Algeria - Oil Pollution Management Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 20557 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (28607; 28650) ON A GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT TRUST FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 5.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT TO THE DEMOCRATIC AND POPULAR REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA FOR AN OIL POLLUTION MANAGEMENT PROJECT JUNE 12, 2000 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT GROUP MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 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. l  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective Jan 1, 2000) Currericy Unit = Algerian Dinar 7.5.60 DA = US$ 1.00 US$ 1.312 = 1.00 SDR FISCAL YEAR January 1, December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ALD Algerian Dinars CRCP Comite Regional Pour Coordination du Projet DP Direction des Ports (Algeria) GEF Global Environment Facility GET Global Environment Trust Fund IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships PPA Project Preparation Advance NCP National Contingency Plan RCP Regional Contingency Plan RVP Regional Vice President SDR Special Drawing Rights SSEPE Sous-Secretariat d'Etat chargd de la Protection de I'Environnement Vice President: Jean-Louis Sarbib Country Manager/Director: Christian Delvoie Sector Manager/Director: Jean-Claude Villiard Task Team Leader/Task Manager: Fathi Ben Slimane  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CONTENTS Page No. 1. Project Data 1 2. Principal Performance Ratings 1 3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 2 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4 5. Major Factors Affecting hnplementation and Outcome 5 6. Sustainability 7 7. Bank and Borrower Performance 7 8. Lessons Learned 8 9. Partner Conunents 9 10. Additional Information 9 Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 10 Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 11 Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 13 Annex 4. Bank Inputs 14 Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 15 Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 16 Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 17 Map IBRD 25219R This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not be otherwise disclosed without World Bank authorization.   Project ID: P004871 Project Name: MEDITERRANEAN POLLUTION CONTRO Team Leader: Fathi Ben-Slimane TL Unit: MNSID ICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: June 10, 2000 1. Project Data Name: MEDITERRANEAN POLLUTION CONTRO LIC/TF Number: 28607; 28650 CountryIDepartment: ALGERIA Region: Middle East and North Africa Region Sector/subsector: VP - Pollution Control / Waste Management KEY DATES Original Revised/Actual PCD: 04/15/93 Effective: 05/20/94 05/20/94 Appraisal: 08/10/93 MTR: 10/30/96 10/30/96 Approval: 04/06/94 Closing: 12/31/99 06/30/2000 Borrower/lImplementingAgency: REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA/DP: Arzew; Skikda; Bejaia T Other Partners: STAFF Current At Appraisal Vice President: Jean-Louis Sarbib Caio Koch Weser Country Manager: Christian Delvoie Daniel Richie Sector Manager: Jean-Claude Villiard Daniel Richie Team Leader at ICR: Fathi Ben-Slimane Fathi Ben-Slimane ICR Primary Author: Fathi Ben-Slimane 2. Principal Performance Ratings (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=Highly Unlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible) Outcome: S Sustainability: L Institutional Development Impact: M Bank Performance: S Borrower Performance: S QAG (if available) ICR Quality at Entry: Project at Risk at Any Time: No  3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 3.1 Original Objective: The primary objectives of the project were to reduce the quantity of petroleum hydrocarbons entering the international waters of the Mediterranean and to comply with MARPOL 73/78 Convention requirements. The project also achieved, among other objectives, development of a comprehensive and integrated system for the management of oil pollution caused by marine sources, thus ensuring commonality of approaches and methodologies, promoting exchange of information and coordination, enhancing monitoring capability among the countries in the region for preventing and combating oil pollution, and improving the quality of the marine envirorment. These objectives were successfully attained and deemed to be appropriate and in line with the govemment's international commitment to monitor compliance with international conventions related to marine pollution. They were clear and realistic with regard to national policies and regional agreements ( Union du Maghreb Arabe-UMA agreement). A major institutional outcome of the project has been development of a framework for a national and regional comprehensive approach to the management of oil pollution through enhancement of the capacity to assess and monitor oil pollution, enactment of national oil spill contingency planning and response capabilities NCP), drafting of regional contingency plan (RCP), and purchase of standardized equipment to combat pollution. Furthermore, the project also initiated a cost recovery system at port level through an adequate tariff structure, and at the national level through creation of an environmental fund and enactment of a law regarding fees and penalties and a polluter-pay rule. The project was designed to enhance the country's capacity to implement its environmental action plan, which aims, in particular, to fight oil pollution, protect the marine environment and beaches, and encourage the participation of the environmental agencies and others entities in efforts to protect the environment. In this regard, the preparation of the project called for great attention and commitment from the Govemment of Algeria (GOA) to identify the most appropriate and most representative institutions, such as the Direction des Porls (DP) in the Ministry of Transport, and three port enterprises (Arzew, Skikda, and Bejaia) to implement the project. DP represented the country in the regional common effort. No specific technical risk was identified during preparation, except the risk related to the govemment's willingness to maintain its cooperation with the other recipients, Tunisia and Morocco, to prepare and adopt the NCP and the cooperative agreement to enforce regulations that deal with marine pollution problems, and implement an adequate cost recovery system. This risk was mitigated by: (a) the commitment of the three govemments to follow up on the preparation study and implement study recommendations related to the above aspects, and the project components as defined in para. 3.3; (b) the national and regional benefits resulting from project implementation, especially the investments carried out for coastal and ports protection; (c) enactment of NCP, preparation of an advanced draft of a RCP, and agreement signed by the three port authorities on a joint cooperation for combating accidental oil spills; and (d) comprehensive project preparation and implementation carried out with the cooperation of local authorities through a regional committee for project implementation (CRCP). Furthermore, close Bank supervision has ensured maximum success of project implementation during the various stages of the project, and contributed to achieving its objectives. 3.2 Revised Objective: N.A. 3.3 Original Components: The project consisted of two main components: (a) national elements; and (b) regional elements. (a) National Elements. The national elements include the following: 1- Physical elements: -2 -  (i) construction or rehabilitation of sheds to store equipment for combating oil spills (floating booms, dispersant, skimmer heads, accessories, etc. (ii) provision of oil spill response and cleanup equipment and dispersant, and oil spill response training; (iii) improvement of the operational efficiency of the deballasting station located in the port of Arzew to receive and handle ballast waters and bilge waters, and provision of additional related laboratory equipment (four laboratories equipped) to monitor oil content in the sea water; 2- Institutional elements: (i) Oil spill National Contingency Plan; (ii) Monitoring and compliance: The regulatory mechanism included two elements: (a) monitoring capability; and (b) an environmental management framework. (b) Regional Elements. Preparation and implementation of a program designed to provide a multilateral framework within which the activities referred to in (a) are developed within a common approach: (i) Regional oil spill environmental sensitivity and contingency plans; and (ii) Training. The project was the first of its kind in the region. In that sense it was innovative in its design and conception. The physical as well as the institutional components of the project were designed in close consultation with the executing agency, and local and regional authorities. All components and activities were carried out satisfactorily, and were the key factors in strengthening the country's capacity to handle oil pollution. The project as such increased the environmental authority's awareness as to the threat of oil poilution, and is considered the most important vehicle for abiding by intemational regulations and enforcing their implementation. Physical components were successfully implemented, and included the construction of sheds and warehouses for storing equipment, and the purchase of oil spill response and cleanup equipment and dispersant. Training on operation of the equipment was also included in the purchase contract. Regarding the modernization of treatment facilities and recycling of oily residues, the rehabilitation, renovation, of the deballasting station in Arzew will ensure that treated ballast water meets MARPOL standards. The main institutional and policy element of the project was the development and implementation of an oil spill NCP. This plan incorporates the concept of risk assessment to identify and prioritize key actions to be taken at both the port and national levels. The monitoring element, including auditing of sea waters through sample analysis of oil content, was carried out through a selected national laboratory. A baseline of data and measuring locations essential to assessing the impact of the project on improving the quality of sea water was established in designated areas agreed upon with the Bank. Reports on the findings of the analysis have been produced intermittently. The chosen laboratory did not perform satisfactorily due to lack of and delays in purchasing equipment. The regional component included two major elements: the RCP and training. The RCP is intended to serve as a template to link the national plans of the three countries. Elements of the plans include appropriate responses to protect sensitive coastal resources, and potential for transport of spilled product to other local or foreign ports. These plans include linkage of equipment and manpower to regional needs, and identification of extemal sources of assistance. Part of this task has consisted of ensuring that equipment purchased under the project is the same in the three countries, and training courses and simulation exercises have been undertaken jointly. These have further promoted the concept of a regional approach for spill response. A joint cooperative agreement was signed among the ports of Algiers, Arzew, Bejaia and Skikda (Algeria), "Office d'Exploitation des Ports" (ODEP -Morocco), and - 3 -  "Office de la Marine Marchande et des Ports" (OMMP - Tunisia), defining the conditions and procedures for using all available equipment and personnel to combat accidental oil spills. The cooperative agreement identifies responsibilities in case of accidental oil spills regarding exchange of information, mobilizing of equipment, actions by each party, etc. Training has been provided for those who are responsible for combating oil spills, and for control of navigation traffic, deballasting stations, and oil terminals. Three main groups participated in the program: Level I included management personnel of port enterprises, supervising officers managing the civil protection function, and those responsible for coordinating the intervention in case of an accidental oil spill. Level 11 included port officers, anci civil protection staff responsible for organizing and managing the protection of coastal sites. Level Ill included ground staff of the port enterprises and assistant civil protection officers likely to be managing the cleanup sites or putting equipment into operation. Training was carried out on a regional basis so as to familiarize the personnel with working together using the same equipment and procedures. Training that was carried out locally made the fullest use of existing vocational and technical institutions and facilities. 3.4 Revised Components: There was no revision in project components. 3.5 Quality at Entry: No review was made 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective: The project achieved all its objectives regarding regional cooperation, standardization of approach, and strengthening of national and regional capacity to handle oil pollution and comply with the MARPOL requirements regarding the norms for discharging oil into the Mediterranean. The most important outcomes are: (a) prevention as well as preparedeness to combat oil spills systems are in place, (b) enactment of a NCP, (c) preparation of an advanced draft RCP, and (d) joint training carried out for regional staff from the three participating countries on contingency plan and the prevention and cleaning of oil spills. Annual reports on sea water analysis (oil content in the water) have been intermittently provided, due to delayed purchase of laboratory equipment and chemicals. In addition, effluent from deballasting stations are now being recycled in the existing refinery and/or sold to private users. Cooperation is considered highly satisfactory. CRCP members meet regularly and have been able to handle regional procurement, and have succeeded in ensuring continuous coordination among involved administrations in their respective countries. The project has contributed to efficient cooperation among concerned administrations and within the region to prevent and control oil pollution. The development of a sub-regional working group and organization of joint training have helped to enhance marine pollution management through development of a common approach and mechanisms. The project has improved the countries' capabilities to deal with accidental oil spills, and provided equipment and facilities to collect and treat oily ballast and bilge waters, thus reducing hydrocarbon contamination in the Mediterranean. The project has created the foundation for permanent cooperation in the region in terms of monitoring and compliance auditing, state of marine pollution reporting, and a common approach to spill response. It has potentially met the GEF objective of protecting intemational waters. Recovered oily materials is being re-refined, in concert with local and national waste management programs. The project's well-identified components also helped in strengthening and enhancing port and national regulations, regulatory mechanisms, and the linkage between environmental monitoring and management. 4.2 Outputs by components: All originally identified components. have been completed satisfactorily despite delays in purchasing laboratory equipment and renovation of the deballasting station in Arzew. These delays occurred because of inappropriate identification by the consultant of the equipment needed and the scope of rehabilitation work. The project will be closed on June 30. 2000, with six additional months granted - 4 -  compared to the original date, to allow disbursement of the balance of the grant, about US$460,000 equivalent, against equipment purchased and shipped after December 31, 1999. The regional components have been completed to the satisfaction of all concemed parties, including training and procurement of standardized equipment and dispersant for combating oil spills. The detailed list of equipment procured and total personnel trained are in Annex 7. 4.3 Net Present Value/Economic rate /f return: The project resulted in significant, although not quantified, economic benefits through provision of environmental benefits. While formal economic and financial returns analysis (environmental economic benefit and financial return analysis were not required for pilot phase projects ) have not been attempted for the SAR and the ICR, it is widely recognized that pollution impacts all aspects of the marine economy. Maintenance of and improvements to the existing coastal marine environment are necessary for the continued success of coastal economic activities. Further, methods and protocols for improving the quality of the marine environment, as achieved by the project, will serve as a model for establishing similar facilities in other Mediterranean ports. The development of a generic oil spill contingency and response led the government to implement the plan on a nationwide basis for all ports. 4.4 Financial rate of return: No formal FRR has been attempted in the SAR and the ICR. The project was based on the need to address potential negative environmental impacts of discharged ballast and bilge waters, as well as accidental oil spills, in the southwestem Mediterranean, and the lack of resources to tackle this issue of global importance. Given the competing demands of the various sectors on their national budgets, the Maghreb countries were reluctant to, on their own, allocate funds to combat the problem of marine pollution. The availability of grant funds reinforced the govemments' commitment to participate in reducing the risk of marine pollution. Pollution funds have been set up, and decrees and laws regarding fees and fines to be paid by polluters have been revised and enforced. A model for recovering the operating and investment cost of the deballasting station has been developed for port authorities. Proposals for port tariff adjustments to progressively cover the cost of environmental protection are being made at the beginning of each fiscal year. 4.5 Institutional development impact: During the preparation and implementation phases of the project, GOA undertook several actions, including the creation of a pollution fund and enactment and revision of several legal aspects dealing with pollution, including the maritime code, introduction of environmental responsibilities within port authorities, revision of penalties and fees, institution of the polluter-pay principle, and creation of the Haut conseil de l'environnement et de developpement durable. 5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 5. 1 Factors outside the control ofgovernment or implementing agency: Only one factor that partially affected implementation of the joint training program is worth mentioning. It is related to the security issue in Algeria, which delayed the training scheduled to take place in Algiers by almost a year. A joint effort undertaken by the Bank and Algerian authorities to overcome the security issue reassured the consultant that it would be safe to carry out the delayed sessions. The training was completed in June and September 1999. 5.2 Factors generally subject to government control: The project included several elements to be implemented directly through DP and Port Enterprises, the implementing agencies (national components), and through DP as a member of the CRCP (regional components, including training, studies, and standardized equipment). This made the project complex and difficult to implement. Several factors affected the project. (a) Factors with a positive influence included: -5 -  (i) The GOA passed environmental legislation and issued a set of guidelines and adopted an action plan for the protection of the environment. The action plan includes medium-to-long term objectives and the development of an integrated national environment management framework while it moves towards liberalization and a market economy. The Govemment identified the main environmental priorities and policy options for reducing pollution and conserving natural resources. It acknowledges the necessity to assess pollution and that, therefore, a better information collection and monitoring system is needed together with strengthened institutions and a refined legal framework. In addition the regulatory Framework in Algeria has institutions and several laws and regulations which deal with environmental protection. The major legal text is the law regarding environmental protection which expresses basic principles of a strategy. The law and its promulgating decrees includes chapters on contamination of the ocean, and procedures and systems of enforcement. It foresees the creation of an Environment Fund, and a special corps of environmental inspectors and controllers, with power over local authorities. Additional implementing decrees related to pollution in general and to oil pollution management in particular were published, i.e, regulation of industrial and bilge oil disposal, collection and treatment of oil materials and lubricants, definition of pollution level standards for surface water and beaches, obligation of ships to declare carriage of dangerous and toxic materials, and intervention of the coast guard in case of pollution at sea. (ii) To be able tc, implement all provisions of MARPOL 73/78, both current and future proposed, GOA recognized the need for improving the efficiency of the existing facilities for waste treatment and reception, and the need for purchase of environmental monitoring and combating equipment, development of oil spill contingency and response plans and training. (iii) Through prevision of the grants, Algeria had established a long and fruifful working relationship within the institutions; and agencies in charge of environment, and with the two other participating countries through establishment of the CRCP and mutual agreement for cooperation among port authorities. This established relationship ensured a deep degree of trust and confidence within the country's institutions and among the countries in the region which has been critical to success and certainly made project implementation smoother. (b) There were also some less positive factors: (i) All aspects of maritime pollution prevention and combat require considerable investments to meet international requirements set by intemational conventions which will be conflicting with the demand for continuing economic growth. This competition for funds made investments in "environmental improvements" difficult to promote. (ii) While the port authorities were responsible for providing waste reception facilities, the cost of running such facilities made it difficult to implement the cost recovery principle for investments and operations. 5.3 Factors generally subject to implementing agency control: The well-structured and well-managed implementing agencies, DP and the port enterprises, with significant experience in dealing with Bank projects, made project preparation and implementation a successful undertaking. 5.4 Costs andfinancing: The project was estimated to cost US$7.4 million equivalent, including physical and price contingencies, of which US$6.9 million equivalent in for,sign currency and US$0.5 million equivalent in local currencies. The actual figure at closing are as follows: US$11.9 million equivalent, of which US$6.9 million and US$5.0 million in foreign currency and local currency respectively. The increase is mainly in local - 6 -  currency and shows the government effort and willingness to expand its investment in prevention and control of oil pollution activities. Summary of project costs is given below and details are given in annex 2. The above costs are net of taxes and customs duties as the Govemment waived taxes and duties on all items procured under the project. The costs reflect actual prices using the prevailing exchange rate during project implementation. The foreign exchange cost of the project is financed through a SDR5.0 million equivalent to US$6.9 million, concessional funding secured from the GET core funds, and the local funding of US$5.0 million provided by the implementing agencies. It is expected that the grant will be totally disbursed at the closing date, June 30, 2000. 6. Sustainability 6.1 Rationalefor sustainability rating: The existing institutions in Algeria, including the implementing agency, have the capacity and the skills to operate and maintain the facilities and equipment provided under the project. In addition, the project provided training to implement and operate the national and regional contingency plans. Technical assistance was geared toward developing mechanisms to achieve financial sustainability for the facilities and regional organizations. The government and the executing agency are implementing study recommendations to cover investment and operating costs. Meanwhile, the legal and institutional framework, including an environmental fund, have been enacted and will provide the additional funds needed to operate and maintain the facilities and equipment supplied under the project. Furthermore, the project make the environmental authority aware of the threat posed by oil pollution. This has resulted into an additional investment financed through local funds, including port contingency plans, periodic testing of equipment, and periodic simulation exercises to test the NCP, and in a request from the countries in the South Mediterranean Sea (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) to GEF to finance a follow up project. 6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations: Based on the foreseen results of the project and its highly satisfactory rating for development and implementation objectives, GEF provided funds to carry out a feasibility study to expand the benefit of the project to the south Mediterranean, which includes Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. A PCD has been prepared and approved by the Bank management; however, the GEF Secretariat, in order to coordinate among international waters projects, decided not to go with the project until the final result of the ongoing studies in the straits of Malaca and Bosphoros are published. The first phase of the proposed project would consist of an institutional arrangement enabling the five countries and the oil industry to cooperate in protecting the Mediterranean and preventing oil spills. 7. Bank and Borrower Performance Bank 7.1 Lending: The Bank identified key issues and prepared the project in a timely fashion. The project was identified in December 1992 and appraised in August 1993, with the staff appraisal report issued in October 1993. The grant was approved on April 6, 1994, and made effective on May 20, 1994. 7.2 Supervision: Bank supervision was also efficient. The annual average input of staff resources for supervision was about 9 staff-weeks, which included various specialties (see annex 4). This was possible because supervisions were coordinated with supervision of other port projects. Bank performance was enhanced by use throughout the project of the same team, consisting of a financial analyst and port engineer. This provided an element of consistency of approach to the issue and assurance that the project would be successfully implemented. 7.3 Overall Bank performance: -7-  Bank performance at all steps of project preparation, appraisal, and implementation was satisfactory, thus ensuring that there was no deviation from the defined objectives and components, and that the local implementing agency as well as the CRCP were adequately staffed and equipped to implement the project. The Bank's role in maintaining and cementing relationships among the countries and CRCP members has been recognized by all parties. Borrower 7.4 Preparation: The strong involvement of the borrower during preparation phase of the project was one of the major aspects of project success. Its close follow-up of the feasibility study financed under a PPF grant contributed to the appropriate definition of project scope and components. In addition, its commitment to the regional activity was a cornerstone for the creation of the CRCP, which became the implementing body for the regional component of the project. 7.5 Government implementation performance: With the exception of the approval of a final RCP, borrower implementation of the national and regional components of the project was excellent and timely. The preparation of the final RCP draft experienced some delays due to difficulty in reachin9i consensus within each administration involved, but the final draft was completed before the closing ol' the project. It constitutes a major step to materialize regional cooperation provision included in the UMA treaty. 7.6 Implementing Agency: During 1994 and early 1995, the Algerian authorities, in collaboration with the other beneficiaries focused on equipment procurement, and training. Most procurement processes were well advanced by the first implementation supervision mission, and were essentially complete by the mid 1995 With respect to the rehabilitation of the deballasting stations in Arzew and equipment procurement for the waste facilities, the borrower experienced some delays due to inappropriate design and underestimation of the rehabilitation costs. The scope of the work and its cost were redefined more appropriately and the rehabilitation was completed in the first quarter of year 2000. The executing agency provided the additional funds needed to complete the work. With respect to VTS, containment and cleaning equipment, laboratory equipment and training, DP has through consolidated bid packages generated competitive prices and savings. 7.7 Overall Borrower performance: One of the key objectives of the project was to use successful application of various aspects as a model for other ports within Algeria. This objective was met and exceeded. The proposed oil spill contingency and response plan has been made the delsignated national model and is being introduced in other ports. Further, the successful development and implementation of the project components, both national and regional, provide an incentive to manage and reduce ship and port wastes. As shown in Annex 7, covenants and targets were generally met. The borrower's performance is evaluated as satisfactory. 8. Lessons Learned This project was mainly funded by a grant from GEF and was the first major Funded project within the "Pollution Reduction in Intemational Waters" category during the pilot phase in the Mediterranean. It can be judged to have clearly met GEF criteria. The regional approach of the project has proven to have a high demonstration value. Through enhancing and upgrading national and regional standards, policies, and waste monitoring and rehabilitation of waste reception and handling facilities, the prcject has convinced GOA of the environmental benefit of the investments. This has triggered adoption of a multiport program to be implemented over the coming years, including a ship waste tracking system, port oil spill contingency and response plan for major - 8 -  Algerian ports, and oil spill response training exercises for all ports and other relevant agencies. Further, GOA will be implementing a port fee schedule on a national basis with conjunction of environmental fund, provide a reserve fund for expanding existing facilities, construct new facilities, expand training, and purchase and rehabilitate response equipment. Success of the project can be attributed to both the borrower's and the Bank's approach to the project. The Bank utilized a multidisciplinary team of a financial analyst, port engineer, and an environmental specialist. This provided consistency throughout, from design and appraisal to implementation. While several administrations and agencies were involved in the project, key leadership was provided by DP, ensuring a national consistency and regional coordination as active member of the CRCP. Port and coastal environmental management is inherently complex due to overlapping jurisdictions of different departments and ministries, port authorities, and private interests. If Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco had not strongly committed themselves to the project and had not had existing efficient port institutions, and if they had not created the CRCP base upon which the project could be constructed, this project would have been much more difficult to implement. Replication and/or extension of this project to other countries can be successful, if there are established regulatory and management regimes suitable to the task. Altematively, such regimes should be first established and stabilized. Management of ships and port wastes is only one aspect of port and coastal maritime environmental management. The success of a ship waste project can be further enhanced by (a) adoption of an environmental coastal zone and port management plan (a concept already being initiated by the Xiamen Special Economic Zone); (b) implementation of other pollution control activities (e.g., oil spill response); and (c) control and management of land-based sources of pollution. 9. Partner Comments (a) Borrower/implementing agency: The Borrower provided its version of ICR as well as comments that concur with those of the ICR prepared by the Bank. (b) Cofinanciers: N.A. (c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector): N.A. 10. Additional Information g9-  Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix Outcome /Impact Indicators: Jnd; ig0000-- " 0023 lcateiMii tglx 00 000 Cd Projectd I P n last PSR Aci wa.atest Estimatl Biannual report on sea water analysis (oil Quarterly report Provided twice a year content in the water) Effluent from deballasbing station not to lntematicnal standards Effluent does not exceed 15 ppm exceed 15 ppm Enactment of nabonal Contingency Plan condition for disbursement enacted in September 1994 Preparation of Draft Regional Contingency draft finalized drafted and transmitted for approval to Plan concemed authorities Training of technical and Management staff manager and operational staff (92) training program achieved Annual meeting of the CRCP (Regional once a year twice a year, as much as needed Steering Committee) Output Indicators: iii Tto Projectlias PSR A Laltest Estimate Oily material treated N.A. All oily matenal collected by refineries operated by the same enterprise which operate the deballasting staton Training 92 128 Establish a baseline data on oil content in 12/94 12/95 sea water Equipment purchased Equipme it purchased, delivered, tested and Equipment purchased, delivered, tested and personal trained personal trained during project implementabon End of project - 10-  Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing Project Cost by Component (in USS million equivalent) Appraisal ActuaULatest Percentage Of Estimate Estimate AppalsWi Project Cost By Component US$ million US$ million Storage sheds 0.20 0.58 2.9 Equipment to combat oil spills 2.28 2.80 1.23 Rehabilitation of deballasting station 1.30 5.60 4.3 VTS stations 1.92 2.24 1.17 Laboratory equipment 0.19 0.47 2.47 Training 0.22 0.24 1.09 Supervision 0.10 0.05 0.5 Total Baseline Cost 6.21 11.98 Physical Contingencies 0.31 Price Contingencies 0.88 Total Project Costs 7.40 11.98 Total Financing Required 7.40 11.98 Proect Costs by Procuremet Arrangements (Appraisal Estimate) (US$ million equivalent) Procurement Method Expenditure'Cat.gory.. IC - CB;TotalC 1. Works 1.54 0.24 0.00 0.00 1.78 (1.48) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.48) 2. Goods 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 5.22 (4.82) (0.00) (0.18) (0.00) (5.00) 3. Services 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 (0.40) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.40) 4. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 5. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 6. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Total 6.94 0.24 0.22 0.00 7.40 (6.70) (0.00) (0.18) (0.00) (6.88) Proect Costs by Procurement Arrangements (Actual/Latest Estimate) (US$ million equivalent) Procurement Method' Expenditure Category ICB NCB Other N,F. Total Cost 1. Works 0.00 3.34 0.58 0.00 3.92 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 2. Goods 7.58 0.20 0.00 0.00 7.78 (7.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (7.00). - 11 -  3. Services 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 (0.26) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.26) 4. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 5. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 6. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Total 7.87 3.54 0.58 0.00 11.99 (7.26) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (7.26) Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Loan. All costs include contingencies. 2/ Includes civil works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of contracted staff of the project management office, training, technical assistance services, and incremental operating costs related to (i) managing the project, and (ii) re-lendir.g project funds to local government units. Project Financing by Component (in USS million equivalent) Si~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Niw~ iT t 1" y' t RWyt4e0 moax2 77 7 2jzi 9W Civil work 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.58 0.0 290.0 0.0 Equipment 2.28 1.91 0.35 83.8 0.0 0.0 Rehabilitation deballastfng 1.30 2.39 3.20 183.8 0.0 0.0 station VTS stations 1.76 0.15 1.70 0.87 96.6 580.0 0.0 Lab equipment 0.19 0.44 0.08 231.6 0.0 0.0 Training 0.18 0.04 0.25 0.02 138.9 50.0 0.0 Consultant services 0.10 0.18 180.0 0.0 0.0 Physical contingencies 0.31 0.0 0.0 0.0 Price contingencies 0.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 12 -  Annex 3: Economic Costs and Benefits N/A -13 -  Annex 4. Bank Inputs (a) Missions: Stage of Project Cycle No. of Persons and Specialty Performnce Rating (e.g. 2 Economists, I FMS, etc.) Implementation Development Month/Year Count Specialty Progress Objective IdentificationlPreparation 3 lFinancial Analyst, Port January 1992 Engineer, Environmental Specialist Appraisal/Negotiation July 1993 3 F-inancial Analyst, Port E ngineer, Environmental Engineer January 1994 2 Financial Analyst, Port Engineer Supervision October 1994 2 Financial Analyst, Port HS HS Engineer April 1995 2 Financial Analyst, Port Engineer HS HS May 1996 2 Financial Analyst, Port Engineer S HS November 1996 1 Financial Analyst S HS April 1997 1 Financial Analyst, Economist S HS March 1998 2 Financial Analyst, Economist HS HS October 1999 1 Financial Analyst HS HS June 1999 1 Financial Analyst HS S ICR December 1999 2 Financial Analyst, Port HS S Engineer (b) Staff: Stage of Project Cycle Actual/Latest Estimate No. Staff weeks US$ (,000) Identification/Preparation 15.1 42.7 AppraisallNegotiation 12.9 38.3 Supervision 48.2 151.4 ICR 2.0 8.0 Total 78.2 240.4 - 14 -  Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components (H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible, NA-Not Applicable) Rating > Macro policies O H OSUOM O N * NA 3 Sector Policies O H OSUOM O N * NA Z Physical * H OSUOM O N O NA 3 Financial O H OSUOM O N O NA F Institutional Development O H * SU O M 0 N 0 NA F Environmental * H OSUOM O N O NA Social FE Poverty Reduction O H OSUOM O N * NA 3Gender OH OSUOM ON * NA N Other (Please specify) O H OSUOM O N * NA F Private sector development O H O SU O M O N * NA