Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: PAD621 PROJECT PAPER ON A PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF EUR5 MILLION (US$6.80 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO MONTENEGRO FOR AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT November 27, 2013 Sustainable Development Department Southeast Europe Country Unit Europe and Central Asia Region This document is being made publicly available prior to Board consideration. This does not imply a presumed outcome. This document may be updated following Board consideration and the updated document will be made publicly available in accordance with the Bank’s policy on Access to Information. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective October 31, 2013) Currency Unit = Euro Euro = US$1.37 US$ = Euro 0.73 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AF Additional Financing CPS Country Partnership Strategy EE Energy Efficiency EMF Environmental Management Framework EMP Environmental Management Plan ERR Economic Rate of Return EU European Union KfW Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau MEEP Montenegro Energy Efficiency Project MoE Ministry of Economy MoEd Ministry of Education MoH Ministry of Health NPV Net Present Value PAD Project Appraisal Document PSC Project Steering Committee TSU Government’s Technical Services Unit Vice President: Laura Tuck Country Director: Ellen Goldstein Country Manager: Anabela Abreu Sector Manager: Ranjit Lamech Task Team Leader: Jari Väyrynen MONTENEGRO ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT ADDITIONAL FINANCING CONTENTS Additional Financing Data Sheet ……………………………………………………..……………i I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................1 II. Background and rationale for additional financing in the amount of Euro 5 million ................1 III. Proposed changes ......................................................................................................................4 IV. Appraisal summary ....................................................................................................................8 MANDATORY ANNEXES Annex 1: Revised Results Framework and Monitoring Indicators................................................11 Annex 2: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) .......................................................15 Annex 3: Detailed Description of Modified or New Project Activities.........................................19 Annex 4: Revised Implementation Arrangements and Support ....................................................22 ADDITIONAL FINANCING DATA SHEET Montenegro Energy Efficiency Project Additional Financing ( P145399 ) EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA ECSEG . Basic Information – Parent Parent Project ID: P107992 Original EA Category: B - Partial Assessment Current Closing Date: 30-Mar-2014 Current EA Category: B- Partial Assessment Basic Information – Additional Financing (AF) Additional Financing Project ID: P145399 Scale Up Type (from AUS): Regional Vice President: Laura Tuck Proposed EA Category: B - Partial Assessment Expected Effectiveness Country Director: Ellen A. Goldstein 17-Jan-2014 Date: Sector Director: Laszlo Lovei Expected Closing Date: 30-Mar-2017 Sector Manager: Ranjit J. Lamech Report No: PAD621 Team Leader: Jari Vayrynen Borrower Organization Name Contact Title Telephone Email Deputy Montenegro Dragica Sekulic (+382)20 482 185 info@ee-me.org Minister Project Financing Data – Parent (Energy Efficiency - P107992) Key Dates Approval Effectiveness Original Revised Project Ln/Cr/TF Status Signing Date Date Date Closing Date Closing Date P107992 IBRD-76370 Effective 09-Dec-2008 30-Dec-2008 24-Feb-2009 31-Dec-2012 30-Mar-2014 Disbursements % Currenc Cancelle Disburse Undisbur Project Ln/Cr/TF Status Original Revised Disburse y d d sed d P107992 IBRD-76370 Effective USD 9.40 9.40 0.00 8.25 0.36 87.79 i Project Financing Data – Montenegro Energy Efficiency Additional Financing (P145399) [X] Loan [ ] Grant [ ] Other [ ] Credit [ ] Guarantee Total Project Cost: 6.80 Total Bank Financing: 6.80 Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source – Additional Financing (AF) Amount Borrower 0.00 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 6.80 Total 6.80 Policy Waivers Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant No respects? Explanation Does the project require any policy waiver(s)? No Explanation Team Composition Bank Staff Name Title Specialization Unit Jose M. Martinez Senior Procurement Procurement ECSO2 Specialist Jose C. Janeiro Senior Finance Officer Senior Finance Officer CTRLA Jari Vayrynen Senior Environmental Team Lead ECSEG Specialist Fabiola Altimari Montiel Senior Counsel Senior Counsel LEGLE Jorge E. Villegas Senior Social Senior Social ECSSO Development Specialist Development Specialist Nikola Ille Senior Environmental Environmental ECSEN Specialist Safeguards Aleksandar Sr Financial Financial Management ECSO3 Crnomarkovic Management Specialist DraganaVarezic Program Assistant Program Assistant ECCBM Dung Kim Le Program Assistant Program Assistant ECSSD Non Bank Staff ii Name Title Office Phone City Nenad Pavlovic EE Consultant Belgrade Locations Country First Administrative Location Planned Actual Comments Division Montenegro Opstina Ulcinj Opstina Ulcinj X Montenegro Opstina Podgorica Opstina Podgorica X Montenegro Opstina Niksic Opstina Niksic X Montenegro Opstina Kotor Opstina Kotor X Montenegro Opstina Kolasin Opstina Kolasin X Montenegro Opstina Berane Opstina Berane X Montenegro Opstina Danilovgrad Opstina Danilovgrad X Montenegro Opstina Cetinje Opstina Cetinje X Montenegro Opstina Budva Opstina Budva X Montenegro Opstina Bar Opstina Bar X Montenegro Opstina Andrijevica Opstina Andrijevica X Institutional Data Parent (Energy Efficiency - P107992 ) Sector Board Energy and Mining Sectors / Climate Change Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major Sector Sector % Adaptation Mitigation Co- Co-benefits % benefits % Energy and mining Energy efficiency in 92 Heat and Power Public Administration, Law, and Public administration- 8 Justice Energy and mining Total 100 Themes Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major theme Theme % iii Environment and natural resources Climate change 80 management Social dev/gender/inclusion Other social development 20 Total 100 Montenegro Energy Efficiency Additional Financing ( P145399 ) Sector Board Energy and Mining Sectors / Climate Change Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major Sector Sector % Adaptation Mitigation Co- Co-benefits % benefits % Energy and mining Energy efficiency in 92 100 Heat and Power Public Administration, Law, and Public administration- 8 Justice Energy and mining Total 100 I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information applicable to this project. Themes Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major theme Theme % Environment and natural resources Climate change 80 management Social dev/gender/inclusion Other social development 15 Environment and natural resources Pollution management and 5 management environmental health Total 100 iv I. Introduction 1. This Project Paper seeks the approval of the Executive Directors to provide an additional loan in an amount of EUR5 million for the Montenegro Energy Efficiency Project (MEEP, IBRD-76370). The proposed additional financing (AF) would scale up project activities to enhance the impact of a well performing project and finance costs associated with retrofitting important health facilities in the country to make them more energy efficient. The AF would finance about 12-14 subprojects in hospitals and health care centers throughout the country, and at the Clinic Center Montenegro in Podgorica. 2. The Project Development Objective (PDO) would be changed to make it more precise, attributable to the project and better suited for evaluation. The PDO indicators in the Results Framework would be revised to add two new results indicators and to better define the indicator baselines and targets. The intermediate results indicators would be updated to: reflect the increased number of subprojects; remove one input-oriented indicator; add an indicator on greenhouse gas savings; and add two core sector indicators on lifetime energy savings and lifetime fuel saving. As all the proposed AF subprojects are in the health sector, the Ministry of Education would not continue to be part of the institutional and implementation arrangements of the AF. Minor changes to the procurement approach and methods are also proposed. It is expected that all the subprojects, as well as technical and social monitoring and evaluation would be completed by January 2017, therefore the closing date of the AF loan is proposed to be March 30, 2017. 3. This Project Paper also proposes a restructuring of the parent Project’s (IBRD-76370) PDO and Results Framework, to match those of the proposed AF. The parent Project component names, included in its Project Appraisal Document (PAD), would also be revised to match those included in the Loan Agreement for the Additional Financing. These restructuring changes are also detailed below in Section III. Proposed Changes. II. Background and rationale for additional financing in the amount of Euro 5 million 4. Country context: Montenegro is a small and relatively young country with a population of 625,266 according to the 2011 census (formerly part of Yugoslavia; regained its independence in 2006). Given a per capita income of nearly US$7,050 in 2011, Montenegro is a higher middle-income economy with relatively low levels of poverty. EU member states, together with Russia, account for a significant proportion of foreign direct investment. Montenegro was granted the status of EU candidate country in November 2010 and the negotiations for EU membership were initiated in June 2012. 5. Policy and sector context: Montenegro imports one third of its power needs. Recognizing the importance of efficient energy utilization in Montenegro, the Government adopted an Energy Efficiency Strategy in 2005. The Government launched a year of energy efficiency (EE) in 2008/2009 to promote EE programs in all economic sectors and to develop enabling policy and regulations. The 2010 EE Law makes the efficient use of energy a general obligation and regulates measures to improve energy efficiency. In accordance with the provisions of the EE Law, as well as requirements of the Energy Community Treaty, Montenegro adopted its first National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP) for 2010-2012, 1 followed by the adoption of the indicative energy saving target of 9% by 2018. The overall objectives of the 1st NEEAP were to: (i) implement the EE Law by completing the regulatory framework and significantly improving the institutional framework to increase awareness, understanding, knowledge and capacity in the public sector, amongst local authorities, big consumers, professional organizations and other stakeholders; (ii) significantly improve the EE statistics system; and (iii) implement measures with tangible energy savings results. In order to harmonize the national legislation with the newly created obligations, a number of regulations were adopted during 2012. 6. Relationship with the CPS: MEEP and the proposed AF are fully aligned with the FY2011-2014 Country Partnership Strategy (CPS). Increasing energy efficiency is identified as one of the key necessary reforms for the country and EE is one of four focus areas in Priority 2, “Improving environmental management and reducing the costs of environmental problems” of the CPS. The project is also aligned with ECA’s Strategy’s climate and energy efficiency pillar and with the Bank’s wider EE efforts in the Western Balkans (e.g. several Building EE Projects in other countries, current ESMAP study on ways to scale up EE efforts). 7. Current Project: The original Loan in the amount of EUR6.5 million (USD 9.4 million equivalent) was approved on December 9, 2008, and became effective on February 24, 2009. The development objective of the project is to improve energy efficiency performance in targeted public sector buildings with a view to developing a sustainable energy efficiency improvement program in Montenegro’s public sector.1 The project has two components: (i) Energy Efficiency Improvement in Public Sector Buildings; and (ii) Support for the Implementation of the Project.2 There have been no changes to the objectives, design or scope of the parent Project and it is in compliance with the legal covenants. 8. Implementation progress: Implementation progress of the Project is rated as Satisfactory. The project is progressing well with 14 out of 15 subprojects completed. In the education sector, works on all 9 subprojects have been completed. In the health sector, works on 5 of the 6 subprojects have been fully completed and the window replacement and thermal insulation works on the last subproject (the Clinic Center Montenegro) were also completed in early November 2013. The last contract for the replacement of light fixtures at the Clinic Center Montenegro is currently being tendered. Technical Monitoring and Evaluation of investment results at two subprojects will be completed during the 2013-2014 heating season. 9. Results achieved: The project is meeting its development objectives and outcomes. The Ministries of Economy (MoE), Health (MoH), and Education (MoEd) have all been satisfied with the results of the project to date, i.e. high energy and budget savings, and positive feedback from end users. Energy savings in the range of 30-65% have been achieved in each of the completed subprojects. The project has had an important role in the implementation of the EE Law which introduced a central role for the promotion of EE to the Ministry of Economy, as well as EE obligations for public administration bodies. The EE investments under the project were a 1 Note that this document proposes to restructure the PDO of the parent project to be the same as the proposed PDO for the AF. 2 Component names used here are those included in the parent project’s Loan Agreement. See Section III. Proposed Changes for details on the restructuring of the component names. 2 significant way for the MoEd and MoH to comply with these obligations. The project has also allowed testing in practice and building capacity for the requirements of the EE Law on energy auditing, energy management, and requirements for EE in buildings. The MoE is planning a comprehensive economic assessment of the results of MEEP and other EE efforts in Montenegro. The assessment would highlight not only the energy and fiscal savings, but also the economic growth and employment effects of the project. 10. Rationale for the AF request: Encouraged by MEEP outcomes, the MoE, as well as the line Ministries, are committed to making progress on the NEEAP and keen to continue implementing EE measures in buildings with a focus on health and education sectors. The proposed AF would directly respond to the client’s request and priorities, and allow for scaling up project outcomes and impact by continuing the focus on the sectors and types of buildings with the highest end user and demonstration benefits. 11. Financing alternatives considered: While MoEd is continuing implementing EE in schools with KfW financing, building on the MEEP experience and model, the MoH has not been able to identify sources of domestic funds (in the context of slow economic growth and fiscal constraints) or other donor financing to retrofit the remaining 15-16 key health sector facilities in the country. Therefore, the Ministry of Finance, in its letter to the World Bank dated January 30, 2013, requested additional financing in the amount of EUR5 million in order to scale up the Project by adding about 12-14 subprojects to be retrofitted in the health sector. 12. Implementation Readiness: All of the proposed 12-14 additional subprojects have been identified. The implementation readiness of the proposed subprojects is as follows: (a) detailed technical designs for a portion of the subproject (the heating system) at the Clinic Center Montenegro are available. Detailed technical designs for additional civil works of this subproject are being prepared with the Government’s own funds.. Therefore, tendering for works contracts for the Clinic Center Montenegro could be started soon after effectiveness of the Additional Financing Loan; (b) walk-through energy audits were completed for all other proposed subprojects and a site visit by the project team’s Energy Efficiency Engineer took place to help the Government scope out measures in more detail; (c) funds remaining in the original Loan allocated to the health sector (about EUR100,000 is remaining as some of the subprojects’ tendered costs were slightly lower than those envisaged in the Procurement Plan) will be utilized for contracting a consultant to undertake detailed energy audits and technical designs for a set of 5 subprojects to be retrofitted under the AF (see Annex 3 for details). Therefore, tendering of the works contracts for these subprojects could also be started soon after effectiveness of the Additional Financing Loan; and (d) implementation arrangements have proven effective and the Project Steering Committee (PSC), Project Coordinator and the Government’s Technical Services Unit (TSU) have all gained significant capacity. The project beneficiaries are satisfied with the results and there is demand and capacity to absorb more funding. Given these factors the overall implementation readiness is high and no significant risks for implementation are foreseen. 13. Allocation of the AF to the MEEP Components: The majority of the proposed AF would be used to finance energy efficiency investment measures under Component 1. Based on the energy audits performed on the proposed subprojects, the estimated cost of the investments under Component 1 is EUR4.5 million. Up to 10 percent of each subproject’s investment cost 3 may be used for EE measures with very long payback periods or other ancillary measures that support the implementation of the EE measures and that are needed to complete the subproject. The remaining AF of EUR0.5 million would be used to support project implementation under Component 2, including support to the PSC, Project Coordinator and the TSU, technical and social monitoring and evaluation, and the financial audit. Additional details are provided in Annex 3. III. Proposed Changes Summary of Proposed Changes The proposed changes are primarily those that result from the scaled-up activities financed by the additional financing, in addition to other minor changes, including: (i) revising the results framework; (ii) revisions in project component costs; (iii) a change in institutional and implementation arrangements to reflect that all the proposed AF subprojects are only in the health sector; (iv) minor changes in procurement; and (v) implementation schedule and disbursement estimates to reflect the additional time required to implement the new subprojects. Change in Implementing Agency Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Project's Development Objectives Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Results Framework Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change of EA category Yes [ ] No [ X ] Other Changes to Safeguards Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Legal Covenants Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Yes [ ] No [ X ] Cancellations Proposed Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Disbursement Arrangements Yes [ ] No [ X ] Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Disbursement Estimates Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change to Components and Cost Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Institutional Arrangements Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Financial Management Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Procurement Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Implementation Schedule Yes [ X ] No [ ] Other Change(s) Yes [ ] No [ X ] 4 Development Objective/Results PHHHDO Project’s Development Objectives Original PDO The objective of the Project is to improve energy efficiency performance in targeted public sector buildings with a view to developing a sustainable energy efficiency improvement program in Montenegro’s public sector. Change in Project's Development Objectives PHHCPDO Explanation: The PDO for the AF is proposed to be changed to make the PDO more precise, attributable to the project activities, and better suited for evaluation using the existing results indicators and the two new proposed PDO indicators and three new intermediate results indicators (see Changes in Results Framework section below). Restructuring of the Parent Project PDO: The parent project PDO is proposed to be restructured to be same as the proposed PDO for the AF. Proposed New PDO - Additional Financing (AF) The project development objective is to improve energy efficiency performance in public sector buildings to provide a demonstrated basis to improve energy efficiency implementation practices and capacity in public institutions and energy efficiency service providers in Montenegro. Change in Results Framework PHHCRF Explanation: 1) Two new outcome indicators are added to strengthen the Results Framework: • Energy Efficiency Implementation Practices and Capacity in Public Institutions The indicator assesses the implementation practices and capacity in the education and health sectors. The indicator would monitor whether the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education have established capacity and responsibilities for implementation of energy efficiency measures in buildings in their respective sectors. • Implementation Practices and Capacity in Energy Efficiency Service Providers The indicator uses the number of certified energy auditors as a proxy for implementation practices and capacity among the energy efficiency services providers. The indicator data is based on the list of certified energy auditors maintained by the Ministry of Economy. 2) Baseline and target values for existing indicators are better described and quantified in the proposed revised Results Framework and Monitoring Indicators. 3) The intermediate results indicator "Technical Assistance for project preparation and coordination is satisfactory" with target value "Project Coordinator Performance is satisfactory" 5 is proposed to be dropped as it is narrowly defined and input oriented. 4) The intermediate results indicator “Improved level of indoor comfort, which implies improvement in the quality of temperature, air, lighting, etc.” is also proposed to be dropped as it is overlapping with the PDO Indicator “Increased end user satisfaction in targeted buildings” in both substance and results monitoring arrangements (end user satisfaction surveys). 5) New Core Sector Indicators “Lifetime Energy Savings” and “Lifetime Fuel Savings” are proposed to be added and also a new intermediate results indicator “Lifetime Greenhouse Gas Savings”. Restructuring of the parent Project’s Results Framework: The parent Project’s Results Framework is proposed to be restructured to be same as the revised framework for the AF. Finance PHHH Loan Closing Date - Montenegro Energy Efficiency Additional Financing – P145399 Proposed Additional Financing Loan Closing Source of Funds Date International Bank for Reconstruction and 30-Mar-2017 Development Change in Disbursement Estimates (including all sources of Financing) Explanation: The disbursement estimates reflect the current closing date and implementation progress of the parent project (MEEP, P107992), as well as the additional number of subprojects and expected implementation schedule of the AF. Expected Disbursements (in USD Million) Fiscal Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Annual 0.80 1.40 1.60 3.80 2.40 1.50 2.70 2.00 0.00 Cumulative 0.80 2.20 3.80 7.60 10.00 11.50 14.20 16.20 0.00 Allocations - Montenegro Energy Efficiency Additional Financing - P145399 ) Disbursement % Source of Allocation Currency Category of Expenditure (Type Total) Fund Proposed Proposed Goods, works, non- IBRD USD consulting and consulting 6,497,400.00 100.00 services IBRD USD Operating costs 285,600.00 100.00 Front end fee 17,000.00 100.00 IBRD USD Total: 6,800,000.00 6 Components PHH Change to Components and Cost PHHCCC Explanation: The majority of the proposed AF would be used to finance energy efficiency investment measures under Component 1. Based on the energy audits performed on the proposed subprojects, the estimated cost of the investments under Component 1 is EUR4.50 million. The remaining AF of EUR0.50 million would be used be used to support project implementation under Component 2, including support to the PSC, Project Coordinator and the TSU, technical and social monitoring and evaluation, and the financial audit. The parent Project component names included in its Project Appraisal Document (PAD) would also be changed to match those included in the parent Project’s Loan Agreement and proposed to be used in the AF. Current Proposed Current Component Proposed Component Cost Cost Action Name Name (US$M) (US$M) Component 1 - Energy Component 1 - Energy Efficiency Efficiency Improvement in Public 8.70 15.16 Revised Improvement in Public Sector Buildings Sector Buildings across Montenegro Component 2 – Component 2 - Support Technical Assistance to the Implementation 0.70 1.04 Revised for Project of the Project Implementation Total: 9.40 16.20 Other Change(s) PHHH Change in Institutional Arrangements PHHCI Explanation: The only change to the implementation arrangement is that the Ministry of Education would not be included in the PSC for the AF, as the AF will only include subprojects in the health sector. The PSC for the AF will, therefore include Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Health, the TSU and the Project Coordinator. Change in Procurement PHHCP Explanation: The TSU, as well as the Ministries involved and the Project Coordinator, have gained significant procurement capacity during implementation of MEEP. Therefore, the procurement arrangements used in the parent Project would continue to be applied with the following modifications: 7 a. Procurement for the proposed Additional Financing will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s "Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011 (Procurement Guidelines); and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011 (Consultant Guidelines) and the provisions stipulated in the Financing Agreement. In addition, the project will also follow Guidelines: On Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants dated October 15, 2006 and Revised in January, 2011; b. Grouping of ICB/NCB and consulting contracts by region, as much as possible; c. NCB documents will be prepared in Montenegrin language, provided the Bank first clears the translation of the model document. This may encourage local bidders to participate in more tenders under World Bank procurement guidelines; d. Consultants may do detailed energy audits, technical design and works supervision in one contract, with higher responsibility for design and amendments; and e. Continued contract management training to the TSU would be provided as part of Component 2. Change in Implementation Schedule PHHCIS Explanation: The implementation schedule is revised to reflect the addition of approximately 12-14 subprojects and the time needed to implement them. The envisaged implementation schedule, reflected in the AF’s proposed Closing Date of March 30, 2017, is the following: • AF Effectiveness to December 31, 2014: EE measures implemented in Clinic Center Montenegro and 4 other subprojects • Calendar year 2015: EE measures implemented in 4-5 subprojects • Calendar year 2016: EE measures implemented in the remaining 4 subprojects • Throughout the implementation period through the Project’s Closing Date: technical and social monitoring and evaluation in selected subprojects. Appraisal Summary PHHHA Economic and Financial Analysis PHHASEFA Explanation: Given that the AF would almost double the number of subprojects financed by MEEP, an updated economic analysis was conducted. The economic analysis was conducted for the typical investment components of the proposed projects, utilizing as key assumptions the investment costs per square meter of building floor area observed in MEEP and other similar projects in the region to date and 40% energy savings. The life-cycle cost methodology was used to compare the incremental cost and incremental benefit of the proposed energy efficiency improvements. Typical energy efficiency measures in a building including replacement of windows, thermal insulation of walls and roof, replacement of lighting systems and installation of temperature controllers and thermostatic valves result in an average simple economic payback period of 8 years and an average economic rate of return (25 years) of 13.3% and NPV (using 12% discount 8 rate) of costs of EUR1.6 million and NPV of benefits of EUR3.4 million. These results are in line with the economic and financial analysis in the original MEEP Project Appraisal Document and the actual, monitored results achieved in MEEP so far. Technical Analysis PHHASTA Explanation: The proposed AF would finance the same set of energy efficiency improvement measures that are fully proven and have successfully been implemented in MEEP to date. The investment packages for the buildings in the additional subprojects will include improvements of heating and cooling systems, insulation, thermostatic valves and lighting. The Project Paper includes in Annex 3 a list of the hospitals and primary health care centers identified for the AF and a summary of the recommended energy efficiency improvement measures for each building (based on the preliminary energy audits prepared for the proposed subprojects and reviewed by the Bank). Social Analysis PHHASSA Explanation: The EE measures implemented at the subproject sites include retrofitting of existing structures and equipment and do not require land acquisition or resettlement, or lead to loss of access or income. Accordingly, no social safeguards issues related to land acquisition or resettlement issues are foreseen under the AF. Energy efficiency measures are done through retrofitting of systems and installations; therefore, no job losses are envisaged and instead a positive employment impact is expected in the construction sector. Other positive impacts include increased EE awareness among the targeted communities, reduced local pollution (due to reduced use of energy in local boiler houses), and improved conditions to both staff and patients in the retrofitted buildings. The AF will continue to monitor end user satisfaction through social monitoring surveys before and after the retrofitting in selected subprojects as part of the results framework. Coordination between the Technical and the Social Monitoring teams – ideally before investments are implemented – will be ensured. If relevant, suggestions of end-users during the baseline surveys will be considered for the technical design. Existing public awareness and information material from the Ministry on energy efficiency will be shared with end-users and the Ministry’s website on energy efficiency will be regularly updated to inform the public about the project activities. Environmental Analysis PHHASE Explanation: The existing Project is classified as environmental category B. An Environmental Management Framework Document was prepared for the project, including a sample checklist EMP. The site- specific EMPs are prepared for each specific site during detailed design, and included in bidding documents and resulting contracts for civil works. Environmental safeguards compliance under the existing MEEP has been fully satisfactory to date. The measures implemented in MEEP and proposed to be continued in the AF have no long-term negative environmental impacts if the EE measures in targeted buildings are undertaken as designed. As in MEEP to date, mitigation measures of the EMPs will continue to be included in the AF in the design and technical specifications and their implementation included in the respective contracts. The AF will continue to use the same arrangements for preparation, implementation and monitoring of site-specific EMPs as already used in the existing Project. 9 The buildings will continue to be used for the provision of health services, i.e. there is no change in the use of these buildings, nor of the actual foot-print on the ground. It has been confirmed that there will be no acquisition of land or displacement of people related to the AF. During implementation of the AF it will be confirmed whether any of the buildings chosen for rehabilitation are designated or protected as cultural heritage sites. While the MEEP subprojects have been tentatively pre-identified, the preparation and disclosure of the subproject EMPs can only be meaningfully done after the detailed energy audits and technical designs become available (there are detailed designs for a part of the works at the Clinic Center Montenegro but only for about half of what the subproject measures will eventually cover). The EMP variations can in some cases be significant; e.g., some of the buildings may previously have had low-radioactivity fluorescent lighting rods, some asbestos containing materials, old oil tanks etc. Therefore, disclosure of EMPs when the scope of works is not yet fully known would likely require further changes to EMPs in later stages and re-disclosure of the updated documents. The AF will, therefore, follow the approach already used in MEEP where an agreed generic sample EMP is adjusted, as needed, for each subproject. Site-specific EMPs will be prepared for each specific sub-project only after or in parallel to the detailed design stage. These will be based on an already adopted Environmental Management Framework Document, which was prepared for the Project in 2008. See Annex 4 for additional details. Risk PHHASR Explanation: The implementation risk of the proposed AF is Low. The AF scales up an on-going, successfully implemented Project by adding subprojects in the health sector. All of the proposed 12-14 additional subprojects have been identified. Detailed technical designs exist for a part of the largest new subprojects and are being prepared for several others. The Project Coordinator and Technical Services Unit are both experienced and working well. End user satisfaction in MEEP has been high and is expected to continue in the AF. There are currently no safeguards or fiduciary issues in MEEP. The AF implementation can build on this track record. Most of the other risk factors are also low. 10 Annex 1: Revised Results Framework and Monitoring Indicators Project Montenegro Energy Efficiency Additional Financing Project Board Status: FINAL Name: (P145399) Stage: Team Requesting Jari Väyrynen ECCU4 Created by: Jari Väyrynen on 08-May-2013 Leader: Unit: Product Responsible IBRD/IDA ECSEG Modified by: Jari Väyrynen on 09-Jul-2013 Line: Unit: Country: Montenegro Approval FY: 2014 EUROPE AND CENTRAL Lending Region: Specific Investment Loan ASIA Instrument: Parent Project Parent Project P107992 Energy Efficiency ID: Name: . Project Development Objectives Original Project Development Objective - Parent: The objective of the Project is to improve energy efficiency performance in targeted public sector buildings with a view to developing a sustainable energy efficiency improvement program in Montenegro’s public sector. Proposed Project Development Objective - Additional Financing (AF): The project development objective is to improve energy efficiency performance in public sector buildings to provide a demonstrated basis to improve energy efficiency implementation practices and capacity in public institutions and energy efficiency service providers in Montenegro. Results Results reporting level: Project Level Core sector indicators are considered: Yes . 11 Project Development Objective Indicators Status Indicator Name Core Unit of Measure Baseline Actual(Current) End Target Revised Quantified Energy Savings in Percentage Value 0% 50% 25% Targeted Buildings Date 24-Feb-2009 01-Jun-2013 30-Mar-2017 Comment Baseline level Measurements for At least 25% of energy two buildings energy savings consumption is have been on average. The established for completed: original Loan each General Hospital selected subproject Bijelo Polje: 65%buildings with through reduction the highest technical savings monitoring and Secondary School potential, evaluation Ivan Uskokovic, however before Podgorica: 55% subsequent sub- investment. reduction projects included in the AF may have lower savings. Revised Increased End User Percentage Value 0% 42% 25% Satisfaction in Targeted Date 24-Feb-2009 01-Jun-2013 30-Mar-2017 Buildings Comment Baseline level End user At least 25% is 50% End satisfaction: 92% increase in end User user satisfaction. Satisfaction, EE Awareness: The buildings in established 75.5% the AF may through Social include Monitoring & Application of EE buildings with Evaluation measures at higher comfort survey before home: 67.5% levels than those investment in under the 7 subprojects original Loan. in MEEP. Therefore, the 12 increase in user The survey satisfaction may also measured be lower. EE Awareness (baseline was 64.5%) and Application of EE Measures at Home (baseline was 61.5%) New Energy Efficiency Yes/No Value No Yes Yes Implementation Practices and Date 24-Feb-2009 01-Jun-2013 30-Mar-2017 Capacity in Public Institutions Comment Measures whether Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education have established capacity and responsibilities for implementatio n of EE measures. New Implementation Practices and Number Value 10 41 50 Capacity in Energy Efficiency Date 24-Feb-2009 01-Jun-2013 30-Mar-2017 Service Providers Comment Number of certified energy auditors 13 Intermediate Results Indicators Status Indicator Name Core Unit of Measure Baseline Actual(Current) End Target Revised Number of public sector Number Value 0 15 27 buildings for which project Date 24-Feb-2009 01-Jun-2013 30-Mar-2017 audits have been performed and project documents have Comment Baseline at Target value at been prepared. MEEP AF closing. effectiveness. Revised Number of buildings retrofitted Number Value 0 14 27 with energy efficiency Date 24-Feb-2009 01-Jun-2013 30-Mar-2017 improvement schemes. Comment Baseline at Target value at MEEP AF closing. effectiveness New Lifetime energy savings X MWh Value 0 90,000 150,000 Date 24-Feb-2009 01-Jun-2013 30-Mar-2017 Comment Baseline at Target value at MEEP AF closing. effectiveness New Lifetime fuel savings X MJ Value 0 370,000,000 590,000,000 Date 24-Feb-2009 01-Jun-2013 30-Mar-2017 Comment Baseline at Target value at MEEP AF closing. effectiveness New Lifetime Greenhouse Gas Metric ton (CO2) Value 0 36,450 60,750 savings Date 24-Feb-2009 01-Jun-2013 30-Mar-2017 Comment Baseline at Target value at MEEP AF closing. effectiveness . 14 Annex 2 Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) Montenegro: Energy Efficiency Additional Financing (P145399) Stage: Board . Project Stakeholder Risks Stakeholder Risk Rating Low Risk Description: Risk Management: For the existing project there is little to no No stakeholder complaints have arisen to date in the existing MEEP. Clear building selection process risk as stakeholders have been highly and criteria applied in the MEEP to date would also apply to the AF. With the completion of the 12-14 satisfied with the results achieved. proposed health sector buildings as part of the AF, most/all important health sector buildings would be Communities not included in the scope of retrofitted and are spread throughout the country. the Additional Financing could feel left out Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: In and raise some concerns. Both Both 30-Jun-2014 Progress Implementing Agency (IA) Risks (including Fiduciary Risks) Capacity Rating Moderate Risk Description: Risk Management: Risk of the Technical Services Unit (TSU) The implementing arrangements have worked well under the parent Project and are expected to of the Government being overburdened continue to do so in the AF. The two ministries that are involved in the implementation of the AF sub- with the handling of several Bank projects projects (Ministry of Economy and Ministry of Health) have gained experience during the (6-7) if the TSU is not adequately staffed implementation of MEEP. A full time Project Coordinator who supports the three ministries on the and potential lack of efficient project, as well as the Project Steering Committee have proven useful and would continue under the communication between various entities. AF. The Technical Services Unit (TSU) that handles procurement, financial management and Technical capacity in the construction disbursement, has grown its capacity and experience during the existing MEEP and other Bank sector becomes a bottle neck. projects, and is now seasoned in Bank procedures and is adequately resourced to take on the AF. Continued close monitoring by the Bank project team to ensure no delay is caused in procurement due to heavy workload of the TSU and flagging staffing issues of TSU, if they occur, to the Client. In 15 addition, due to the structure of the project involving multiple implementing entities, the risk of inefficient communication between various entities which can lead to delays will be monitored. To date, some technical designs have had quality issues and/or commencement of works on the building site has revealed need for some adjustments. Therefore, the Bank team has already agreed with the Borrower that they would put even more effort into trying to ensure that detailed Technical Designs are prepared properly and reviewed carefully in order to avoid change orders that have resulted in some delays during works. An Energy Efficiency Engineer in the Bank team to carefully review technical aspects of bidding documents and provide guidance, as needed. Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: Client Both Semi-annual In Progress Governance Rating Low Risk Description: Risk Management: Decision making on the subprojects at the Decision making on MEEP activities has worked efficiently and effectively to date. The close Ministry of Health regarding the project involvement of Deputy Ministers from all Ministries in the project and the Project Steering Committee leads to delays or other difficulties in has mitigated and will continue to mitigate any residual governance risks. project implementation. Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: Client Both Semi-annual In Progress Fraud and Corruption Rating Moderate Risk Description: Risk Management: Fraudulent practices in procurement of No fraudulent practices have been encountered in the existing MEEP to date. Continued close project activities. implementation support and auditing of the TSU activities. Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: Client Both Semi-annual In Progress Project Risks Design Rating Low Risk Description: Risk Management: No risk. Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: 16 Social and Environmental Rating Low Risk Description: Risk Management: Residual risk that the social and The Client's work on safeguards is fully satisfactory. Given that there will not be any changes in the environmental safeguard documents are not type of subprojects to be rehabilitated, the works will be rather simple and straight-forward and will prepared or disclosed in a proper and follow practices used to date. timely manner. Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: Client Both Semi-annual In Progress Program and Donor Rating Low Risk Description: Risk Management: No risk. Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: Delivery Monitoring and Rating Moderate Sustainability Risk Description: Risk Management: Government and relevant Ministries lack In order to strengthen sustainability of the results achieved from MEEP, the capacity of each key ownership and commitment and fail to Ministry should be further strengthened in order to ensure mainstreaming of EE to their operations and continue the project activities and polices compliance with the requirements of the EE Law. beyond the scope and duration of the Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: project. Client Implementati Semi-annual Not Yet Due on Other (Optional) Rating Risk Description: Risk Management: Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: Other (Optional) Rating 17 Risk Description: Risk Management: Resp: Stage: Recurrent: Due Date: Frequency: Status: Overall Risk Overall Implementation Risk: Low Risk Description: The overall implementation risk of the proposed AF is Low. The additional financing (AF) scales up an on-going, successfully implemented project by adding subprojects in the health sector. All of the proposed 12-14 additional subprojects have been identified. Detailed technical designs have already been prepared for a portion of the largest subproject and can be prepared for several other subprojects soon after by the Loan’s effectiveness. The Project Coordinator and Technical Services Unit are both experienced and working well. End user satisfaction in MEEP has been high and is expected to continue to be high under the AF. Most of the other risk factors are also Low. There are currently no safeguards or fiduciary issues in MEEP. The AF implementation can build on this track record. 18 Annex 3: Detailed Description of Modified or New Project Activities 1. The AF will be allocated to the two MEEP components as follows: (i) Energy Efficiency Improvement in Public Sector Buildings – EUR4.5 million; and (ii) Support to the Implementation of the Project – EUR0.5 million. The allocation of the AF to the two components is described below in detail. Component 1 - Energy Efficiency Improvement in Public Sector Buildings (EUR4.5 million). Component 1 of the AF remains the same as under the parent Project, except that it will be modified to only fund measures in hospitals, clinics and facilities for health care as follows: Implementing a program of demonstrable energy savings measures, through the carrying out of civil works and the provision of goods and consultants’ services, to support energy efficiency retrofitting in selected public sector buildings such as hospitals, clinics and facilities for health care. 2. Up to 10 percent of each subproject’s investment cost may be used for EE measures with very long payback periods or other ancillary measures that support the implementation of the EE measures and that are needed to complete the subproject. 3. The approximately 12-14 subprojects proposed to be included in the AF represent the most important health sector buildings remaining in Montenegro, after the parent Project which targeted 6 health sector subprojects (5 hospitals and the main clinic center of the country in Podgorica). The selected subprojects were proposed by the Ministry of Health in accordance with the project selection criteria used in MEEP, namely:  Buildings with energy savings potential, fuel substitution and environmental impact;  Buildings which are not likely to be closed, or privatized;  Buildings whose basic functions will not be significantly changed;  Buildings with good geographical distribution;  Buildings with significant numbers of users; and  Buildings with substantial social and demographic impact. 4. Detailed technical designs for a portion of the works of the subproject at the Clinic Center of Montenegro (the heating system) are available. Walk-through energy audits have been prepared for all other subprojects, and detailed audits and technical designs are being tendered for window replacements at the Clinic Center Montenegro and for 4 other subprojects (General Hospital Kotor, Primary Health Care Center Kotor, General Hospital Cetinje and Primary Health Care Center Cetinje). The recommended energy efficiency measures to be financed by the AF are summarized in Table 1. 19 Table 1: Proposed Subprojects for the AF Legend: 1 = measure proposed to be included; 0 = measure not proposed to be included; * = detailed energy audit and design being prepared; CC MNE = Clinic Center Montenegro; GH = General Hospital; PHC = Primary Health Care Center Location and building type Danilovgrad Podgorica* Andrijevica Cetinje* Cetinje* Kolasin Berane Budva Kotor* Kotor* Niksic Ulcinj Bar Bar CC Intervention G G G PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH M PHC PHC point H H H C C C C C C C C NE Roof 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Façade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Windows 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sun protection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Doors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Heating 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cooling 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lighting 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Domestic hot water 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Electrical system 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 5. While the subprojects under the AF have been tentatively pre-identified, the preparation and disclosure of the subproject EMPs can only be meaningfully done after the detailed energy audits and technical designs become available (there are detailed designs for a portion of the works at the Clinic Center Montenegro but only for about half of what the subproject measures will eventually cover). The EMP variations can in some cases be significant; e.g., some of the buildings may previously have had low-radioactivity fluorescent lighting rods, some asbestos containing materials, old oil tanks, etc. Therefore, disclosure of EMPs when the scope of works is not yet fully known would likely require further changes to EMPs in later stages and re-disclosure of the updated documents. The AF will therefore follow the approach already used in the original Project where an agreed generic sample EMP is adjusted, as needed, for each subproject. Site- specific EMPs will be prepared for each specific subproject only after or in parallel to detailed design stage. These will be based on an already adopted Environmental Management Framework Document, which was prepared for the Project in 2008. Component 2 - Support to the Implementation of the Project (EUR0.5 million): Component 2 of the AF remains the same as under the parent Project, except that it will be modified to remove funding of support to MoEd and will thus include the following: 20 (a) Support to the Project Steering Committee, the Project Coordinator and the TSU in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Project, through the provision of goods, consultants’ services and training, the carrying out of audits required under the Project and the financing of Operating Costs; (b) Surveys and energy audits; and (c) Support to MoH, through the provision of consultants’ services, for the design, procurement and implementation of energy savings measures under the Project. 21 Annex 4: Revised Implementation Arrangements and Support 1. Implementation arrangements: The only change to the implementation arrangements is that the Ministry of Education would not be included in the PSC for the AF as the AF will only include subprojects in the health sector. The PSC for the AF will therefore include the Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Health, the TSU and the Project Coordinator. 2. Procurement: The TSU, as well as the Ministries involved and the Project Coordinator, have gained significant procurement capacity during MEEP implementation. Therefore, the procurement arrangements used in MEEP would continue to be applied with the following modifications: a. Procurement for the proposed Additional Financing will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s "Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011 (Procurement Guidelines); and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011 (Consultant Guidelines) and the provisions stipulated in the Financing Agreement. In addition the project will also follow Guidelines: On Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants Dated October 15, 2006 and Revised in January, 2011; b. Grouping of ICB/NCB and consulting contracts by region, as much as possible; c. NCB documents will be prepared in Montenegrin language, provided the Bank first clears the translation of the model document. This may encourage local bidders to participate more in tenders under World Bank procurement guidelines; d. Consultants may do detailed energy audits, technical design and works supervision in one contract, with higher responsibility for design and amendments; and e. Continued contract management training to the TSU would be provided as part of Component 2. 3. Financial Management: There are no changes to the Financial Management (FM) arrangements, but they are reproduced here for clarity and to provide an assessment of FM performance under the original Project. The financial management responsibilities for the additional financing will remain with the Technical Services Unit (TSU) within the Ministry of Finance which is in charge of implementation of the original Project and several other World Bank supported projects, thus serving as a central fiduciary unit for implementation of a large portion of the World Bank’s portfolio. The TSU is adequately staffed with a qualified Financial Management Specialist and appropriate controls and procedures have been instituted and described in the TSU Operations Manual. Accounting software used (FMS.sys) provides reliable accounting information and generates financial reports. Financial management arrangements for the original Project have been assessed as satisfactory by World Bank Financial Management Specialists. The annual 2012 audit for the original Project was unqualified and deemed acceptable to the Bank. Quarterly reports have been submitted timely and provide reliable financial information. 22 4. Consolidated financial statements for both the original loan (MEEP) and the additional financing (MEEP AF) will be audited by independent auditors acceptable to the Bank and on terms of reference acceptable to the Bank. The annual audited statements and audit report will be provided to the Bank within six months of the end of each fiscal year and within four months of the closing of the project. The audits will be conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA). Interim un-audited financial reports (IFRs) will be used for project monitoring and supervision. One consolidated set of IFRs will be prepared for both the original loan and the additional financing loan. The TSU will produce a full set of IFRs for each calendar quarter throughout the life of the Project for all project components and all sources of funding. They will be due 45 days after each quarter end. Loan proceeds from the additional financing will be pooled in the same Designated Account with Loan proceeds from the Original Loan. The account will be denominated in EURO and the ceiling for the account will be EUR 500,000. Disbursement arrangements will remain the same as for the AF, including use of Direct Payments, Special Commitments and Advances. 5. Environmental Safeguards: The original Project is classified as Environmental Category B. An Environmental Management Framework Document was prepared for the project, including a sample checklist EMP. The site-specific EMPs are prepared for each specific site during detailed design, and included in bidding documents and resulting contracts for civil works. Environmental safeguards compliance under the original Project has been fully satisfactory to date. The measures implemented under the original Project and proposed to be continued in the AF have no long-term negative environmental impacts if the EE measures in targeted buildings are undertaken as designed. The minor temporary negative impacts related to this type of activity include noise, dust, vibrations, and management of construction waste during civil engineering works. These impacts can be successfully managed and mitigated by application of good engineering practices and other measures specified in the EMP. As in MEEP to date, these will continue to be included in the AF in the design and technical specifications and their implementation included in the respective contracts. 6. The AF will continue to use the same arrangements for preparation, implementation and monitoring of site-specific EMPs as already used in the existing Project. This will include: (i) preparation of draft site-specific EMPs by the Project Implementation Team; (ii) review and approval of site-specific EMPs by the Bank; (iii) inclusion of site-specific EMPs as a part of the Bidding Document, and subsequent contract; (iv) execution of EMP-related measures by the respective contractor(s); (v) monitoring and reporting of compliance with EMP-related measures by the works Supervision Engineer to the Project Coordinator and the MoH; and (vi) reporting on EMP compliance to the Bank by the Project Coordinator and the MoH. 7. The buildings will continue to be used for the provision of health services, i.e. there is no change in the use of these buildings, nor of the actual foot-print on the ground. It has been confirmed that there will be no acquisition of land or displacement of people related to the AF portion of the Project. During implementation of the AF it will be confirmed whether any of the buildings chosen for rehabilitation are designated or protected as cultural heritage sites. As provided for by the sample EMP, in these cases the site-specific EMPs will include clauses related to heritage protection and conservation. The civil engineering works will have to be reviewed and approved by competent National Cultural Heritage Institutions and by the Bank. 23 8. While the subprojects under the AF have been tentatively pre-identified, the preparation and disclosure of the subproject EMPs can only be meaningfully done after the detailed energy audits and technical designs become available (there are detailed designs for a portion of the works at the Clinic Center Montenegro but only for about half of what the subproject measures will eventually cover). The EMP variations can in some cases be significant; e.g., some of the buildings may previously have had low-radioactivity fluorescent lighting rods, some asbestos containing materials, old oil tanks, etc. Therefore, disclosure of EMPs when the scope of works is not yet fully known would likely require further changes to EMPs in later stages and re-disclosure of the updated documents. MEEP AF will therefore follow the approach already used in MEEP where an agreed generic sample EMP is adjusted, as needed, for each subproject. Site-specific EMPs will be prepared for each specific subproject only after or in parallel to detailed design stage. These will be based on an already adopted Environmental Management Framework Document, which was prepared for the Project in 2008. 9. Implementation schedule: The implementation schedule is revised to reflect the addition of approximately12-14 subprojects and the time needed to implement them. The revised envisaged implementation schedule, reflected in the proposed Closing Date of March 30, 2017, of the AF is the following:  AF Effectiveness to December 31, 2014: EE measures implemented in Clinic Center Montenegro and 4 other subprojects  Calendar year 2015: EE measures implemented in 4-5 subprojects  Calendar year 2016: EE measures implemented in the remaining 4 subprojects  Throughout the implementation period through the Project’s Closing Date: technical and social monitoring and evaluation in selected subprojects. 24