CDIA - Openaid.se€¦ · Draft version as of 22 February 2017 . Six-monthly Progress Report July...

CDIA Cities Development Initiative for Asia

Six-monthly Progress Report July – December 2016 and Workplan July – December 2017

Draft version as of 22 February 2017

Six-monthly Progress Report July – December 2016 and Workplan January – June 2017 ii

PROGRAM SCOPE

CDIA is a regional initiative established in 2007 by the Asian Development Bank and the Government of Germany, with additional funding support from the governments of Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and the Shanghai Municipal Government. The Initiative provides assistance to medium-sized Asian cities to bridge the gap between their development plans and the implementation of their infrastructure investments. CDIA uses a demand driven approach to support the identification and development of urban investment projects in the framework of existing city development plans that emphasize environmental sustainability, pro-poor development, good governance, and climate change mitigation/adaptation.

To facilitate these initiatives at city level, CDIA provides a range of international and domestic expertise to cities that can include support for the preparation of pre-feasibility studies for high priority infrastructure investment projects as one of several elements.

CDIA would like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the following team members, secondees and associates to its overall program achievement for the period July to December 2016:

ZALDO ARABIA Company Driver

JOY BAILEY Environmental and

Resilience Specialist

Rudini BAOY Monitoring & Evaluation

Specialist

FATIMA BAUTISTA

Associate Operation Analyst

MARIA ROSARIO BAXA

Liaison Officer

BRIAN CAPATI Infrastructure Engineer

NEIL CHADDER Senior Urban Environmental

Engineer

KRISTINA DIZA Young Asian Professional

FELIX DOEHLER Advisor to BMZ

BALAKRISHNAN ELANGOVAN Sr. Program Manager

SUNSHINE GERVACIO

Administrative Officer

JOERG HAAS Senior Advisor to BMZ

THOMAS HAGEDORN

Advisor for Outreach abd Capacity Development

CLAUDIA HERMES

Program Coordinator

RIADADH HOSSAIN Intern

STUART KING Sr. Infrastructure Finance

Specialist

CHRISTINE MAYR

Inclusive Urban Dev’t Specialist

VERONIKA NEUMEIER

Intern

EVA RINGHOF Social Development Specialist

ANALYN RUBENECIA

Communications Specialist

BONAJEAN SERRANO

Associate Admin. Officer

SHEN LIN Project Assistant

MIA LORRAINE SIMPAO

Jr. Program Management Officer

NICHOLAS VAN ECKERT

Head of Admin and Finance

JORIS VAN ETTEN

Program Manager

WONG MO XIANG Jr Program Management

Officer

ZHANG YU Project Manager

MAGNO ZULUETA Company Driver

Six-monthly Progress Report July – December 2016 and Workplan January – June 2017 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROGRAM SCOPE ........................................................................................................................ II

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................. IV

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. IV

A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 5

B CITY INTERVENTIONS, CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION ....................... 6

C CONTRIBUTION TO OVERARCHING DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ............................................ 12

D PROGRESS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD ....................................................................... 23

E CMT TIME REGISTRATION, CDIA CORE RESOURCES EXPENDITURE AND BUDGET ................... 34

F KEY ACTIVITIES (UNDERTAKEN AND PLANNED) ................................................................... 39

ANNEX 1 STATUS OF CDIA PFS PROJECTS LINKED TO FINANCE (DECEMBER 2016) ....................... 41

ANNEX 2 CDIA RESULTS CHAIN AND INDICATORS FRAMEWORK 2013-2017 ............................... 42

ANNEX 3 CDIA BUDGET AND DISBURSEMENT PER FUNDER ....................................................... 43

Six-monthly Progress Report July – December 2016 and Workplan January – June 2017 iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development BRT Bus Rapid Transit CIIPP City Infrastructure Investment Programming and Prioritization toolkit CMT Core Management Team FS Feasibility Study GGGI Global Green Growth Institute GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH IFI International Financing Institution IDIA Initial Development Impact Assessment IPDF Infrastructure Project Development Facility KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank) LFI Local Financing Institution M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore MoU Memorandum of Understanding MTR Mid-Term Review NPO/RPO National/Regional Partner Organization PFS Pre-feasibility Study PPP Public-Private Partnership PPS Project Preparatory Study PPTA Project Preparatory Technical Assistance RETA Regional Technical Assistance S&BP Strategy and Business Plan SDS Social Development Specialist SECO State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, Switzerland SHF EG Stakeholders’ Forum Expert Group SMG Shanghai Municipal Government ToT Training of Trainers UCCAR Urban Climate Change and Resilience UCCRTF Urban Climate Change Resilience Trust Fund UCLG-ASPAC United Cities and Local Governments Asia Pacific UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Program YAPP Young Asian Professional Program WB World Bank

GLOSSARY

PFS project Infrastructure sector covered by PFS report, e.g. solid waste management Completed Finalized PFS report Component Individual PFS project elements that can be financed and implemented separately,

e.g. waste collection, waste disposal, new landfill/dumpsite, etc. Implemented PFS in the stage of financial agreement on project implementation/ detailed

engineering design (DED)/ construction/ operation Linked Informal or formal confirmation of financing for a PFS project, by entering into FS

phase for an IFI or bilateral agency (e.g. KfW) or through a signed letter of intent for PPP or other financing institutions

Pipeline Long-term planning for IFI or bilateral agency (e.g. KfW); documented corres-pondence of interest (PPP, other financial institutions)

Six-monthly Progress Report July – December 2016 and Workplan January – June 2017 5

A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report covers the progress achieved by CDIA for the period July to December 2016. It also includes an indicative work and budget plan for January to June 2017.

Following is a summary of the main highlights of CDIA’s achievements during the reporting period:

9 city applications for PFS support were approved including 1 city cluster application in the Philippines consisting of 5 new partner cities and 4 previously-assisted partner cities, namely, Balikpapan, Banda Aceh and Palembang in Indonesia and Tbilisi, Georgia;

PFS reports for 6 projects were completed in 6 partner cities, of which 3 projects form part of completed PFS reports in the clustered cities of Can Tho, Hai Duong and Vihn in Vietnam (see Table 1);

11 PFS projects in 9 additional partner cities were formally linked to downstream financing; 5 of these cities (4 in Cambodia and 1 in China) have ongoing PFS work linked ADB PPTA;

2 tracer studies were carried out to document the progress and effects of PFS interventions in Khulna, Bangladesh and Tangerang, Indonesia;

6 training courses attended by 113 city officials and NPO/RPO representatives were conducted and 10 networking events participated in including the UN Habitat III Conference in Ecuador.

As of December 2016, CDIA counts a total of 94 Asian cities that have successfully applied for PFS support, of which 75 cities have either completed (62) or ongoing (13) PFS interventions covering 139 project components. Of these 75 cities, 44 or about 59% have PFS project components that are at least partially linked to follow-up financing amounting to about USD 6.4 billion and expected to benefit at least 17 million people. Adding the 31 cities with completed CIIPPs but no PFS application to date and 94 cities with PFS application (of which 19 have completed CIIPPs), CDIA accounts for interventions in a total of 125 cities across Asia.

During this reporting period, 3 new staff assumed the following key positions in CDIA: Advisor For Outreach and Capacity Development, Senior Urban Environmental Engineer and Junior Program Management Officer. In addition, 1 intern was received by CDIA to provide support in integrated urban development.

Table 1: Profile of Completed PFS Projects from July to December 2016

Country/City CDIA

funding (US$)

City contribution

(US$) Infrastructure sector

PFS expected investment (US$ mio.)

PFS Target Population

China

Guiyang 400,000 120,000 Vocational education 100.0 15,000

Yichang 300,000 60,000 Elederly care facility 128.0 225,000

India

Mysore 249,000 64,000 Wastewater and drainage management

n/a n/a

Vietnam

Can Tho 2 250,000 50,000 Integrated wastewater & drainage management

57.7 350,000

Hai Duong 250,000 50,000 40.6 95,000

Vihn 250,000 50,000 94.9 224,000

Total 1,699,000 394,000 421.2 909,000


B CITY INTERVENTIONS, CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION

1) City Interventions (Bridging the Planning – Financing Gap)

Progress is reported with reference to the three main focus areas of CDIA, namely a) Prioritization; b) Pre-Feasibility Studies; and c) Linking projects to financing.

a) Prioritization

CDIA, together with its partners, has so far supported a total of 49 cities in prioritization of urban infrastructure investment projects using its CIIPP

toolkit in 52 exercises since 2010. More than half of prioritization exercises took place in India, Philippines and Vietnam (see Figure 1). In July 2016, a trainers’ training on the use of CIIPP tool was conducted in Hanoi for 4 GGGI personnel from Cambodia (1) and Vietnam (3). b) Pre-Feasibility Studies

From July to December 2016, 6 PFS reports were completed for 6 projects in 6 cities, namely: Vocational Education Project in Guiyang (China), Elderly Care Facility in Yichang (China) and Integrated Wastewater and Drainage Management Project in three clustered cities of Can Tho, Hai Duong and Vihn (Vietnam) and Mysore (India). PFS work

in Mysore was terminated at the interim stage as initial findings revealed that the project was not feasible. During the same period, 9 city applications for PFS support were approved including 1 city cluster application in the Philippines composed of 5 new partner cities and 4 previously-assisted partner cities, namely, Balikpapan, Banda Aceh and Palembang in Indonesia and Tbilisi, Georgia. As of December 2016, CDIA has approved PFS applications from 94 different cities in 18 Asian countries. Of these 94 cities, 62 have completed PFS interventions with 109 project components while 13 have ongoing PFS interventions with 30 project components (see Table 2). The distribution of PFS projects per infrastructure sector is reflected in Figure 2. Urban transport remains the leading sector closely followed by flood and drainage management and wastewater management.

Figure 1: CIIPP interventions by country


Table 2: Status of all CDIA City Interventions (as of December 2016)

City Intervention status Cities PFS Projects

CIIPP (with no PFS to date) 31 --

PFS Approved 8 12

PFS Ongoing 12 30

PFS Completed 62 109

PFS Deferred - -

PFS Cancelled 12 22

TOTAL 125 173

c) Linking to Finance

For this reporting period, 11 PFS projects in 9 additional cities were linked to financing (5 of the 8 cities have ongoing PPS work linked to ADB-PPTA). As of December

2016, a total of 63 PFS projects in 44 partner cities have been linked to financing. Of these 44 cities, 33 cities have secured or firmed-up agreements with funding institutions covering 47 projects subjected to PFS. For 28 of these projects in 22 cities, actual construction of some components is ongoing or completed. Once all 63 projects are fully implemented, at least 17 million people are expected to benefit (cmp. Annex 1). Table 3 shows the distribution of projects linked and pipelined for financing per institution. Financing modalities included a detailed engineering design financed by Australian Aid and the Government of Indonesia for Balikpapan and Tangerang, and commercial borrowing for the North Passenger Hub in Guiyang (China). Figure 3 shows the PFS linked per year, and Figure 4 the share of linked projects by financing institution as of December 2016. Figure 3. PFS projects and cities linked per year Table 3: Summary of envisaged financing of completed CDIA

supported projects (December 2016)

Primary Financing Institution

PFS linked to finance PFS linking in

pipeline

no. of PFS USD mio. no. of

PFS USD mio.

A ADB 28 1,443.6 36 751.6

KfW 3 194.8 4 400.0

LFI 20 4,337.5 8 131.7

PPP 5 83.9 11 192.0

WB 2 141.0 0 0.0

Other 5 171.5 0 0.0

Sub-total 63 6,395.3 66 1,498.7

TOTAL USD 7,894.0 LFI – Local Financing Institutions

Figure 4: Projects Linked to Finance by institution/modality (Dec 2016)

Figure 2: CDIA engagement by sector (Dec 2016)


From 51 PFS projects in 36 cities in December 2015, the linking to finance status as of Dcember 2016 stood at 63 PFS projects in 44 cities. The detailed status of CDIA PFS projects linked to finance (as of December 2016) is indicated in Figure 5 below and in Annex 1.

Figure 5: Status of PFS projects linked to financing as of December 2016

2) Capacity Development

The Capacity Development Strategy for the period 2016-2017 has been revised and currently assigns all activities on individual, organizational or societal level. Activities are focused on: a) providing support to NPOs; b) an integrated

capacity development approach addressing the needs of PPS partner cities; and c) knowledge exchange between cities.

a) Building Individual Competences From July to December 2016, CDIA facilitiated several training courses to address financial, social and environmental issues. Most trainings have been organized through or together with CDIA’s partner organizations.

#ofPFS

Projects

#ofCities

Constructionfullycompleted 3 3

Somecomponentscompleted 14 12

11 7

2 1

10 6

12 8

ProjectPre-paratoryTechnicalAssistance 11 7

63 44Total

StatusofLinkingreached

Follow-upfin.informallyconf.

DetailedEngineeringDesign

Financingagreementsigned

Constructionongoing


Training Courses Date Participants

Male Female Total

CIIPP Training for Trainers (GGGI) Hanoi, Vietnam 4-5 July 3 1 4

CDIA-PT SMI ‘Linking Urban Infrastructure to

Financing’ Surabaya, Indonesia

27-29 July 17 2 19

IPDF ‘Inclusive Cities’ Training Islamabad, Pakistan 20-21 Sept 16 6 22

YIPD ‘PPP’ Training, Jakarta, Indonesia 19-20 Oct 15 6 21

CDIA-PT SMI ‘Linking Urban Infrastructure to

Financing’ Makassar, Indonesia

29 Nov-1

Dec

18 3 21

‘Urban Climate Change Adaptation and

Resilience’ Training Dacca, Bangladesh

19-22 Dec 20 6 26

Total 89 24 113 Partner organizations assume certain multiplier functions for CDIA contents. Local staff of GGGI in Vietnam and Cambodia have been introduced to the City Infrastructure Investment Programming and Prioritization (CIIPP) Toolkit. They applied it later in the Vietnamese cities of Dien Ban and Tra Vinh where 5 priority investment projects have been identified. The ‘Linking to Finance’ training has been facilitated two times in Indonesia, in Bahasa and partly in English. Apart from the knowledge exchange between both institutions, PT SMI and CDIA, the training provided a good opportunity to get in contact with Local Governments which might be partner cities in the future. For that reason, two more similar events have been scheduled in 2017. In Indonesia, it is crucial to offer the training in the local language Bahasa to get in contact with officials of Local Governments. As a result of the Linking to Finance-trainings, PT SMI is following-up two potential projects in the cities of Bontang (Airport project) and Bantaeng (Industrial Estate). They also stayed in contact with Bogor and Kutai Timur as a result of YIPD’s PPP-training which PT SMI hosted. Also the Urban Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience training in Dhaka was localized. Before the training, the Climate Sensitivity Screening of Urban Infrastructure-tool was tested in Gazipur in order to improve the tool.

b) Supporting Organizational Performance During the previous reporting period, CDIA decided to focus on supporting the organizational performance of three partner organizations, namely: IPDF (Pakistan), PT SMI (Indonesia) and PPP Center (Philippines). All three are governmental institutions with a mandate for infrastructure development. The partnership workshop with PPP Center in June 2016 had resulted in an agreement about CDIA support for the institutional development of PPP Center and a local subsidy for the adaptation of the existing PPP Center manual for the use of cities. In line with the agreement, a development worker will be deployed to provide organizational development support to the PPP Center in the first semester of 2017. PT SMI and CDIA agreed during the December 2016 workshop on continuing the collaboration concerning the training on ‘Linking to Finance’ for cities and exchange information about potential infrastructure projects. Furthermore PT SMI expressed interest in receiving CDIA support for improving its own knowledge base concerning some infrastructure topics. A detailed work plan is expected in January 2017.


In October 2016, a study tour to Germany for selected Asian partner cities and NPOs which included visits of urban service providers and some other institutions inspired especially two participating PT SMI leaders, concerning institutional and economic approaches.

c) Enhancing Institutional and Societal Frameworks For CDIA it is important to develop and maintain contacts with Regional as well as National partner organizations and to connect them with cities. Networking leads to more interaction and knowledge exchange among stakeholders and creates oportunities to realize projects together. Within this general context, CDIA participated in the following events:

System Development and Networking Events Date

East-West Center Regional Workshops on Urban Governance for

Sustainable Development in Asia, Surabaya, Indonesia

21-23 July

Habitat III Preparatory Committee 3rd Session, Surabaya, Indonesia 25-28 July

17th IUAPPA World Clean Air Congress and 9th CAA Better Air

Quality Conference, Busan , Korea

29 August-2 September

6th UCLG-ASPAC Congress, Joellabuk-do, Korea 5-8 September

Green Sector Forum/Climate Change Consciousness Week, Manila

Philippines

21-23/21-25 September

ADB/DELOG Conference: Localizing Global Agendas, Manila,

Philippines

27-29 September

4th Connective Cities Dialogue in Asia: "Practitioners' Workshop on

Sustainable Urban Mobility & Climate Change - Reducing Air

Pollution by Climate-Friendly Means of Urban Transport”, Bangkok,

Thailand

27-29 September

UN Habitat III Conference , Quito, Ecuador 17-20 October

Webinar on Innovations and Impacts of Inclusive Cities 29 November

34th CityNet Executive Committee Meeting, Manila, Philippines 23-24 November

Local Governments for Sustainability: Emissions Inventory and

Climate Action Planning Workshop, Manila, Philippines

5-8 December

As a follow-up of the networking activities, CDIA will give support for a regional survey on the institutional frameworks of cities and Local Governments in 30 countries in Asia Pacific in 2017. This project will be implemented by UCLG-ASPAC in cooperation with UNDP and Cities Alliance.

Within the reporting period, the following CDIA outreach tools and knowledge products were

developed, reviewed and/or updated:

(i) Strategies and Guidelines

o Adaptation of the CDIA PFS guidelines to PPS (Project Preparatory Study) guidelines;

o Review of the PFS/PPS processes and development of first ideas for an integrated

approach for Capacity Development targeting the PPS partner cities according to the

Strategy 2018-2022, to get piloted in 2017;

o Development of a Capacity Development Strategy for 2016-2017;


(ii) Training Courses and Material

o Adaptation of the Linking Infrastructure Investments to Finance Manual and Training in

cooperation with PT SMI of Indonesia for the trainings in Surabaya and Makassar;

o Finalization of the 'Inclusive Cities' training course material;

(iii) Knowledge Products, Tools and Publications

o Publication of the manual ‘Inclusive Urban Infrastructure Investments: A Guide for

Municipalities’;

o Publication of the Khulna tracer study findings;

o Publication of the Photobook ‘Investing in Asia’s Urban Future. Stories form the Cities of

Naga, Pimpri, Islamabad and Tangerang;

o Pilot testing of the Climate Sensitivity Screening of Urban Infrastructure Tool in

Catbalogan, Philippines, and of the Climate Change Risk Assessment tool in Gazipur,

Bangladesh;

o Development of Online Project Screening Tool to Align Climate Resilience Strategies to

Downstream Finance;

o Compendium of Climate Finance Options for Cities in Bangladesh;

o Updating of the print materials on ‘Gender Strategy and Action Plan’ and ‘City

Infrastructure Investment Programming and Prioritization’ Toolkit;

(iv) Outreach and Information

o Finalization of the Video Documentation of the 24x7 Water Supply Project in Pimpri,

India and shooting of the Tangerang, Indonesia case study video;

o Monthly publication of the CDIA newsletter.

3) Institutionalization

The original ‘Centers of Learning’ concept has been modified through the adoption of the ‘Good Practice Laboratories’ approach. While maintaining the original idea of cities learning from cities, it provides a more flexible way of bringing good

cities and beneficiary cities together.


C CONTRIBUTION TO OVERARCHING DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

Figure 6 shows the number of PFS projects

that contribute to CDIA’s overaching

development objectives. By December

2016, CDIA completed 67 PFS

interventions in 62 partner cities

consisting of 109 project components

which focus on at least two of CDIA’s

development impact areas.

Figure 6: Number of PFS projects contributing to each overarching development objective (June 2016).

For purposes of determining the progress of implementation of PFS recommendations and

validating the impact of CDIA interventions, Tracer Studies were conducted in two CDIA partner

cities, namely: Khulna (Bangladesh) and Tangerang (Indonesia) during the second half of 2016. With

five tracer studies completed in 2016, CDIA now counts a total of 10 completed Tracer Studies in 10

partner cities. Highlights of tracer study findings in Khulna are presented in the box below.

Tracing Progress and Results of the Pro-poor and Green Urban Transport Project in Khulna (BAN) (PFS Duration: 03/2011-06/2011; Tracer Study: 11/2016 – 12/2016)

With KfW support, CDIA formulated the Pro-poor and Green Urban Transport Project in Khulna City to enhance the accessibility, mobility and safety of the urban poor and support the development of a sustainable urban transport system that prioritizes the needs of non-motorized traffic and pedestrians. After the completion of the PFS in November 2011, the project was funded by a grant from the German Government through KfW in the amount of EUR 10.5 million and implemented through the “City Region Development Project” of ADB.

Progress after completion of CDIA intervention The project was implemented by the Government of Bangladesh through Local Government and Engineering Department (LGED) and the Khulna City Corporation (KCC) starting in 2013. As of October 2016, implementation of 3 out of 10 contract packages have been fully completed while work progress in 5 contract packages ranged from 80 to 96%. Key city officials attributed the smooth project implementation to: i) good project preparation support by CDIA; ii) absence of land acquisition and relocation of residents; and iii) full cooperation by local officials and the community.

Key development impacts

Improved mobility and accessibility for the urban poor – The access roads constructed in eight slum areas of Khulna are currently benefiting at least 200,000 poor people through enhanced accessibility to main roads, reduced travel time arising from increased vehicle operating speeds and improved living conditions due to reduced flooding with the provision of roadside drainage.

Climate proofing of transport infrastructure – Apart from enhanced mobility, the project improved flood defenses in areas where embankments were rehabilitated and drainage channels improved. Moreover, some 20,000 residents are now benefited by improved access to education, health and other basic services while KCC officials expect significant reduction in road maintenance costs.

Enhanced road safety – When fully completed, the project will not only ease the movement of non-motorized transport (NMT) but also significantly reduce the risks of road accidents involving NMT and motorized vehicles. Footpaths also provided the urban poor with safe spaces for walking.


Pro-poor and inclusive development aspects

In the second half of 2016, 6 PFSs in 5 cities1 have been analyzed with the Initial Development Impact

Asessment (IDIA) tool. 5 of 6 the studies comprised features to ensure the access to basic

infrastructure services and activities on awareness raising. 50% of the studies help cities meet the

needs of the poor through a targeted assessment but also to guarantee the affordability of the

measure through adaptation of tariffs and fees and participation in the planning process. Due to the

focus on WASH projects, the consideration of new employment opportunities in projects slightly

declined compared to the first half of 2016. However, the completed PFSs in the second half of 2016

had a wider range of pro-poor design features (see Figure 7).

Inclusive development aspects are considered in the majority of the PFSs, mostly ensured through

respective expertise of at least one of the PFS consultants and respective pro-poor design features.

Of the PFSs that were implemented since 2013, 58% aim for enhanced inclusiveness2 and 16% for

poverty reduction as their explicit target3. 87% of the studies included pro-poor design features to

ensure that vulnerable and disadvantaged people will have positive impacts resulting from the

envisaged project. Figure 8 below provides an overview of the percentage of applied inclusive design

features in completed PFSs in the second half of 2016.

Figure 7: Comparison of inclusive design features of completed PFSs Jan-Jun 2016 against Jul-Dec 2016

Figure 8: Inclusive design features of completed PFSs Jul-Dec 2016

Positive impacts anticipated from CDIA interventions by the urban poor are often related to

improved access to basic services, education and capacity development, improved health and

hygiene. Figure 9 below provides data on these positive direct impacts for the 6 PFSs reviewed.

Comparing the different anticipated direct impact on urban poor of the completed PFS projects in

this reporting period against the previous one, Figure 10 illustrates that the studies completed in the

second half of 2016 had a wider range of direct impacts on the urban poor, although in the first half

a total of 11 studies were applied.

1 Includes Guiyang (CHN), Yichang (CHN), Can Tho (VIE), Hai Duong (VIE) and Vinh (VIE). 2 Enhanced Inclusiveness Approach: All people in the city benefit from equal access to infrastructure services networks. In order to make

the overall system more inclusive, the percentage of poor beneficiaries is higher than the percentage of people living below the poverty rate. Benefits for the poor are perceived also through complimentary interventions.

3 Targeted Poverty Reduction Approach: The urban poor, poorly serviced, vulnerable areas and people are the main beneficiaries of the infrastructure projects. More than half of the beneficiaries are considered poor or disadvantaged people with low resources.

83.3%

50.0%

33.3%

16.7%

83.3%

50.0%

50.0%

57.1%

0.0%

0.0%

28.6%

0.0%

14.3%

0.0%

Access to basic infrastructure…

Affordability adaptation of tariffs…

Accessibility to soft infrastructure…

Enhanced employment…

Improve awareness

Participation in Planning

Inclusive Needs Assessment

Comparison of Inclusive Design Features of Completed PFS

Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Access to basic infrastructure

services23%

Affordability adaptation of

tariffs and fees for basic infrastructure

services13%

Accessibility to soft infrastructure services

(health care, education)9%

Enhanced employment opportunities

4%

Improve awareness

23%

Participation in Planning

14%

Inclusive Needs

Assessment14%

PFS included Inclusive Design Features, Jul-Dec 2016


Figure 9: Positive impacts on the urban poor of completed PFSs, July to Dec 2016

Figure 10: Comparison of positive impact on urban poor of completed PFSs, Jan-June 2016 vs Jul-Dec 2016

Looking at safeguarding measures to mitigate negative impacts, the majority of the PFSs completed

in this reporting period considered compensation for the lost value of assets, livelihood restoration,

traffic management plan and even an environmental plan to monitor and react to possible negative

impacts (see Figure 12). On the other hand, PFSs completed in the first half of 2016 recommended

compensation for lost value of assets and social housing to reduce gentrification (see Figure 11).

Figure 11: Comparison of safeguard measures recommended in PFSs, Jan-June 2016 vs Jul-Dec 2016

Figure 12: Safeguard measures of completed PFSs from July to December 2016

All of the 6 PFSs completed from July to December 2016 benefited from the contribution of a Social

Development Specialist (SDS) in the consultant team. The number of working days given to the SDS

ranged from 6 to 66 working days while average working days decreased from 40 to 29 compared to

the last reporting period implying only 7% input on social concerns compared to the whole

consultant team inputs. As social considerations in a study have also been improved by other

consultants - in particular the team leader and institutional and capacity development specialist - in

terms of working days, the overall assessment on inclusive development investment through

innovative pro-poor design features reached satisfactory scores.

Improved Health & Hygiene

22%

Enhanced Livelihood

Opportunities5%

Reduce Environmental and Health Risks

17%

Enhanced Local Economic Development (LED)

6%

Improved Access to Basic Services

28%

Education & Capacity Development22%

Positive Direct Impact of Projects on Urban Poor, Jul-Dec 2016

66.7%

16.7%

0.0%

50.0%

16.7%

83.3%

66.7%

18.2%

9.1%

18.2%

0.0%

9.1%

36.3%

9.1%

Improved Health…

Enhanced Livelihood…

Improved Mobility

Reduce Environmental…

Enhanced Local Econo-…

Improved Access to…

Education & Capacity…

Comparison of Direct Impact on Urban Poor

Jan - June 2016 Jul-Dec 2016

50.0%

66.7%

66.7%

66.7%

66.7%

25.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

75.0%

Land Acquisition &Resttlement Plan

EnvironmentMonitoring Plan

LivelihoodRestoration Plan

Traffic ManagementPlan

Compensation forLost Value of Assets

Comparison of different Safeguard Options

Jan - June 2016 Jul-Dec 2016Land acquisition and resttlement

plan 16%

Environment Monitoring Plan

21%

Livelihood restoration plan21%

Traffic management

plan21%

Social housing provider to reduce

Gentrification0%

Safeguard Options to Mitigate Impact, Jul-Dec 2016

Compensation for lost value of assets 21%


The IDIA analysis of the 6 completed PFS projects during this reporting period indicated that 83% of

the total infrastructure investments contributed to poverty reduction, a significant increase

compared to 46% of the 11 PFS studies in the first half of 2016. The 6 PFS studies estimated that

800,000 people will directly benefit from the infrastructure interventions, and an additional one

million people will get positive, indirect impacts such as savings on healthcare expenses with

improved environment and sanitation. As far as the consultants (SDS) have been able to estimate the

different beneficiary groups, around 18,000 are poor people, 383,000 women, 166,000 children,

130,000 elderly and 6,000 disabled people will benefit from the CDIA projects.

Gender-related aspects

Gender aspects remain mainstreamed in all CDIA guidelines, going hand in hand with the inclusive

tools. The Gender Strategy and Action Plan (updated in May 2016) has been shared with donors and

partners. Gender-disaggregated data are now reported in all city interventions.

Only 16% of the PFS consultants in this reporting period were female as compared to the average of

22% from the first half of 2016. The number of female consultants is constantly decreasing since

2015 when CDIA started to focus on recruitment of firms instead of individuals.

CDIA regularly raises gender considerations or gender-sensitive design features during missions and

when reviewing the report deliveries. 100% of the 6 PFSs projects completed in Jul-Dec 2016

involved women, elderly and children in project planning (compared to 79% of the 11 PFS studies

Jan-Jun). Meanwhile all studies included gender design features, the consultants (SDS) of each PFS

estimated that the projects will have positive and direct impact on gender.

Figure 13: Direct positive Impact on Gender of completed PFSs from July to December 2016

Figure 14: Comparison of different direct impact Gender (Jan-June 2016 against. Jul-Dec 2016)

Figure 13 above provides an overview of the direct positive impact on gender envisaged of

completed PFSs during the last 6 months. Comparing the envisaged direct positive impact on gender,

Figure 14 illustrates that the 6 PFSs completed in this reporting period had more types of envisaged

impacts (e.g. increased level of security, improved health and hygiene conditions, subsidized user

charges, among others) than the PFSs analyzed in the first half of 2016.

With regard to gender balance of its own team members, CDIA has maintained a relatively balanced

gender distribution with 47% female and 53% male staff as of December 2016 as shown below.

Improved health & hygiene

14%

Enhanced capacity building

19%

Enhanced livelihood opportunities

5%

Access to better levels of services for men and women

24%

Subsidized user charges

14%

Improved access to education

5%

Increased level of security14%

Increased access to housing5%

Direct Positive Impacts on GenderJul-Dec 2016

50.0%

0.0%

66.7%

16.7%

83.3%

50.0%

16.7%

50.0%

16.7%

22.2%

11.1%

0.0%

11.1%

11.1%

0.0%

22.2%

11.1%

11.1%

Improved Health…

Improved Mobility

Increased…

Enhanced Liveli-…

Access to Better…

Subsidized…

Improved Access…

Increased Level…

Increased Access…

Comparison of Direct Impact on Gender



Participation and stakeholder engagement

Of the 6 PFS projects completed in this reporting period, 4 have exhibited a high level of stakeholder

consultations and active engagement while 2 showed medium effort in supporting good governance

principles. Figure 15 below indicates the methods adopted to ensure stakeholder participation in

CDIA’s interventions. Most of the frequently adopted methods in the PFS projects completed in this

reporting period consisted of interviews, focus group discussion, workshops and general meetings

with officials and the public. As illustrated in Figure 16 below, a wider variety of methods to ensure

stakeholder participation were adopted during this period compared to the first half of 2016.

Figure 15: Methods Adopted to Ensure Stakeholder Participation in PFSs from July to December 2016

Figure 16: Comparison of different methods of stakeholder Participation (Jan-June 2016 against. Jul-Dec 2016)

CDIA staff members Number % of total

Female 9 47%

Male 10 53%

Total 19 100%

General Meetings (officials,

beneficiaries, etc.)20%

Participation of poor and women

8%

Focus Group Discussion20%Surveys

12%

Special Group Discussion (vulnerable

groups)4%

Interviews20%

Workshops16%

Methods adopted to ensure Stakeholder Participation, Jul-Dec 2016

83.3%

33.3%

83.3%

50.0%

16.7%

83.3%

66.7%

27.30%

27.30%

9.10%

27.30%

9.10%

General Meetings…

Participation of Poor…

Focus Group…

Surveys

Special Group Discussions…

Interviews

Workshops

Comparison of Different Methods Adopted to Ensure Stakeholder

Participation



Table 4: Anticipated Impacts on poverty reduction, vulnerability and gender as per reviewed IDIAs

City Direct Anticipated Impacts

on Poverty Reduction Direct Anticipated Impacts on

Gender Equality Negative Impact(s) and

Safeguard Measures

Can Tho, Vietnam

Reduced expenses for medical treatment and increased productivity due to improved health with better sanitation, less pollution, and mitigated health risks for the residents, including poor beneficiaries

Better health and sanitation for female beneficiaries

Female headed households to benefit from reduced pollution and mitigated health risks

Some households will be affected by the land acquisition, but will be entitled to compensation for the loss of land. Affected households with single women and dependents, elderly, and disabled will receive additional support

Likely disruption of businesses along streets which have to be blocked for excavation and installation; compensation for affected businesses is recommended

Hai Duong,

Vietnam

Reduced costs and risks of household asset and property damage and loss due to annual flooding

Better sanitation and reduced pollution to improve the health of residents, potentially resulting to lessened medical expenses and better productivity

Improved health benefits and sanitation for female beneficiaries

Households headed by female can better manage their homes due to mitigated health risks and reduced pollution

Some households will be affected in ways such as losing land, having to be moved around the remaining area, and resettling to another area. Affected residents will be compensated for the loss of land. Affected households with single women and dependents, elderly, and disabled will receive additional support

Likely disruption of businesses along streets which have to be blocked for excavation and installation; Public consultation regarding these impacts and the compensations for affected businesses is recommended

Vinh, Vietnam

More protected tenure, household assets, and properties from damages caused by annual flooding, resulting to less expenses and more savings

Improved health of residents and increased productivity due to better sanitation and reduced pollution in the area

Better health and sanitation for female beneficiaries

Female headed households to improve their homes with the benefits of reduced pollution and mitigated health risk

Adverse impacts include potential loss of crops due to land acquisition

One household will be affected by losing fish pond

Compensation for affected residents

Guiyang,

China

With about 80% of students from low-income families, improved skills and education of poor beneficiaries are anticipated to bring them higher employment opportunities that increase their chance out of poverty

Roughly half of the student beneficiaries of the project are female, with female teachers and staff to benefit as well, creating a gender balance among the project beneficiaries. Skills and knowledge of female students and teachers are anticipated to be honed, and in effect will open up more employment and market opportunities for them

Some pending resettlement issues caused by land acquisition are yet to be resolved, including compensation for ground attachments which are still in the contracted period

Yichang, China

Reduced costs of care services for elderlies living on the border of poverty line

Special conditions and features that will cater to specific needs of female elderlies are to be included

Not applicable


Integrated Wastewater and Drainage Management for Can Tho, VietNam (PFS Duration: 03/2016 – 10/2016; PFS Input: USD 250,000; pipelined for ADB financing)

Flooding and uncontrolled urbanization coupled with insufficient sanitation infrastructure are the main threats to the resilience of Can Tho resulting from a combination of factors, namely: low land elevation, heavy rainfall, inadequate drainage and wastewater collection systems, and proximity to a river affected by high tides.

CDIA and the city used a two-step methodology to produce a Long Term Infrastructure Investment Plan. The 1st Step involved identifying main issues based on review of existing studies & planning documents, site visits, and stakeholder consultations, and finally determining the projects including their capital costs. The 2nd Step involved prioritizing the projects based on the problem tree analysis, an estimate of the required capacities, and an evaluation of potential impacts. The subprojects anticipate substantial positive environmental and health impacts. The proposed wastewater infrastructure will install tertiary networks; construct secondary treatment processes at the WWTP; and provide septage treatment at the WWTP; whereas the proposed drainage infrastructure would consist of improved and new drainage canals (dredging, embankment, revetment); box culverts; new and upgraded stormwater pumping stations including retention lakes. These projects are already queued for an ADB project preparation technical assistance (PPTA) guaranteeing its inclusion for financing in the ADB’s Water and Sanitation Program for Vietnam (2019-2029).

Environment and Climate Change Aspects

a) Environmental Safeguards in Project Preparation Studies

The PPS in Guiyang, Jinan and Yichang (CHN), Mysuru (IND), and in the cities of Can Tho, Hai Duong, Hue and Vinh (VNM) were completed in this reporting period. Except for Guiyang wherein the project was for an expansion of technical vocational education facilities and in Yichang for the Elderly Care Project, the rest addresses two (2) of the CDIA impact areas, environment and climate change. Jinan’s sustainable urban mobility project proposes a trolley bus system, to offset among others, traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas the PPS in Mysuru and Vietnam focused on climate-resilient drainage and wastewater systems. By ADB environmental safeguards guidelines, the categorization of these projects only fall under Category B.4 During this reporting period, the various PPS that commenced have strong environmental components. In Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, CDIA is supporting the city in preserving and promoting its

4 These are projects judged to have some adverse environmental impacts, but of lesser degree and/or significance than those for category A projects. An initial environmental examination (IEE) is required to determine whether or not significant environmental impacts warranting an EIA are likely. If an EIA is not needed, the IEE is regarded as the final environmental assessment report.


rich heritage sites; in Tbilisi, Georgia two (2) PPS cover a Metro Upgrading and a BRT system, both of which aimed at reducing emissions and offering multi-modal transport; in the cities of Khulna and Gazipur CDIA’s support is for Long Term Infrastructure Investment Planning which identified drainage, waste, and wastewater as priority areas; and in Cambodia CDIA works with six (6) cities around the Tonle Sap Lake to prioritize projects addressing flooding, wastewater, and drainage.

b) Knowledge Products

In the second half of 2016, a number of knowledge products relating to environment and climate

change aspects were formulated:

Arising from the 2015 CDIA-Rockefeller Foundation joint study on “Aligning Upstream Urban Climate Resilience Planning to Downstream Finance” which supports ‘originators’ or ‘planners’ and ‘investors’ in coming closer together to link planning and infrastructure financing efforts, a Project Screening Tool was developed, and an online version made available via the CDIA website. This is the first interactive knowledge product of CDIA which users, particularly cities, can utilize. Users create an account and access is free.

To assist Asian cities in conducting a basic evaluation of climate sensitivity of infrastructure projects, CDIA worked on a basic Guide on Climate Sensitivity Screening of Urban Infrastructure. It is designed for use by cities themselves and it also aims to guide them in identifying potential mitigation and adaptation measures for identified risks. Furthermore, this resource can be used as a training material and as an activity within the PPS to be led by the local environment consultant.

A compendium on Climate Finance Options for Cities in Bangladesh was prepared by a CDIA

intern with supervision from the Environment and Resilience Specialist. The paper tackles the

different local and international schemes that Bangladeshi cities can access for their climate

change related project proposals. It covers the size of the portfolios, the eligibility criteria and

the focal points.

c) Capacity Development

Recognizing the need that cities must assess their vulnerabilities and look for investment

opportunities to design and build resilient infrastructure, the Urban Climate Change Adaptation

and Resilience (UCCAR) course was designed by CDIA, USAID Adapt Asia Pacific, and the

International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) for city government officials

in Bangladesh . It brought together in Dhaka last 19-22 December six (6) cities that were of

interest to CDIA and its regional partners, such as Gazipur where CDIA has an ongoing PPS,

Sathkira where CDIA previously conducted a PPS and in KfW’s pipeline, Bagerhat that is among

the pool of UCCRTF cities, and the ICLEI member cities of Singra, Faridpur and Sirajganj where

CDIA can also possibly support in the future.

CDIA co-funded together with ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability an emissions inventory

and climate action planning workshop dedicated to Philippine cities who committed to the

United Nations Compact of Mayors. From 5-8 December, twenty-five (25) local government units

were coached on determining strategies on how they can reach Compact compliance vis-à-vis

identified milestones for adaptation and mitigation.

An interactive 2-part internal learning series on urban resilience for the CMT was carried out to

enhance knowledge on the topic and apply these when assessing city applications and in

reviewing proposed subprojects in PPS. The 1st part was internalizing the resilience criteria vis-à-

vis project features, whereas the latter involved experiential learning on ADB’s sustainability


measures on water, waste, energy, wastewater, greening, indoor air quality and disaster

preparedness.

d) Networking and Outreach

Transport is considered among the top sectors with the most infrastructure gaps in Asia, and in

2015, this sector has been a trending theme among CDIA’s regional partners. Hence, to expand

knowledge on the topic among city staff involved in the ongoing PPS in Jinan, China, and Tbilisi,

Georgia, which respectively involved proposed BRT systems, CDIA sponsored their participation

to BMZ’s Connective Cities exchange on “Sustainable Urban Mobility and Climate Change –

Reducing Air Pollution by Climate-Friendly Means of Urban Transport” held in Bangkok,

Thailand from 27-29 September 2016. Prior to that, CDIA likewise sponsored the city staff from

Cebu, Philippines, and Peshawar, Pakistan to tell their transport stories at sustainable transport

solutions sessions during Clean Air Asia’s 9th Better Air Quality Conference from 29 August – 2

September 2016 in Busan, South Korea. CDIA prepared a BRT PPS for Cebu in 2012 which was

eventually taken up by World Bank and a private firm, whereas the 2015 CDIA PPS in Peshawar

also on BRT is pipelined for national government financing and ADB.

CDIA was invited to be featured in three (3) papers: (i) An Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience

Network (ACCCRN)-funded research at Yale University on how cities exchange best practices on

dealing with climate change (ii) A paper on the role of cities in addressing climate change written

by an environmental law professor at University of Hongkong, and (iii) an FMDV/ICLEI/Climate-

KIC white paper which is a Review of International Project Preparation Facilities Best Practices

and Scoping Analysis of Opportunities in West Africa.

CDIA and its work with cities were also shared at various events including the Green Sector

Forum 21-23 September and, the Climate Change Consciousness Week 21-25 November, both in

the Philippines

CDIA relationship remains active with the UCCRTF and 100Resilient Cities through exchange of

ideas, and co-implementing sessions in events, including the Habitat III in Quito, Ecuador last

October. On developing new partnerships, China office has been linked to a GIZ program on

Green Bonds to explore this scheme as one of the alternative sources of financing for the

previous and on-going PPS’s in the country.


Table 5: Anticipated Environmental & Climate Change impacts as per the reviewed IDIAs

City Positive / Direct Impact on

Urban Resilience

Direct Anticipated Impacts on Environment

Negative Impacts and Safeguard Measures

Can Tho, Vietnam

Improvements on collection, containment, and treatment of wastewater which will reduce pollution and environmental threats to water bodies

Improved wastewater treatment that reduces pollution in lands, groundwater, surface water, and drainage canals

Construction issues including noise, dust, traffic congestion, and solid waste disposal

Contractors, together with Community-based Monitoring Teams, are required to mitigate, monitor, and report environmental conditions at the construction site to minimize these negative impacts

Hai Duong, Vietnam

Improved capture and conveyance of storm water, resulting to reduce of flooding

Improved collection and treatment of wastewater and septage which reduces risks of environmental threats

Reduced flooding brought by increased carrying capacity of the drainage system

Improved water quality due to upgraded treatment processes of wastewater, increasing the capture of wastewater, and installing revetments on the earthen embankments, which also reduces erosion

Reduction in illegal dumping of septage into canals, rivers, and grounds with the provision of environmentally suitable locations for treatment

Usual construction issues such as noise, dust, traffic congestion, and solid waste disposal

Contractors along with Community-based Monitoring Teams are required to mitigate, monitor, and report environmental conditions at the construction site to reduce these negative impacts

Vinh, Vietnam

Improved capture and conveyance of storm water

Enhanced drainage that minimizes risks of flooding and other environmental threats

Reduced flooding and volume of untreated wastewater, causing a healthier environment

Safe location for septage disposal from septic tanks which decreases pollution

Construction issues including noise, dust, traffic congestion, and solid waste disposal

Contractors, together with Community-based Monitoring Teams, are required to mitigate, monitor, and report environmental conditions at the construction site to minimize these negative impacts

Guiyang, China

Not applicable Improved garbage collection system and landfill leading to the reduction of solid waste and pollution

Improved water supply to provide clean water not only to the project area but also to nearby communities, which in effect also decreases waterborne diseases

The improved wastewater and drainage system will protect the surface waters and groundwater resources.

Project construction is likely to cause disturbance to local communities, produce construction waste, and increase traffic volume and air emission.

Better construction management and scheduling and relevant traffic management measures are required to reduce and mitigate such impacts.

Construction in hilly area might cause increased soil erosion, hence construction should be scheduled to avoid rainy seasons

Yichang, China

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable


Good Governance:

Table 6: Good governance impacts anticipated as per the IDIAs reviewed during the reporting period

City Direct Anticipated Impacts on

Good Governance Anticipated Risks and Safeguard Measures

Can Tho, Vietnam

Community-Based Monitoring (CBM) activities to enhance institutional capacity development (a,d) and increase societal awareness (b,c): (a) monitoring and commenting on public investment to improve capacity development on urban investment; (b) developing and implementing community environment management rules to promote changes of public behavior toward the environment; (c) awareness raising activities for residents of their role in maintaining drainage and wastewater infrastructure at their house and in their community; (d) promoting street-level drainage channel maintenance.

Information, Education, Communication (IEC) activities using a two-way process to increase societal awareness (a, b) and societal capacity development: (a) increasing knowledge through information dissemination, (b) sanitation awareness raising and (c) consultation of potential improvements and risks as basis for the resettlement plan, septage management activities and wastewater tariff adaptions

Not applicable

Hai Duong,

Vietnam


Information, Education, Communication (IEC) activities using a two-way process to increase societal awareness (a, b) and societal capacity development(c): (a) increasing knowledge through information dissemination, (b) sanitation awareness raising and (c) consultation of potential improvements and risks as basis for the resettlement plan, septage management activities and wastewater tariff adaptions

Hai Duong City and Hai Duong Province delay application for Official Direct Assistance (ODA) financing. Mitigation is to stay in contact and offer advice and assistance

Resistance of city council department to insist on enforcement of national level wastewater tariff laws by delaying tariff adaptation plans and emphasis on the institution’s position as economic regulator because it reviews and approves changes in tariff.

Vinh, Vietnam


Information, Education, Communication (IEC) activities using a two-way process to increase societal awareness (a, b) and societal capacity development(c): (a) increasing knowledge through information dissemination, (b) sanitation awareness raising and (c) consultation of potential improvements and risks as basis for the resettlement plan, septage management activities and wastewater tariff adaptions

Resistance of city council department to insist on enforcement of national level wastewater tariff laws by delaying tariff adaptation plans and emphasis on the institution’s position as economic regulator because it reviews and approves changes in tariff.

Guiyang,

China

Identified needs within organizational procedures using a bottom-up approach by stakeholder consultation and meetings with college leaders

Developed of capacity development measures to improve those organizational procedures

Provided platform improvement to enhance institutional efficiency and provide improvement in the pbulic education service

Not applicable

Yichang,

China

Introduction of a more equitable tariff system for services in elderly care

Evaluation of the efficiency of the governmental performance in the sector to enhance elderly care measures qualitatively and quantitatively

Improved operations through increasing quality of designed and planned governmental facilties for elderly care

Not applicable


D PROGRESS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD

The following tables present the progress made towards achievement of the overall development objective, outcomes and outputs on the basis of the program Impact Chain and Indicators Framework 2013 – 2017 (Annex 1). Since 2015, CDIA has adopted a refined “traffic light” coding to determine the level of achievement of each indicator using the following criteria: green: on track,

yellow: requires some action,

orange: requires substantial action,

red: faces severe challenges.

Indicators with orange and red traffic lights will be further discussed in the “Challenges” part of this chapter, where also strategies are proposed on how to address them.

Figure 17: Progress Overview of Indicators Outcome Output indicator indicator

X X.Y

3.3

3.2

3.1

2.3

2.1

2.2

2.4

2.5

1.1

1.2

3.4

1.3

1

2

3


D.1 PROGRESS AGAINST ENVISAGED OUTCOMES & OUTPUTS

Indicators Results achieved to date/Traffic Light Progress to date/Remarks

OUTCOME (Overall Contribution of the CDIA Program 2007-2017): Cities and partner organizations (national/regional) prepare priority sustainable urban infrastructure investment projects, and link these projects to finance (with focus on environment, climate change, pro-poor, good governance)

1. By December 2017, the services of 10 CDIA-

accredited partner organizations

(national/regional) are routinely utilized by

cities for their infrastructure investment,

planning and programming, pre-feasibility

studies and linking these to finance, utilizing

CDIA process tools (sources: Accreditation

Framework, MoUs, training follow-up surveys,

client city surveys).

CDIA has a total of 9 accredited

partner organizations as of December

2016 including 6 regional and national partner

organizations whose MoUs were renewed in the

previous reporting period. The accreditation process

accounts for their support to cities on the basis of

CDIA tools and services.

Baseline 2012: 0; Dec 2016: 9; 2017: 10 Justification for progress assessment: Progress is on track. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress during this reporting period.

2. By December 2017, in a total of 50 Asian

cities, CDIA-supported urban infrastructure

investment projects that have a focus on at

least two development impacts (out of four:

environment, climate change, pro-poor, and

good governance) have been accepted for

funding and are [being] implemented*

(sources: tracer studies, client surveys, reports

from partner organizations)

* signed financial agreement on project implementation/detailed engineering design (DED)/construction/operation

The elderly care facility project in

Yichang (CHN), solid waste

management project in Balikpapan (INO) and urban

transport project in Palembang (INO) were linked to

financing during this reporting period. By December

2016, components of 28 PFS projects in 22 cities are in

the process of implementation*, with 3 fully

completed and operational projects in 3 cities. Since

2010, all CDIA supported PFSs address at least two

development impacts.

Baseline 2012: 10; Dec 2016: 22; 2017: 50

Justification for progress assessment: Progress on track with some challenges. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment. Indicator remains yellow as completed PFS projects remain in the downstream financing pipeline.

0 58

1215

10 7

13

18

1010

15

23

35

50

10

13

18

22 22

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

Baselineend-2012

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cumula

ve

NumberofCiesLinkedtoFinan

ce

Targetandactualnumberofci eswithCDIAprojectsbeingimplemented

Annual Actual TargetCumula ve ActualCumula ve


3. By December 2017, supported by enhanced

selected national frameworks and the CDIA

Institute, at least 10 cities demonstrate that

they have put into use/applied CDIA good

practice innovations in their routine local

infrastructure planning and/or financing

processes (sources: good practice

documentation, client survey).

No additional CDIA partner city

demonstrated the application of CDIA

good practice innovations during the reporting period.

As of December 2016, the same 5 CDIA partner cities

are applying CDIA good practices in their routine

processes.

Baseline 2012: 0; Dec 2016: 5; 2017: 10

Justification for progress assessment: Challenges in demonstrating impact. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment compared to previous reporting period as no additional city demonstrated routine application of CDIA good practice innovations.

“Bridging the capacity gap”, Output 1: Partner organizations (national/regional) have been strengthened to support cities in preparing infrastructure investment projects

1.1. By end 2017, as part of their regular core

activities, at least 10 accredited partner

organizations provide capacity development

support for the preparation of infrastructure

investment projects (sources: tracer studies,

training programs offered by partner

organizations).

As of December 2016, a total of 9

accredited partner organizations

provide capacity development support for the

preparation of infrastructure investment projects.

Specifically, CDIA is working closely with 3 “core” NPO

– namely PPP Center (PHL), IPDF (PAK) and PT SMI

(IDN) – to provide capacity development trainings and

project preparatory assistance specifically towards

cities in these countries.

Baseline 2012: 0; Dec 2016: 9; 2017: 10

Justification for progress assessment: Progress on track. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: One additional partner organization was accredited during the MoU renewal process in 2016.


1.2. By end 2017, all CDIA NPO implemented

city interventions reflect inclusive processes

and/or outcomes in accordance with PFS

guidelines, Pro-Poor Urban Infrastructure

Investment Guide and Gender Strategy and

Action Plan (sources: PFS terms of reference,

IPSIA, PFS reports, progress reports).

No new PFS was implemented by a

CDIA NPO during the reporting period.

4 out of 5 previous NPO-implemented PFSs reflect

inclusive processes or outcomes in line with CDIA

standards and guidelines. IPDF supported the

implementation of 2 completed PFSs in Pakistan;

however, such support could not be counted for this

indicator.

Baseline 2012: 0; Dec 2016: 80%; 2017: 100%

Justification for progress assessment: 4 out of 5 (80%) NPO implemented PFSs were implemented in compliance with CDIA PFS requirements. 1 (20%) was implemented below standard. Thus, the indicator will never be met 100%. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment compared to previous reporting period.

1.3. By end 2017, all CDIA NPO implemented

city interventions explore options for private

sector involvement in project implementation

and/or financing (sources: PFS reports, NPO

accreditation progress reports).

No new PFS was implemented by a

CDIA NPO during the report period.

Only 3 out of 5 NPO-implemented PFSs explored

options for private sector involvement. Current

collaboration with 3 “core” NPOs – PPP Center (PHL),

IPDF (PAK) and PT SMi (IDN) – aims at engaging

private sector financing for infrastructure projects in

line with the organizational mandate of these NPOs.

Baseline 2012: 0; Dec 2016: 60%; 2017: 100%

Justification for progress assessment: As recognized by the PRC at its 13th meeting, the indicator will never be met 100%. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment compared to previous reporting period.


“Bridging the planning-financing gap”, Output 2: Cities have enhanced capacities to access finance for prioritized sustainable urban infrastructure investment projects

2.1. By end 2017, in 40 cities, follow-up

financing has been secured for projects

that demonstrate sustainable

development (sources: signed agreements,

press releases).

9 additional cities secured financing for

project implementation during this

reporting period, bringing the total number of cities

with financing agreements for PFS projects to 33

cities. Overall, components of 63 PFS projects in 44

cities (including cities with no formal confirmation of

financing) have entered into PPTA, feasibility studies,

detailed technical designs, PPP transaction advisory

services, construction, and operation (for 3 PFS

projects in 3 cities)..

Baseline 2012: 12; Dec 2016: 33; 2017: 40

Justification for progress assessment: Progress on track. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: Change in progress assessment from yellow to green due to significant increase in number of cities securing funding by end of 2016.

2.2. By end 2017, follow-up financing has

been secured for five additional pro-poor

urban infrastructure investment projects

(sources: defined and approved projects

by cities and/or national agencies).

To date, this indicator has been

achieved with the linking to financing of

the elderly care project of Yichang (China). From 2013,

4 additional targeted poverty reduction projects have

been linked to financing in Suva (Fiji), Darkhan

(Mongolia), Balikpapan (Indonesia), and Valenzuela

(Philippines). 3 recently completed pro-poor PFS on

wastewater management in Vietnam is in the ADB

financing pipeline.

Baseline 2012: 0; Dec 2016: 5; 2017: 8

Justification for progress assessment: Progress is on track.

Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment compared to previous reporting period.

3 4 5 7 9

12

02

6

0

8

16

24

32

40

1212

14

20

33 33

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

2007-2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cumula

ve

NumberofCiesLinkedtoFinance

Targetandactualnumberofci eswithsignedfinancingagreements

Annual Actual TargetCumula ve ActualCumula ve


2.3. By end 2017, follow-up private sector

participation has been secured for five

additional urban infrastructure

investment projects (sources: defined

project documents approved by cities

and/or national agencies).

1 PFS project was added during this

reporting period with the linking of

elderly care project of Yichang (China) to PPP financing.

3 PFS projects in Gejiu (CHN) and in Faisalabad (PAK)

have been linked to financing with private sector

participation since the start of the second S&BP. 1 PFS

project in Guiyang is pipelined for PPP financing.

Baseline 2012: 3; Dec 2016: 4; 2017: 5

Justification for progress assessment: Progress is on track.

Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment compared to previous reporting period.

2.4. By end 2014, collaboration with 2

national pro-poor financing institutions

and 2 PPP centers or branches of national

government undertaking infrastructure

investment projects in cities has been

assured (sources: signed MoUs, joint work

programs).

This indicator has been partially met

within the set period. Since 2013,

collaboration exists with 2 PPP centers in Indonesia and

the Philippines. To date, no national institutions with an

explicit pro-poor financing focus for urban

infrastructure have been identified despite continuous

scanning and request for support from PRC and the

Stakeholders’ Forum Expert Group members following

the MTR 2014.

Baseline 2012: 0 pro-poor/0 PPP; 2014: 0 pro-poor/2

PPP; Dec. 2015: 0 pro-poor/2 PPP

Justification for progress assessment: Collaboration with 2 PPP centers exists but no suitable national pro-poor financing institution has been identified. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis

previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment

compared to previous reporting period.


2.5. By end 2013, appropriate framework

is in place to enable monitoring projects’

actual contribution to development

impacts (sources: tracer studies, client

satisfaction surveys).

The PRC decisions regarding M&E were

continuously implemented during the

reporting period. During the reporting period, 2 Tracer

Studies were completed in Khulna (BAN) and Tangerang

(INO) bringing the total of completed Tracer Studies to

5 in 2016. Moreover, refinements to the Initial

Development Impact Assessment (IDIA) tool and Tracer

Study Manual were introduced during the period.

Justification for progress assessment: While the deadline of

Dec. 2013 was not met, the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

system has been revised and updated.

Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis



“Bridging the institutional gap”, Output 3: Sustainable knowledge and innovation support for urban infrastructure investment is available and accessible to stakeholders

3.1. By end 2015, in 20 cities urban

infrastructure planning processes reflect

lessons from CDIA centers of learning

(sources: assessment surveys of

institutional, organizational, and human

capacities).

Number of cities reflecting lessons from CDIA partner cities or the CDIA Centers

of Learning (CoL), still remains to be 5. While no additional city was reported to have reflected lessons from CoL during the reporting period, CDIA has documented through videos and publications the good practices of not just the CoL cities, but also of CDIA cities with success stories verified through tracer studies. During this reporting period, the CoL concept was modified into the ‘Good Practice Laboratory’ approach to allow greater flexibility in sharing good practice between and among cities.

Baseline 2012: 0; Dec 2015: 5/20; Dec 2016: 5

Justification for progress assessment: This indicator was not met by end-2015. An external M&E Specialist and the MTR found this indicator to be at the outcome rather than output level of CDIA activities. However, the PRC at its 13th mtg. decided not to change the impact chain. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis




3.2. By end 2017, in 6 countries, in

collaboration with development partners,

CDIA processes are aligned with and have

enhanced nationally mandated urban

development processes (sources: minutes

of meetings, conference documents,

national policies, laws, regulations).

So far, the criteria of this indicator are

met in 1 country, i.e. Indonesia

(reported in PR June-Dec 2013), where CDIA has

strategic entry points for contributing to and enhancing

the development of National Urban Development

Policy. The 3 “core” NPOs – namely PPP Center (PHL),

IPDF (PAK) and PT SMi (INO) - are nationally mandated

to promote private sector participation in infrastructure

development, and CDIA is collaborating with these

NPOs in the preparation of infrastructure investment

projects.

Baseline 2012: 0; Dec 2016: 1; 2017: 6

Justification for progress assessment: Apart from Indonesia, some progress is made in Philippines and Pakistan. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment


3.3. By end 2017, financing of CDIA core

functions has been secured with at least 4

regional partners contributing at least 60%

(sources: agreements of organizations).

From 2007-2012, 4 regional partners

(ADB, Japan via ADB Japan Special Fund

(JSF), Shanghai Municipal Government (SMG),

Singapore) have contributed 12% of all CDIA resources.

Under the second S&BP, 3 of these contributed 12%

from 2013-15. Substantial efforts have been

undertaken to win other potential regional contributors

but have not resulted in additional commitments to

date and request for support from the PRC following

the MTR 2014.

Baseline 2012: 4, 12%; Dec 2016: 3, 12%; 2017: 4, 60%

Justification for progress assessment: Efforts of CMT supported by PRC members are ongoing but remain challenging. Revision of PRC Protocol expected to facilitate accommodation of regional (& in-kind) contributions. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment compared to previous reporting period.


3.4. By end 2017, 30% of CDIA city

interventions will have (partial) cost-recovery

mechanisms in place (sources: TA agreements).

33% of CDIA city interventions in 2013 have

(partial) cost-recovery mechanisms in place.

Following the recommendations of the long-term

sustainability study on CDIA which were endorsed by PRC,

CMT is exploring various options, e.g. the ongoing TVET-

related project in Guiyang.

Baseline 2012: 0; Dec 2016: 33% since 2013; 2017: 30%

Justification for progress assessment: Based on the TA agreements signed since 2013, cost recovery is expected upon project implementation. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period: No change in progress assessment compared to previous reporting period.

D.2 CHALLENGES AND MITIGATION

For the indicators where progress during the reporting period was highlighted as orange (requires substantial action) and red (facing severe challenges) in the above section, further clarification is provided below and strategies are proposed on how to address them.

Indicators Further clarification on challenges Proposed actions to mitigate

1.3. By end 2017, all CDIA NPO imple-

mented city interventions explore

options for private sector

involvement in project

implementation and/or financing

(sources: PFS reports, progress

reports).

NPOs are trained by CDIA to support cities with regard to

private sector involvement, with some of them even

having an explicit mandate to do so. However, PFSs will

most likely only rarely be implemented by NPOs

according to the MTR.

PRC acknowledged that the indicator will never be met

100%.

CDIA will continue to develop NPO capacity on

private sector involvement.

CDIA will strengthen selected NPOs to prepare

PFS similar to CDIA who works with consultancy

teams. CDIA will not train cities nor NPOs to do

PFS by themselves.

MoUs to be renewed with NPOs with

corresponding mandate.


2.4. By end 2014, collaboration with 2

national pro-poor financing

institutions and 2 PPP centers or

branches of national government

undertaking infrastructure investment

projects in cities has been assured

(sources: signed MoUs, joint work

programs).

The MTR suggested for PRC members to identify suitable

institutions to CDIA. So far, none has been found.

The SHF EG is also supporting CDIA, especially its Senior

Infrastructure Financing Expert and Social Development

Specialist, in the search for suitable institutions, but

without success to date.

CDIA will continue its efforts to identify pro-poor

financing institutions with support from the PRC

members and the Stakeholders’ Forum Expert

Group.

PRC members to recommend suitable contacts

and institutions to CMT.

3.1. By end 2015, in 20 cities urban

infrastructure planning processes

reflect lessons from CDIA centers of

learning (sources: assessment surveys

of institutional, organizational, and

human capacities).

Good practices were shared in two events: i)

“Strengthening City to City Learning” held in Guiyang in

Sept. 2015 with local gov’t representatives from 18 cities

in 7 Asian countries, and ii) “Sharing Urban Solutions”

held in Seoul in Oct. 2015 with representatives from

Kathmandu, Ulaanbaatar and Baguio.

However, the establishment of Centers of Learning via

MoUs is only expected to advance in 2016.

CDIA to adopt the ‘Good Practice Laboratory’

approach

Continue documentation of good practices.

Deepen the cooperation with the GIZ programs

Connective Cities andd improve synergy with GIZ

program Urban Nexus in addition to other

institutions, like the OECD, CityNet and UCLG-

ASPAC

Continue discussions with NPOs and selected

cities in 2017.

3.2. By end 2017, in 6 countries, in

collaboration with development

partners, CDIA processes are aligned

with and have enhanced nationally

mandated urban development

processes (sources: minutes of

meetings, conference documents,

national policies, laws, regulations).

Due to the short intervention period at city level, CDIA

influence on national processes is limited.

Limited human resources only allow for irregular visits to

partner countries while incentives for and resources of

partners are low to take forward CDIA processes on its

behalf.

Pursue the MTR recommendation to “go deeper”

with cities and through the more frequently

applied cluster approach via national

governments in Asia, more visibility and

recognition of CDIA is expected.

PRC members are requested to support this

process through their official channels.

3.3. By end 2017, financing of CDIA

core functions has been secured with

New PRC membership criteria were developed to pursue

an approach to regional ownership with decentralized

Continue discussions on alignment of CDIA with

national priorities with regional governments.


at least 4 regional partners

contributing at least 60% (sources:

agreements of organizations).

funding of CDIA activities at national level.

While efforts were undertaken to entice regional

contributions, no commitment has been achieved to

date.

PRC members are requested to support this

process through their official channels.

3.4. By end 2017, 30% of CDIA city

interventions will have (partial) cost-

recovery mechanisms in place

(sources: TA agreements).

Experience to date indicates that negotiations on cost

recovery mechanisms are more likely to succeed in

certain countries rather than others and require careful

preparations.

Continue to use revised draft template for

Technical Assistance Agreements which include

cost recovery as the basis for negotiations in all

upcoming PFSs.


E CMT TIME REGISTRATION, CDIA CORE RESOURCES EXPENDITURE AND BUDGET

Introduction: CDIA resources in the second half of 2016 were in cash and in-kind from ADB (incl. resources channelled through RETA from Austria, Sweden, and Switzerland as well as through the UCCRTF/Urban Financing Partnership Facility also from BMZ (through GIZ), DFID, Rockefeller Foundation, the Shanghai Municipal Government for CDIA China and USAID. Table 7 below shows the staff time spent per activity. Table 8 shows a detailed overview of expenses per source and component while Table 9 outlines the available budget and expenditure per source of funds. Figure 18 illustrates the CDIA budget and disbursement update per funder. Lastly, Table 10 shows the contracts awarded from July – December 2016 while Table 11 presents the contracts to be awarded from January-June 2017.

Table 7: CDIA Time Registration (January-June 2016 and July-December 2016)

Summary outcome CMT time

registration Jan - Jun 2016 Jul- Dec 2016 2016

City Level Project Preparation Activities

General Pipeline Activities 5% 10% 8%

Investment Programming & Prioritization 1% 1% 1%

Project Preparatory Studies (PPS) 24% 20% 22%

Linkage to Financing 2% 2% 2%

Sub-total 32% 34% 33%

Capacity Development

Capacity Development in City 9% 7% 8%

Regional Capacity Development 7% 5% 6%

NPO Collaboration / YAPP 4% 4% 4%

Networking / SHF / Conferences / PR 11% 15% 13%

Knowledge Development 4% 2% 3%

Sub-total 35% 33% 34%

Institutionalization

Institutionalization 14% 16% 15%

Sub-total 14% 16% 15%

CDIA Management

CMT Meetings & Administration 5% 5% 5%

CDIA staff development / trainings 1% 3% 2%

CDIA Admin. & Mgmt. Activities 13% 9% 11%

Sub-total 19% 17% 18%

Total 100% 100% 100%


Table 8: Consolidated CDIA Expenditure per Source and Component for January-December 2016 in USD thousand

Consolidated CDIA Core Funds Expenditure January - December 2016

Component Jan - June

2016

Expenses

ADB GIZ SMG

July - Dec

2016

Expenses

% of

Jul-Dec 2016

Total Expenses

2016

% of 2016

Expenses

City Level Project ActivitiesGeneral Specific Pipeline Activities 72.531 76.416 69.210 0 214.835,93 287.367 3%

Investment Programming & Prioritization 8.305 4.994 3.239 0 11.473 0% 19.778 0%

Pre-Feasibility Studies (PFS) 2.298.091 1.943.662 80.976 781.445 3.668.505 61% 5.966.596 62%

Linkage to Finance 29.077 19.402 7.644 0 34.690 1% 63.768 1%

Total Expenditure CLPA $ 2.408.005 $ 2.044.474 $ 161.070 $ 781.445 $ 3.929.504 65% $ 6.337.509 66%

Capacity Development (CD)Capacity Development - in City 63.742 8.472 106.133 0 220.738 4% 284.480 3%

Regional Capacity Development 123.402 153 88.760 0 177.673 3% 301.074 3%

Knowledge Development 54.731 306 19.202 0 38.710 1% 93.441 1%

CD in Partner Organization 28.763 753 24.248 0 49.250 1% 78.013 1%

CDIA on Sponsorship on CD 10.587 0 18.618 0 37.235 1% 47.822 0%

NPO Collaboration /YAPP 55.605 653 40.961 0 82.575 1% 138.179 1%

Networking / SHF / Conference / PR 112.835 7.009 175.742 0 358.493 6% 471.329 5%

Total Expenditure CD $ 449.665 $ 17.346 $ 473.664 $ - $ 964.673 16% $ 1.414.338 15%

Institutionalization Nodal Offices 9.580 0 1.004 0 2.008 0% 11.589 0%

Strategy Development 44.043 14.924 21.775 0 58.474 1% 102.518 1%

Resource Mobilization 12.373 153 4.720 0 9.593 0% 21.966 0%

Project Review Committee (PRC) 20.770 12.474 6.134 0 24.741 0% 45.511 0%

Monitoring & Evaluation 59.111 29.635 23.952 0 77.539 1% 136.650 1%

MTR 19.417 0 0 0 0 0% 19.417 0%

Institutionalization 165.295 57.185 57.585 0 172.356 3% 337.651 4%

Total Expenditure Institutionalisation $ 165.295 $ 57.185 $ 57.585 $ - $ 172.356 3% $ 337.651 4%

CDIA ManagementCMT Meetings & Administration 73.406 18.407 26.869 0 72.145 1% 145.551 2%

CDIA staff development / trainings 12.737 839 48.981 0 98.800 2% 111.538 1%

CDIA Admin. & Mgmt. Activities 218.949 -16.673 87.431 12.586 183.361 3% 402.310 4%

Total Expenditure CDIA Management $ 305.092 $ 2.572 $ 163.281 $ 12.586 $ 354.306 6% $ 659.398 7%

Direct project expenses $ 3.328.058 $ 2.121.578 $ 855.599 $ 794.031 $ 5.420.839 90% $ 8.748.896 91%

Institutional Overheads $ 166.103 $ 1.556 $ 181.404 $ 51.494 $ 467.351 8% $ 633.454 7%

Taxation $ 67.455 $ - $ 64.446 $ - $ 128.891 2% $ 196.346 2%

Total Expenses $ 3.561.615 $ 2.123.134 $ 1.101.448 $ 845.525 $ 6.017.081 100% $ 9.578.697 100%

July - December 2016


Available

Funds

in 2016

Jan. - June

2016

Expenditure

July -

December

2016

Expenditure

Total

Expenditure

in 2016

% of

Respourc

e

Utilization

% of

Overall

Core

Resources

Utilisation

Asian Development Bank (ADB) 16.047.169$ 2.073.941$ 2.123.134$ 4.197.075$ 26%

Switzerland (SECO), 2013-2017

(released by Dec. 2015) $ 7.000.000

Total $ 7.000.000

Austria (BMF), 2013-2016 $ 2.300.000

Sweden, 2013-2017 (released by

Dec 2015) $ 7.084.000

Urban Financing Partnership

Facility (UFPF), 2013-2018 $ 5.000.000

Asian Development Bank (ADB),

2015-2017 $ 1.000.000

Government of France, 2016-2017 $ 400.000

Total 15.784.000$

Shanghai Mun. Govt (SMG) financial

support to CDIA1.443.162$ 526.923$ 845.525$ 1.372.448 95%

19.558.762$ 3.561.615$ 4.070.108$ 7.631.723$ 39%

*GIZ expenditures - currency exchange rate 1 EUR = 1,11 USD (Jan-Jun 2016) & 1 EUR = 1,01 USD (Jul-Dec 2016)

*currency exchange rate 1 USD = 6,52 CN¥ (Jan-Jun 2016) & 1 USD = 6,72 CN¥ (Jul-Dec 2016)

CDIA Sources of Funds (2013-2017)

Germany BMZ

Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

100%

413.775$ $ 1.362.266

2.062.200$ 1.101.448$

$ 948.491

960.751$

46%

Total Available Funds and Expenditure in 2016

Cities Development Initiative for Asia Program financial

support for 2015

22%

Remaining financial support to CDIA China for 2016

- RETA 8556: Supporting the

Cities Development Initiative

for Asia

(TA completion 31 Dec. 2017)

13.104.767$ 1.125.450$ 1.709.359$ 2.834.809$

- RETA 6293: Managing the

Cities in Asia

(TA completion 31 Dec. 2017)

$ 2.942.402

2.068.431$

Remaining funds for CDIA implementation up to 2017

Total per Regional Technical Assistance (RETA) and in-

kind allocation for 2015

Table 9: Available Budget and Expenditure in January-December 2016 in USD


Figure 18: CDIA budget and disbursement

The detailed status of CDIA budget and disbursement per funder (as of December 2016) is indicated in Annex 3.

Table 10: Contracts awarded from July to December 2016

Project Title Funder Value in USD Contract signing

C.1.1.1 China (Jinan) – Urban Mobility Devt. Project

C.1.1.2 SMG 350,000 Q4 2016

Pakistan (Peshawar, Mardan, Abotabad) – Urban Inclusive Growth

UCCRTF 750,000 Q4 2016

Indonesia (Banda Aceh) – BRT Project Sweden 70,000 Q4 2016

Cambodia (Kampong Chhnangam, Pursat, Steung) – Tonle Sap Economic Corridor II

Sweden 702,500 Q4 2016

Georgia (Tbilisi) Urban Transport Project Austria 450,000 Q4 2016

Total 2,322,500


Table 11: Contracts envisioned to be awarded from January to June 2017

Project Title Funder Value in USD Contract signing

China (Kaili) – Green Transport Hub SMG 50,000 Q1 2017

Indonesia (Balikpapan/Palembang) - Road Improvement Project PFS Update

Switzerland 60,000 Q1 2017

Indonesia (Banda Aceh/Bekasi/Mataram) – Sewerage Systems Development Project

UCCRTF 750,000 Q1 2017

Philippines (Metro Manila) - C5 Bus Rapid Transit project

Sweden/France 550,000 Q1 2017

Georgia (Tblisi) - Metro upgrading project Austria 400,000 Q1 2017

Pakistan (Sargodha/Bahawalpu/RahimYarKhan) - PICIIP

UCCRTF 750,000 Q2 2017

Total 2,560,000


F KEY ACTIVITIES (UNDERTAKEN AND PLANNED)

F.1 KEY ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN (JULY - DECEMBER 2016)

Event Title (regional events in bold)

Participation

Venue Date CDIA as

Organizer

CDIA as Co-

Organizer

CDIA / Partners / Cities as Speakers

Cities as Participants

1 CIIPP Training of Trainers for GGGI ✓ Hanoi, Vietnam 04 – 05 July

2

East-West Center Regional Workshop on Urban Governance for Sustainable Development in Asia

✓ Surabaya, Indonesia

21 - 23 July

3 Habitat III Preparatory Committee 3 Session


25 - 28 July

4 CDIA–PT SMi ‘Linking Urban Infrastructure to Financing’ training


27 - 29 July

5 17th IUPPA World Clean Air Congress and 9th CAA Better Air Quality Conference

✓ Busan, Korea 29 Aug - 02 Sept

6 6th UCLG-ASPAC Congress ✓ Jeollabuk-do, Korea

05 -08 Sept

7 CDIA combined Advisory Panel & SHF-EG meeting

✓ Bangkok, Thailand

07 Sept

8 ‘Inclusive Cities’ Training ✓ Islamabad, Pakistan

20 - 21 Sept

9 Connective Cities Workshop on Sustainable Urban Mobility and Climate Change

✓ Bangkok, Thailand

27 - 29 Sept

10 ADB/DELOG Conference/Joint Learning Activity: Localizing Global Agendas

✓ Manila, Philippines

27 - 29 Sept

11 Habitat III UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development

✓ Quito, Ecuador 17 - 20 Oct

12 YIPD-PTSMI ‘PPP’ Workshop ✓ ✓ Jakarta, Indonesia

19 - 20 Oct

13 Study Tour for Selected Asian Partner Cities and NPOs

✓ Berlin, Leipzig, Frankfurt, Germany

23 - 28 Oct

14 17th PRC Meeting ✓ Frankfurt, Germany

07 - 08 Nov

15 CDIA–PT SMi ‘Linking Urban Infrastructure to Financing’ Training

✓ Makassar, Indonesia

29 Nov - 01 Dec

16 CDIA-PT SMi Cooperation Workshop ✓ Jakarta, Indonesia

05 Dec

17

ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability and Emissions Inventory and Climate Action Planning Workshop

✓ Manila, Philippines

05 – 08 Dec

18 ‘Urban Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience’ Training

✓ Dhaka, Bangladesh

19 – 22 Dec


F.2 KEY ACTIVITIES PLANNED (JANUARY - JUNE 2017)

Event Title (regional events in bold)

Participation

Venue Date CDIA as

Organizer

CDIA as Co-

Organizer

CDIA / Partners / Cities

as Speakers

Cities as Participants

1 Internal ‘Inclusive Cities’ & ‘Monitoring and Evaluation’ training

✓ Manila, Philippines 27 Jan

2 Financial Modelling for Cities ✓ Manila, Philippines 24, 29-31 March

3 18th PRC Meeting ✓ Video conference 27-28 March

4 CDIA Retreat ✓ (tbc) 30 – 31 March

5 ‘Inclusive Cities’ Training for Practitioners and Multiplicators

✓ Manila, Philippines March (tbc)

6 Integrated Capacity Development for PPS partner cities (Toenle Sap-PPS)

✓ Toenle Sap, Cambodia March/April (tbc)

7 ICLEI Webinar on CDIA tools ✓ Manila, Philippines March/April (tbc)

8 UCLG-Policy Paper on Local Government Frameworks - Regional Evaluation Workshop

✓ Catbalogan, Philippines

13 – 15 April

9

CDIA–MFA SG ‘Effective Urban Infrastructure Programming’ course & ‘Good Practice Laboratories’

✓ ✓ Singapore 17 – 21 April

10 CDIA–PT SMi ‘Linking Urban Infrastructure to Financing’ training, first batch

✓ Sumatra, Kalimantan or Eastern Indonesia

April/May (tbc)

11 Integrated Capacity Development for PPS partner cities (C5-PPS)

✓ Manila, Philippines May (tbc)

1 Advisory Panel/SHF-EG Meeting ✓ Manila, Philippines May (tbc)

13 ‘Climate Finance with KIC’ training

✓ (tbc) June (tbc)


ANNEX 1 STATUS OF CDIA PFS PROJECTS LINKED TO FINANCE (DECEMBER 2016)

Linkedtofinance

MainFinancing

Institution

Feasibility

EIV

Construction

EIR**

ProjectPre-

paratory

Technical

Assistance

Follow-up

financing

informally

confirmed

Financing

agree-ment

signed

Detailed

Engi-

neering

Design

Con-

struction

ongoing

Somecom-

ponents

completed

Con-

struction

fullycom-

pleted

1 SolidWasteManagement 700,000 6.5 ADB 6.51 ü üADBProgramLoanAgreement,2014,39305-013.Consultantsforprogramsupport,

financialmanagementandDED-Constructionaremobilized.(Feb.2015)

2 Drainage 600,000 11.1 ADB 11.06 ü ü üADBProgramLoanAgreement,2011,39298-013.Civilworksandcapacitybuilding

programson-going.(Feb.2015)

3 Urbantransport 1,300,000 13.8 KfW 13.76 ü ü ü SignedinMarch2012forEUR10.5mio,underimplementationsinceearly2014

4 Sewage/drainagesystemimprovement 130,000 9.2 ADB 9.18 ü ü ADBGrantandLoanAgreements,43319-033.DEDongoing.

5 SolidWasteManagement notspecified 4.8 ADB 4.83 ü ü ADBGrantandLoanAgreements,43319-033.DEDongoing.

6 WaterSupply ADB ü

7 Wastewatermanagement ADB ü

3 KampongCham 8 Watersupply ADB ü

4 SiemReap 9 Wastewatermanagement ADB ü

5 Sihanoukville 10 Wastewatermanagement ADB ü

6 TaingKrasaing 11 Wastewatermanagement ADB ü

7 Gejiu,China 12 LandDevelopment 120,000 900.0 PPP [900] 0.00 ü

PPPcontractwiththeChinaOverseasEducatedScholarsDevelopmentFoundationfor

YangshanDistrictPrimaryLandDevelopment,signedAug.2013;onhold(new

regulations)

Guiyang1,China 13 Urbantransport(LRTproject) 1,790,000 2300.0 LFI [3366.00] 3366.00 ü ü üLoanwithChinaDevelopmentBanksignedforUSD2,300mio.;Remainingamount

financedthroughIssuingBonds,Trusts,fiscalre-allocations,financialleasing,etc.

Guiyang2,China 14 Urbantransport(NorthPassengerHub) 530,000 84.0 Other 59.00 ü ü ü DomesticcommercialloanofUSD59mio.

9 Jinan 15 Urbantransport ADB ü

10 Pu’er,China 16 RehabilitationSimaoRiver 175,000 225.5 KfW 80.00 ü ü üLoanagreementsignedinDec.2012forEUR60mio.,underimplementationsinceFeb.

2014

11 Xinyu,China 17 Floodprotectionsystem 150,000 306.0 LFI 306.00 ü ü ü

StartofADBPPTAinSep.2015forADBloanofUSD150mioin2016,underProject

47030-002:JiangxiPingxiangIntegratedRural-UrbanInfrastructureDevelopment

Project;Gov't:USD156mio.18 Innercityrenewal 100,000 12.6 LFI 12.60 ü Financedthroughcity'sownresources

19 Watersupply 500,000 60.0 LFI 60.00 ü ü FinancedbyChinaDevelopmentBank;operational

13 Yichang,China 20 ElderlyCarePPP 128.4 ADB 128.40 ü üADBLoanofUSD50milinadditiontoGov.USD55mil;privatesectorexpected

investmentof23.4mil

21 Drainageandfloodmanagement 256,000 24.4 LFI 10.00 ü Nationalgovernmentfunds

22 Urbantransport [256,000] 13.2 LFI 5.00 ü Nationalgovernmentfunds

15 Chennai,India 23 SolidWasteManagement 650,000 150.0 LFI 2.00 ü ü Financedthroughcity'sownresources

16 Cochin,India 24 Urbantransport 150,000 121.8 KfW 100.99 ü ü LoanofEUR80millionapprovedbystateandDEA,MoUtobesignedinMar.2016

17 Pimpri,India 25 WaterSupply 150,000 66.4 LFI 37.90 ü ü ü

GrantfromJnNURMandcityresources(Rs.120crore)for40%ofcity;Remaining60%

coverageto-befundedviagrantfromAMRUT(EIVRs.240.46),andRs.120crore

obtainedforYear1ofofprojectimplementation

18 Rajkot,India 26 Urbantransport 160,000 15.7 LFI 15.70 ü ü ü Financedthroughstateandcity'sownresources

19 Balikpapan,Indonesia 27 SolidWasteManagement 350,000 53.6 Other 38.00 ü ü ü ü

20 BandaAceh,Indonesia 28River-basedurbaninfrastructuredevelopment,CBD

rehabilitation24,000 22.6 LFI 5.00 ü ü ü ü

NationalgovernmentgrantofUSD5mio.,othercomponentstobefinancedwithown

resources.

21 Palembang,Indonesia 29Urbantransport(Bridgeproject+selectedbus

routes)notspecified 175.0 Other 19.50 ü ü Financedthroughcommercialborrowing

22 Surabaya,Indonesia 30 Urbantransport(Tram/Subwaysystem) 1,350,000 210.0 LFI 10.00 ü üMoUandagreementsignedbetweenCity,MinistryofTransport,andPTKeretaApiin

2015.23 Surakarta,Indonesia 31 Urbantransport notspecified 49.0 LFI 36.70 ü ü

Financedthroughcity'sownresources,DEDbyAustralianAidandtheGovernmentof

Indonesia24 Tangerang,Indonesia 32 SolidWasteManagement notspecified 91.1 Other 55.00 ü Nationalandlocalgovernment

25 Yogyakarta,Indonesia 33 Urbantransport notspecified 62.8 LFI tbc ü

26 Bishkek,Kyrgyzstan 34 EnergyEfficiency(streetlighting) 460,000 45.0 Other tbc ü EBRDinitatedFS,consultantsrecruitedinOct.2015.

35 Sewerage/drainagesystem 25,000 25.4 ADB 25.40 ü ADBFinancingAgreement,43316-012,projecttobedelegatedtoLRM.

36 Solidwastemanagement 135,000 1.9 ADB 1.86 ü ADBFinancingAgreement,43316-012,projecttobedelegatedtoLRM.

37 GreenInfrastructure notspecified 6.9 ADB 6.90 ü ADBFinancingAgreement,43316-012,projecttobedelegatedtoLRM.

28 Darkhan,Mongolia 38 Wastewatermanagement 45,000 66.4 ADB 18.50 ü ADBLoanAgreementsNo.3244and3245,Dec.2014,37697-025

29 Ulaanbaatar2,Mongolia 39 UrbanRenewalandAffordableHousing 780,000 53.2 ADB 80.00 ü üADBloanproposedinDec.2015,ADBGrantAgreementforPPTA49169-001signed

Jan.2016

40 Urbanenvironmentalimprovements 500,000 23.7 ADB 23.70 ü ü ü ü ADBLoanandGrantAgreements,L-3000;G-0342;L-8269;L2656/G0212-NEP;43524-

41 Urbantransport(Bishnumatilinkroad) 400,000 8.8 ADB 8.80 ü ü ü ü ADBLoanandGrantAgreements,L-2656;G-0212;G-0239;civilworksstartedin2014

42 Urbantransport 583.2 PPP tbc ü

43 Industrialwastewatermanagement 141.9 PPP 50.70 ü ProvincialGovernmentwithWaterandSanitationAuthority

32 Islamabad,Pakistan 44 UrbanTransport 1,151,900 420.0 LFI 420.00 ü ü ü ü ü ü

Rawalpindi-Islamabad(TwinCity)Metroproject;PKR44.84billionfromnationaland

PunjabGov'tfunds(http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-

06/01/c_134288568.htm;http://www.dawn.com/news/1186130)

33 Peshawar,Pakistan 45 UrbanTransport 500,000 487.5 ADB 533.00 ü üADBPPTAongoing,underProject48289-001:PeshawarSustainableBusRapidTransit

CorridorProject

46 Watersupply ADB 194.00 ü

47 Sewerageanddrainage ADB ü

48 Watersupply ADB 248.00 ü

49 Sewerageanddrainage ADB ü

36 Cebu,Philippines 50ReviewofexistingSRPPlanServiceutilities(urban

publictransport)330,000 23.1 WB 141.00 ü

37 Davao,Philippines 51 UrbanTransport 1,200,000 26.1 ADB tbc ü üStartofADBTA45296-003"DavaoSustainableUrbanTransport"in2015withDOTCfor

PPTA

52 FerryTerminalSystem(GIFTS) 20,000 9.2 PPP 3.40 ü ü ü PPPagreementwithInjapInvestmentsapprovedbycitycouncil

53 CBDrevitalization notspecified 29.8 PPP 29.79 ü ü PrivateinvestorsstartedupgradingsomepropertiesintheCBD

54 Riverwalk 5,000 4.9 LFI 4.85 ü Financedthroughlocalresources

55 Floodmanagementanddrainage 80,000 23.7 LFI 9.20 ü üFinancingthroughDPWHforaboutPHP650million;constructionabout45%

completed56 Rivertransport 3,500 0.5 LFI 0.43 ü ü FinancedthroughDILGgrant;operational

57 DRRMbuilding(ALERT) notspecified 2.9 LFI 2.00 ü City'sownresources

58 FloodProtection 180,000 24.6 WB tbc ü Writtenconfirmationunderpreparation

41 Colombo,SriLanka 59 Integratedwastewatermanagement 500,000 311.0 ADB 128.00 ü Project45148-004:GCWWMIIP,Tranch3and4,MFF

42 ThungSong,Thailand 60 CargoDistributionCenter 150,000 24.3 LFI 27.60 ü ü Nationalandlocalfinancing,operationviaPPPintended

43 CanTho,Vietnam 61Urbanenvironmentalinfrastructure(WWTPin

IndustrialZone)15,000 34.0 LFI 6.50 ü ü WWTPforindustrialzoneconstructedwithstateresources;noKfWinvolvement

62 Watersupply 40,000 19.5 ADB 19.45 ü üADBPPTA43237-012,completedinDec.2013;-013:loanfactfindingdonebySEUWin

early201563 Wastewatertreatment 48,000 19.5 ADB 19.45 ü ü

ADBPPTA43237-012,completedinDec.2013;-013:loanfactfindingdonebySEUWin

early201516,753,400 7,534.2 2,559.3 3,836.4 17 27 30 9 18 14 3

*ExpectedInvestmentValue(inmio.US$)

Kathmandu,Nepal

Faisalabad,Pakistan

MetroIloilo-Guimaras,

Philippines

Naga,Philippines

ThanhHoa,Vietnam

6,395.7

**EstimatedInvestmentsRealized(inmio.US$)

40 Valenzuela,Philippines

ProjectSector/PFS TargetPopulationEIV*

asperPFS

ImplementationPhase

#City,Country#

StatusofLinkedProjects

Details

1,000,000

TOTALS(inmio.US$)

1

8

12

14

27

30

31

38

39

44

Khulna,Bangladesh

Battambang2,Cambodia

Sahiwal,Pakistan

Sialkot,Pakistan

2

34

35

Battambang1,Cambodia

Yangzhou,China

GreaterSuvaArea,Fiji

Pakse,LaoPDR


ANNEX 2 CDIA RESULTS CHAIN AND INDICATORS FRAMEWORK 2013-2017

Impact (Long-term Development Effect):

Living conditions and the environment in Asian cities, particularly for the urban poor, have improved

Outcome (Overall Contribution of the CDIA Program 2007–2017):

Cities and partner organizations (national/ regional) prepare priority sustainable urban infrastructure investment projects, and link these projects to

finance (with focus on environment, climate change, pro-poor, good governance)

1. The services of 10 CDIA-accredited partner

organizations (national/ regional) are routinely

utilized by cities for their infrastructure investment

planning and programming, pre-feasibility studies

and linking these to finance, utilizing CDIA process

tools (sources: partner organization certification,

partner organizations contract data, client surveys)

[Dec. 2017]

2. In a total of 50 Asian cities, CDIA-supported urban

infrastructure investment projects that have a focus on

at least two development impacts (out of four:

environment, climate change, pro-poor, and good

governance) have been accepted for funding and are

[being] implemented, (sources: tracer studies, baseline

end-2012: 20 projects in 10 cities) [Dec. 2017]

3. Supported by enhanced selected national

frameworks and the CDIA Institute, at least 10

cities demonstrate that they have put into

use/applied CDIA good practice innovations in

their routine local infrastructure planning and/or

financing processes. (sources: good practice

documentation, client survey) [Dec. 2017]

Output (Results of CDIA 2013-2017)

“Bridging the capacity gap”

OUTPUT 1: Partner organizations (national/

regional) have been strengthened to support

cities in preparing infrastructure investment

projects

“Bridging the planning-financing gap”

OUTPUT 2: Cities have enhanced capacities to

access finance for prioritized sustainable urban

infrastructure investment projects

“Bridging the institutional gap”

OUTPUT 3: Sustainable knowledge and

innovation support for urban infrastructure

investment is available and accessible to

stakeholders

1. As part of their regular core activities, at least 10

accredited partner organizations provide capacity

development support for the preparation of

infrastructure investment projects (sources: tracer

studies, training programs offered by partner

organizations) [Dec. 2017]

2. All CDIA NPO implemented city interventions reflect

inclusive processes and/or outcomes in accordance

with PFS guidelines, pro-poor urban infrastructure

investment guide and gender strategy and action plan

(sources: PFS terms of reference, IPSIA, PFS reports,

progress reports). [Dec. 2014]

3. All CDIA NPO implemented city interventions explore

options for private sector involvement in project

implementation and/or financing (sources: PFS reports,

progress reports) [Dec. 2014]

1. In 40 cities, follow-up financing has been secured for

projects that demonstrate sustainable development

(sources: signed agreements) [Dec. 2017]

2. Follow-up financing has been secured for five additional

pro-poor urban Infrastructure invest-ment projects

(sources: defined and approved projects by cities and/or

national agencies) [Dec. 2017]

3. Follow-up private sector participation has been secured for

five additional urban Infrastructure investment projects

(sources: defined project documents approved by cities

and/or national agencies) [Dec. 2017]

4. Collaboration with 2 national pro-poor financing institutions

and 2 PPP centers or branches of national government

undertaking infrastructure investment projects in cities has

been assured (sources: signed MoUs, joint work programs)

[Dec. 2014]

5. Appropriate framework is in place to enable monitoring

projects’ actual contribution to development impacts.

(sources: tracer studies, client satisfaction surveys [Dec.

2013]

1. In 20 cities infrastructure planning processes reflect

lessons from CDIA centers of learning (sources:

assessment surveys of institutional, organizational,

and human capacities) [Dec. 2015]

2. In 6 countries, in collaboration with development

partners, CDIA processes are aligned with and have

enhanced nationally mandated urban development

processes (sources: minutes of meetings, conference

documents, national policies, laws, regulations) [Dec.

2017]

3. Financing of CDIA core functions has been secured

with at least 4 regional partners contributing at least

60% (sources: agreements of organizations) [Dec.

2017]

4. 30% of CDIA city interventions will have (partial) cost-

recovery mechanisms in place (sources: TA

agreements) [Dec. 2017]

Main Activities (2013 - 2017)

1. 6 CDIA process tools (prioritization, PFS, PPP, pro-

poor, and two others) that mainstream environment,

climate change, pro-poor, gender, and good

governance will be developed, updated, and/or localized

(sources: CDIA manuals/guidelines and software) [Dec.

2017]

2. 20 partner organizations will be trained and supported in

localizing and using CDIA process tools (sources:

training courses held, client satisfaction surveys) [Dec.

2017]

3. 40 cities will receive capacity development support

through partner organizations in using CDIA process

tools (sources: NPO agreements and training reports)

[Dec. 2017]

4. A support accreditation system for partner organizations

(and consultants) will be developed and made

operational (sources: CDIA quality assurance protocol,

accreditation system) [Dec. 2017]

1. 50 cities will be supported in managing the preparation of

sustainable urban infrastructure investment projects

(source: CDIA city long list) [Dec. 2017]

2. 10 urban infrastructure investment projects with a

demonstrable pro-poor focus will be prepared (sources:

CDIA city long list, project reports, IPSIA evaluation) [Dec.

2016]

3. 10 urban infrastructure investment projects will be prepared

for private sector participation and funding (sources: CDIA

city long list, project reports) [Dec. 2016]

4. A financier map of possible downstream in-vestors will be

developed at the regional level and for 6 selected countries

(sources: financier map, country strategies) [Dec. 2014]

5. All CDIA CMT implemented PFSs will apply tools to secure

inclusive processes and/or outcomes in accordance with

PFS guidelines, pro-poor strategy, pro-poor urban

infrastructure investment guide and gender strategy and

action plan (sources: PFS terms of reference, IPSIA, PFS

reports, progress report) [July. 2013]

6. All CDIA CMT PFSs will apply tools to secure reflection of

possibilities of private sector involve-ment in project

implementation and/or financing (sources: PFS reports,

progress reports [Dec. 2013]

1. Innovative good practices based on CDIA interventions

will be documented and disseminated to support the

establishment of 10 cities as CDIA centers of learning,

demonstrating enhanced organizational and human

capacities for sustainable urban infrastructure

investments. (sources: on-line database, NPO reports,

client satisfaction surveys) [Dec. 2017]

2. In 6 countries national CDIA strategies will be

developed and regularly updated to ensure linkages to

national development processes and financing (source:

country/regional strategies). [Dec. 2017]

3. CDIA Stakeholders Forum will be enhanced to ensure

that CDIA operations reflect client demands and

regional partner interests (sources: Stakeholders

Forum effectiveness assessment) [July 2013]

4. The CDIA monitoring and evaluation system will be

adapted to respond to the requirements of the results

chain, made operational and accessible (source: on-

line monitoring and evaluation) [December 2013]

5. A sustainable institutional form has been established

for CDIA and made operational in at least 3 locations

(sources: legal documents, operational manual,

budget) [Dec. 2016]

Key: CDIA=Cities Development Initiative for Asia; CMT=Core Management Team; NPO=national partner organization; IPSIA=Initial Poverty and Social Assessment; MoU=memorandum of understanding; PFS=prefeasibility study; PPP=public-private partnership; Q=Quarter; TA=technical assistance; TOR=terms of reference


ANNEX 3 CDIA BUDGET AND DISBURSEMENT PER FUNDER

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Jun/14 Dec/14 Jun/15 Dec/15 Jun/16 Dec/16 Jun/17 Dec/17 Jun/18 Dec/18

$ M

illio

n

Year

CDIA project to date: BMZ funds

Budget Disbursement

31 December 2016

December 2016 Forecast

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Jun/14 Dec/14 Jun/15 Dec/15 Jun/16 Dec/16 Jun/17 Dec/17

$ M

illio

n

Year

CDIA project to date: SMG funds

BudgetDisbursement

31 December 2016



-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


$ M

illio

n

Year

CDIA project to date: Austria funds

Budget

Contract Awards

Disbursement

31 December 2016


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


$ M

illio

n

Year

CDIA project to date: Sweden funds

Budget

Contract Awards

Disbursement

December 2016

Forecast

31 December 2016


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0


$ M

illio

n

Year

CDIA project to date: ADB funds

Budget

Contract Awards

Disbursement

December 2016

Forecast

31 December 2016

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0


$ M

illio

n

Year

CDIA project to date: UCCRTF funds

Budget

Contract Awards

Disbursement

December Forecast

31 December 2016


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0


$ M

illio

n

Year

CDIA project to date: SECO funds

Budget

Contract Awards

Disbursement

December 2016

Forecast

31 December 2016


Cities Development Initiative for Asia

Room 7504-7506, Asian Development Bank Building 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550, Metro Manila, Philippines

Phone: +63-2 631-2342 / 633-0502 / 633-2366 Website: www.cdia.asia

http://www.cdia.asia/

CDIA - Openaid.se€¦ · Draft version as of 22 February 2017 . Six-monthly Progress Report July...

Documents

Transcript of CDIA - Openaid.se€¦ · Draft version as of 22 February 2017 . Six-monthly Progress Report July...