lengthy discussions took place both within the Bank and between the Bank and the Government in order to define the adequate project scope given the financial constraints the Government had to cope with. This explains why the appraisal mission was deferred three times and only took place 20 months after the preappraisal, when agreement was finally reached on the postponement of the physical development component of the project--the building of the Casablanca container terminal--which was later included in the ongoing Port Sector Project.  30 2. A legal issue cropped up during the run-up to loan negotiations about the possibility of making two loans, one to the Government and one to ODEP. The Bank eventually preferred a single loan, leaving the Government decide who should be the Borrower. After having at first stated that the Government would be the single Borrower, the Moroccan delegation asked during negotiations the loan to be made to ODEP, the Government being the Guarantor. In addition to this arrangement. an agreement between ODEP and the Government had then to be concluded in order to define how ODEP would handle the DPCM part of the project on behalf of the Government (see Evaluation Summary, para. 2). 3. Loan effectiveness took place seven months only after loan signature because of delays in Morocco in getting the required legal documentation ready. 4. The closing date had to be extended twice as a consequence of a slow procurement process and because some rehabilitation works required supplementary investigation prior to finalization of bidding documents.  TABLE 3 CUMULATIVE LOAN DISBURSEMENTS ($US Million Equivalent) FY 1986 J 1987 1988 1989 1990 | 1991 [ 1992 J 1993 1994 SAR Estimate 1.42 6.24 11.57 17.00 20.50 22.00 Profile 2.20 6.60 11.00 15.40 18.04 20.68 21.56 22.00 Actual 0.65 1.92 6.93 8.79 12.23 17.01 20.42 21.96 Actual as % of 29 29 58 57 65 82 93 99.8 Profile Date of Final Disbursement: 11/24/93  32 TABLE 4 PORT PROJECT (MYCPA069) Disbursement Information (U.S.$ millions) FISCAL ACTUAL AMOUNT PROFILE AMOUNT | ORIGINAL AMOUNT REVISED AMOUNT YEAR CUMULATIVE CUMILATIVE | CUMULATIVE | CUMULATIVE 1986 Sept, 1985 Dec, 1985 .10 Mar, 1986 1.00 Jun, 1986 1.42 1987 Sept, 1986 .27 3.36 Dec, 1986 .55 4.09 Mar, 1987 .65 1.38 5.19 .33 Jun, 1987 .65 2.20 6.24 .65 1988 Sep, 1987 .97 3.08 7.89 .83 Dec, 1987 1.03 3.96 9.10 1.03 Mar, 1988 1.26 5.28 10.11 1.48 Jun, 1988 1.92 6.60 11.57 1.92 1989 Sep, 1988 5.94 7.48 13.92 4.17 Dec, 1988 6.42 8.36 15.10 6.42 Mar, 1989 6.87 9.68 16.07 6.66 Jun, 1989 6.93 11.00 17.00 6.93 1990 Sep, 1989 7.54 12.32 17.92 7.23 Dec, 1989 7.56 13.64 18.82 7.56 Mar, 1990 8.33 14.52 19.67 8.16 Jun, 1990 8.79 15.40 20.50 8.79  33 PORT PROJECT (MYCPA069) Disbursement Information (Cont.) (U.S.$ millions) FISCAL ACTUAL AMOUNT PROFILE AMOUNT ORIGINAL AMOUNT REVISED AMOUNT YEAR CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE 1991 Sep, 1990 8.79 15.84 21.14 9.51 Dec, 1990 10.24 16.28 21.62 10.24 Mar, 1991 10.28 17.16 21.87 11.23 Jun, 1991 12.23 18.04 22.00 12.23 1992 Sep, 1991 13.09 18.92 13.55 Dec, 1991 14.86 19.80 14.86 Mar, 1992 15.69 20.24 15.94 Jun, 1992 17.01 20.68 17.01 1993 Sep, 1992 18.61 20.90 18.61 Dec, 1992 19.70 21.12 19.70 Mar, 1993 19.85 21.34 19.85 Jun, 1993 20.42 21.56 20.42 1994 Sep, 1993 20.97 21.78 20.84 Dec, 1993 21.96 22.00 22.00 Mar, 1994 Jun, 1994 1 1 1 1 _ __ _ Note: (LOA Data as of 12/30/93 - MIS Data as of 02/03/94)  TABLE 5.1 PROJECT COSTS (SUS Million Equivalent) Part A: ODEP SAR ESTE14ATES | ACTUiAL VARIATION ITEMS LOCAL FOREIGN TOTAL LoCAL FOREIGN TOTA%L I A. Rehabilitation 1. Paving and Drainage 2.52 2.42 4 94 8 20 8 20 66 2. Water Supply System 0 98 0.95 1.93 0.43 A043 -77 3. Transit Sheds 0.78 0 75 1.53 8 22 - 8 22 437 4. Electrical System 0.68 0.66 1.34 7 11 0.28 7.39 451 5. Ship Repair Facilities 1.23 1.17 2.40 - - - -100 6. Ro-Ro Ramps 1.14 1.10 2,24 2 82 2.82 26 7. ODEP Workshops 0 49 0 47 0 96 -100 Sub-total A 7.82 7.52 15.34 26.78 0,28 27 06 76.40 B. Equipment -100 8. ODEP Workshops 0.40 0.55 0.95 Sub-total B 0 40 0.55 0.95 -100 C. Technical Assistance 9. Project Preparation and Supervision 0.13 0.32 0 45 0.16 0.31 0.47 4 10. Studies 0.25 0.60 0.85 1 73 0.98 2.71 218 11. Training 0 12 0.28 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.72 80 12. Experts 0 29 0 67 0.96 0 14 0.36 0 50 -48 Sub-total C 0.79 1 87 2.66 2 40 200 4 40 65.41 Total Base Cost 13. Physical Contingencies 9.01 9.94 18.95 29 18 2.28 31.46 14. Price Contingencies 1.29 1 37 2 66 - - - 2.26 1.97 4 23 - Added Components - - 5 14 5 14 TOTAL PROJECT COsT PART A 12.56 13.28 25.84 34.32 2.28 36.60 41.64  TABLE 5.2 PROJECT COSTS ($US Million Equivalent) Part B: DPCM SAR ESTIMATES ACTUAL VARIATION ITEMS LOCAL FOREIGN TOTAL LOCAL FOREIGN TOTAL % A. Rehabilitation 1. Dredging 1.12 1.54 2.66 1.63 - 1.63 2. Casablanca Breakwater 1.07 1.49 2.56 0.23 0.29 0.52 3. Control Tower 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.39 0.97 1.36 Sub-total A 2.25 3.10 5.35 2.25 1.26 3.51 -34.39 B. Equipment 4. Mohammedia Breakwater 2.31 3.19 5.50 0.20 6.54 6.74 22.55 Sub-total B 2.31 3.19 5.50 0.20 6.54 6.74 22.55 C. Technical Assistance 23.08 5. Project Preparation and Supervision 0.08 0.20 0.28 0.07 0.09 0.16 6. Training 0.04 0.09 0.13 - - - Sub-total C 0.12 0.29 0.41 0.07 0.09 0.16 -60.98 Total Base Cost 4.68 6.58 11.26 2.52 7.89 10.41 308.24 7. Physical Contingencies 0.58 0.81 1.39 - - - 8. Price Contingencies 1.21 1.34 2.55 - Added Components - - - 1.61 - 1.61 TOTAL PROJECTS COSTS PART B 6.47 8.73 15.20 4.13 7.89 12.02 -20.92  36 TABLE 5.3 DETAILED COSTS OF ADDED COMPONENTS ($US Million Equivalent) COSTS ITEMS LOCAL FOREIGN TOTAL Part A 1. Quaywall Rehabilitation in Casablanca Fishing Port. 0.46 - 0.46 2. Access Bridge to Gate 4 in Casablanca Port. 3.36 - 3.36 3. Road Access to Gate 4. 0.35 - 0.35 4. Port Training Center. 0.97 - 0.97 Total Part A 5.14 - 5.14 Part B 3. Computerization of the Operations Division in Casablanca Port. 0.03 - 0.03 4. Making and Laying of Blocks for the Mohammedia Breakwater. 1.58 - 1.58 Total Part B 1.61 - 1.61 TorAL ADDED COMPONENTs 6.75 6.75  TABLE 5.4 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ($US Million Equivalent) SAR ESTIMATES ACTUAL VARIATION _ LOCAL | FOREIGN J TOTAL LOCAL [ FOREIGN | TOTAL %_ _ Part A 12.56 13.28 25.84 34.32 2.28 36.60 41.64 Part B 6.47 8.73 15.20 4.13 7.89 12.02 -20.92 TOTAL PROJECT COStS 19.03 22.01 41.04 38.45 10.17 48.62 18.47  TABLE 6.1 PROJECT FLNANCING (SUS Million Equivalent) Part A: ODEP SAR ESTIMATES ACTUAL ITEMS % OF BANK I % OF BANK TOTAI BANR BoRROwER | SlukRE TOTAL | BANKT BORROWFER | SHARE A. Rehabilitation - ~~8,20 0 I. Pavi0g and Drainage. 4.94 2 42 2 52 49 8.20 0 21 0.22 48.8 2. Water Supply System. 1 93 0.95 0.98 49 0.43 3 96 4.26 48 2 3. Transit Sheds. 1 53 0.75 0.78 49 8.22 - 7 39 4. Electrical Systent 1.34 0.66 0 68 49 7.39 - 48.9 5 Ship Rcpair Facilitics 2 40 1 17 1.23 49 - 1 38 1 44 - 6. Ro-Ro Ramips. 2.24 1 10 1.14 49 282 - 7. ODEP Workshops 0.96 0.47 0.49 49 Sub-iotal A 15 34 7 52 7 82 49 27 06 5.55 21 51 20 5 LI) B. Equipment 0C 0.95 0.52 0.43 55 - - 8. ODEP Workshops. Sub-total B 0.95 0 52 (1 43 55 - - C. Technical Assistance 9. Project Preparation and Supervision. 0 45 (1 32 0.13 70 0.47 0 37 0.10 78.7 10. Studies. 0.85 0 60 0.25 70 2.71 2.14 0 57 79 0 11. Training. 0.40 0.28 0.12 70 0.82 0.82 - 100 12. Experts. 0.96 0.67 0.29 70 0.50 0.45 0.05 90 Sub-total C 2.66 1 87 0.79 70 4 50 3 78 0.72 84 Total Base Cost 18.95 9.91 9.04 52.3 31.56 9.33 22.23 29.6 Contingencies 6 89 3 43 3 46 - - _ Added Components - - - 5.14 2.42 2.72 47. TOTAL COSTS PART A 25.84 13.34 12.50 51.6 36.60 11.75 24.85 32.1  TABLE 6.2 PROJECT FINANCING ($US Million Equivalent) Part B: DPCM ACTUAL SAR ESTIMATES I % OF BANK | | % OF BANK ITEMS TOTAL BANK BORROWER SHARE TOTAL BANK BORROVVER SHARE A. Rehabilitation 1. Dredging. 2 66 1 54 1 12 58 1.63 0.94 0 69 58 0 2. Casablanca Breakwater. 2 56 149 1 07 58 0.52 0.41 0 11 78 8 3. Control Tower. 013 0 07 0.06 58 1 36 1 20 016 88.2 Sub-total A 5 35 3.10 2.25 58 3.51 2 55 0.96 72.6 B. Equipment 4. Mohammedia Breakwater. 5.50 3 02 2.48 55 6.74 6.57 0 17 97.5 Sub-total B 5 50 3.02 2.48 55 6.74 6 57 0.17 97.5 C. Technical Assistance 5. Project Preparation and Supervision. 0.28 0.20 0.08 70 0.16 0.14 0.02 6. Training. 0.13 0.09 0.04 70 - 87.5 Sub-total C 0.41 0 29 0.12 70 016 0.14 0 02 87.5 Total Base Cost 11.26 6.41 4.85 56 9 10 41 9.26 1.15 a8 9 Contingencies 3.94 2.25 1.69 Added Components - - 1 61 0.94 0.67 57.8 TOTAL COSTS PART B 15.20 8.66 6.54 57.0 12.02 10.20 1.82 84.8  TABLE 6.3 TOTAL PROJECT FINANCING ($US Million Equivalent) SAR ESTIMATES ACTUAL II I 1~~~~~~~~~% OFBANK JIj% OFBANK __ TOTAL BANK BORROWER SHARE TOTAL BANK BORROWER SHARE Part A 25.84 13.34 12.50 51.6 36.60 11.75 | 24.85 32.1 Part B 15.20 8.66 6.54 57.0 12.02 10.20 1.82 84.8 TOTAL PRojEcT CosTs 41.04 22.00 19.04 53.6 48.62 21.95 26.67 45.14  41 TABLE 7 STATUS OF COVENANTS DATE REQUIRED ACTION DUE | ACTION TAKEN 1. Yearly maintenance 12/31 each year Reports submitted. reports. 2. Study of incidence of delays in the transit of 10/31/1986 Main studies carried out and actions goods through ports and remedies to bring. taken to reduce dwelling time of goods. 3. The Borrower shall: - employ port operations specialist 07/01/1986 Specialist employed from 09/01/1986 to 08/31/1988. - employ internal audit specialist 10/01/1987 Specialist employed from 09/30/1988 to 01/15/1989. - employ financial management specialist 01/01/1987 Management study carried out between 10/1985 and 05/1988. - employ workshop specialist and container 04/01/1986 Missions carried out between 03/1987 terminal specialist and 02/1989. - employ MIS specialist 04/01/1986 Mission completed. 4. The Borrower shall: - prepare and furnish to the Bank a yearly 12/31 each year Carried out to a large extent in a detailed action plan satisfactory way. - carry out related proposed actions - review actions and furnish progress report 06/30 each year Carried out to a large extent in a to the Bank satisfactory way. 5. Audit report on Project Account and ODEP 9 months after the end Done. Financial Statements. of each FY  TABLE 8 ECONOMIC REEVALUATION ($lJS Million Equivalent) [ ~~~~~~~~~~~~AVOIDING GENERAL AVOIDING CARGO BREAKWATER AVOIDING DAMAGE AND TOTAI. INVESTMENT MAINTENANCE NET ANNUAL YEARS DAMAGE WATER LOsSES LOSSES ADVANTAGES COST S COSTS BENEFITS 1987 0.37 0.37 1.44 -1.07 1988 0.43 1 1.43 2.81 -1.38 1989 0.62 2 2.62 11.07 -8.45 1990 0.80 3 3.80 4,11 -0.31 1991 5 0.96 4 9.96 7.60 2.36 1992 10 1.30 5 16.30 10.56 5.74 1993 1.30 5 6.30 11.03 -4.73 1994 1.30 5 6.30 0.5 5.80 1995 1.30 5 6.30 0.5 5.80 1996 5 1.30 5 11.30 0.5 10.80 1997 10 1.30 5 16.30 0.5 15.80 1998 1.30 5 6.30 0.5 5.80 1999 1.30 5 6.30 0.5 5.80 2000 1.30 5 6.30 0.5 5.80 2001 5 1.30 5 11.30 0.5 10.80 2002 10 1.30 5 16.30 0.5 15.80 2003 1.30 5 6.30 0.5 5.80 2004 1.30 5 6.30 0.5 5.80 2005 1.30 5 6.30 0.5 5.80 ERR 0.29  43 TABLE 9.1 ODEP INCOME STATEMENTS (in current DH million) 1985 ( 1986 ] 1987 1988 ] 1989 J 1990 ] 1991 Total Operating Revenues 590 684 772 916 957 920 1016 (413) (528) (602) (677) (763) (824) (910) Working Expenses 407 524 538 592 642 583 648 (285) (323) (353) (386) (422) (462) (506) Depreciations and Provisions 122 126 171 243 239 245 278 (85) (107) (129) (144) (156) (168) (181) Operating Income 61 34 63 81 76 92 90 (43) (98) (120) (147) (185) (194) (223) Interests 11 20 34 27 36 32 45 (28) (43) (55) (61) (61) (51) (40) Income before taxes 7 10 6 30 -16 24 42 (16) (72) (98) (140) (171) (187) (231) Income after taxes 3 2 1 19 -31 7 27 _ (9) (40) (55) (78) (96) (105) (129) l Note: Figures in brackets were forecasts.  44 TABLE 9.2 ODEP BALANCE SHEET FOR 1985-1991 (in current DH million) 1985 ] 1986 1987 ] 1988 1989 1990 [ 1991 New Fixed Assets 547 490 885 859 939 1143 1205 (957) (1261) (1644) (1854) (1983) (2103) (2228) Other Assets 120 260 320 471 621 525 710 (94) (119) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) Current Assets 480 480 361 449 447 330 358 (290) (257) (215) (194) (216) (236) (257) Cash 129 112 51 38 80 32 19 136 188 99 90 56 46 64 TOTAL ASSETS 1276 1342 1617 1817 2087 2029 2292 (1478) (1826) (1978) (2157) (2275) (2403) (2569) Equity 730 787 833 878 958 986 963 (850) (912) (1145) (1273) (1498) (1711) (1975) L.T.D. 144 94 293 382 413 439 702 (373) (571) (613) (699) (606) (491) (376) Current Liabilities 305 433 461 521 682 604 627 (254) (244) (221) (186) (191) (202) (218) Short term / L.T.D. 97 28 30 35 35 - - TOTAL EQuiTy & LIABILITY 1276 1342 1617 1817 2087 2029 2292 (1478) (1826) (1978) (2157) (2275) (2403) (2569) Note: Figures in brackets were forecasts.  45 TABLE 9.3 ODEP SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS FOR 1985-1991 (in current DH million) | 1985 1986 [ 1987 | 1988 1989 1990 J 1991 Total Internal Funds 115 136 189 231 187 237 293 (94) (148) (184) (221) (252) (273) (311) Working Capital (+/-) 78 -60 -149 23 -162 4 4 (-2) (-21) (-19) (14) (16) (7) (7) Debt Services -23 -57 -53 -56 -70 75 83 (27) (49) (84) (105) (131) (128) (127) Net Cash Generation 14 138 284 152 280 166 206 (69) (120) (120) (104) (105) (137) (176) Government Contribution 641 36 102 17 111 4 -63 (54) (35) (6) (-13) (-1) (4) (-3) Borrowings 240 0 161 119 72 69 301 (146) (257) (157) (225) (30) - Available Funds 896 175 547 287 462 239 443 (269) (412) (282) (316) (145) (160) (197) Capital Expenditures 767 192 608 311 420 287 456 (317) (360) (372) (326) (178) (170) (180) Cash Increase (dec.) 129 -17 -61 -24 42 48 -12 (48) (52) (-90) (-10) (-33) (-10) (17) Note: Figures in brackets were forecasts.  TABLE 10 PROJECT STUDIES |PURPOSE AS DEFINED AT STUDIES | APPRAISAL I STATUS IMPACT OF STUDY Part A Port Tariff To allow the Port to adjust its tariff Completed. Formed the basis of the tariff escalation structure to the actual costs of the policy implemented by ODEP since services provided. 1988. ODEP Organization To reorganize ODEP and streamline Completed. Laid out the principles and administrative procedures. organizational schemes followed by ODEP in its reorganization. Future Port Project To define the scope of a possible Completed. Contributed to the design of the ongoing future port project (not included in Port Sector Project. SAR). ___ Ship Repair Facilities To assess the rehabilitation needs of Will be completed with ODEP Will provide a market assessment and the Casablanca shipyard in the new financing beyond the project the design of the related new facilities to economic and operational context schedule. be set up. (not included in SAR). Part B Detailed Design for To establish the appropriate Completed. Provided the design implemented for the Rehabilitation of the Moulay technical solution for strengthening ongoing rehabilitation works under the Youssef Berth the berth. Port Sector Project. Rehabilitation of the Moulay To establish the reasons for the Completed. Provided the design for the rehabilitation Youssef Breakwater deterioration of the breakwater works to be carried out under the Port stability and design the adequate Sector Project. rehabilitation works. |~~~~ I I.  TABLE 11 MISSION DATA I I | SPECIALIZATION STATUS TREND PROBLENIS MONTH/ No OF DAYS IN REPRESENTED DATE OF YEAR STAFF FIELD (1) (2) (3) (4) REPORT Through Appraisal Identification 05/82 - 06/06/82 Preparation 12/82 1 4 EC - Preappraisal 03/83 4 12 EC,FA,EN,LO 04/28/83 02/84 1 EC 02/27/84 Appraisal 12/84 5 18 EC,FA,EN,PO,IT 01/09/85 Appraisal Through Board Approval Prep. Negotiations 1 05/85 2 2 EC,LO Prep. Negotiations 11 07/85 1 7 EC 08/05/85 Prep. Negotiations 111 09/85 3 5 EC,FA,FN - Negotiations Completion 11/85 2 3 LO,LA _ 11/19/85 Supervision Supervision 1 09/86 4 12 EC,FA,EN,IT I 1 12/08/86 Supervision 11 06/87 2 8 EC,EN I 1 07/23/87 Supervision III 01/88 2 10 FA,EN 1 1 02/17/88 Supervision IV 10/88 2 13 EC,EN 1 1 11/22/88 Supervision V 05/89 5 14 EC,FA,EN,IT,CE 1 1 06/17/89 (Supervision VI) (10/89) (Supervision VII) (0 1/90) (Supervision VJII) (03/90) 07/26/90 Supervision IX 03/91 1 7 EN 2 2 D Supervision X 10/91 1 12 EN 2 1 D 10/26/91 Supervision Xl 01/92 2 14 EN,FA 2 1 D 03/18/92 Supervision XII 06/92 1 11 EN 2 1 D 08/05/92 Supervision XIII 01/93 1 12 EN 1 1 03/05/93 Completion 06/93 1 12 EN 1 1 07/12/93  (1) EC = Economist, EN = Port Engineer, FA = Financial Analyst, PO = Port Operations Expert, LO = Loan Officer, LA = Legal Adviser, IT = Expert in International Trade, CE = Computerization Expert (2) 1 = Problem free or minor problems, 2 = Moderate problems, 3 = Major problems (3) 1 = Improving, 2 = Stationary, 3 = Deteriorating (4) D = Disbursement (Supervision VI to Vill): supervision missions carried out in parallel with identification, pre-appraisal and appraisal of the Port Sector Project. or-  49 TABLE 12 STAFF INPUTS (in person-weeks) [|_PREPARATION [ APPRAISAL _1NEGOTIATIONS SUPERVISION PCR TOTAL FY82 5.6 5.60 FY83 36.8 36.80 FY84 15.6 15.60 FY85 3.5 44.8 48.30 FY86 3.3 23.9 5.6 32.80 FY87 21.4 21.40 FY88 10.6 10.60 FY89 18.1 18.10 FY90 4.4 4.40 FY91 4.8 4.80 FY92 8.5 8.50 FY93 9.0 2.7 11.70 FY94 2.8 2.80 TOTAL 61.50 48.10 23.90 82.40 5.50 221.40   CASABLANCA PORT PROJECT Lonhrn^ Cno)en ov 1~~~~~~t 201 4'e35 u_w The boundaries. colors, Ioio~n D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Csblno den ominoton an ot CASABLANCA PORT PROJECT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--- OALROD The World Ban Grou. Ab i \ any jugmn 'onI t >he leal PROINC CAIT | * . V hP 3 K >' ly I t - j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-h. status ~~ ~ ~J of an terrce oumitory,t du oro aceptance of u,.h A A-d | mX t ~ t PORT PROJECT LEL ATION S denomsnohons ond ony Ail blelloul l S i<vi / edg _ S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ECONOMIC REGONA OUDAIE F-fl. L11-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ITPNTINA.BONDR 32 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~I2 oIher Informohon s on this moo do nof X~~~~~~~~~~~I.n .- imply~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 on 0 PORT PsROET o.....---- LOCALTROADS The boudrlfies, colroup -d 'O MAO RIROADS denominotions ond ay Alg l0- s _) SEODR_OD orany j~reniorsemeht lr,I T or any epndeofrsemen ,' J 5 NATIONAL CAPITAL bo.ndanres. ( 0 TOWNS AND CITIES _ > _ w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ELEVATION ABOVE 1 000 METERS < J y Guelmim o O ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ KILOM-MRS iNTERNATIONAL BOUNOARIES .28'/_~ INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY   MOROCCO CASABLANCA PORT PROJECT PORT LAYOUT Built-up Areos Future Extention -.-* Customs Fence II Railroadss - Port Buildings KILOMETERS i' Royal NaJvy Harbor \t D ~~~~~~MosteBrs Flootinqg , > Equipment - K \ - - - - - - ---- - - --o- - Got. lb~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. M-0.,4A t. r...Cp 'j00 No~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I, 4* y5~ w acndmb.. 'C