June 2014 and Workplan July December 2014 · From January to June 2014, 3 CIIPP exercises were conducted, 10 city applications for PFS support approved, and 4 PFS projects in 3 cities

Cities Development Initiative for Asia

CDIA

Six-monthly Progress Report January – June 2014 and Workplan July – December 2014

August 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... I

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... II

PROGRAM SCOPE ....................................................................................................................... III

A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1

B CONTRIBUTION TO OVERARCHING DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ............................................. 2

C CITY INTERVENTIONS ............................................................................................................ 7

D PROGRESS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD ....................................................................... 10

D.1 PROGRESS AGAINST ENVISAGED OUTCOMES & OUTPUTS ............................................................ 10

D.2 CHALLENGES AND MITIGATION ..................................................................................................... 19

E CMT TIME REGISTRATION, CDIA CORE RESOURCES EXPENDITURE AND BUDGET ................... 21

F KEY ACTIVITIES (UNDERTAKEN AND PLANNED) .................................................................... 24

F.1 KEY ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN (JANUARY – JUNE 2014) ................................................................. 24

F.2 KEY ACTIVITIES PLANNED (JULY – DECEMBER 2014) ...................................................................... 25

F.3 CDIA PUBLIC RELATIONS (PR) AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ............................................... 26

ANNEX 1 CDIA RESULTS CHAIN AND INDICATORS FRAMEWORK 2013-2017 ............................... 28

ANNEX 2 IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONES ................................................................................. 30

ANNEX 3 APPROVED CITY INTERVENTIONS STATUS AND EXPECTED IMPACTS (JUN. 2014) .......... 31

ANNEX 4 SUMMARY CDIA INC. ACTIVITIES REPORT (JAN.–JUN. 2014) AND OUTLOOK 2014 ........ 38

ANNEX 5 PRO-POOR AND INCLUSIVE PROGRESS NOTE .............................................................. 40

ANNEX 6 PRC RECOMMENDATIONS & FOLLOW-UP ................................................................... 41

Six-monthly Progress Report January – June 2014 and Workplan July – December 2014 ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACCCRN Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network

ADB Asian Development Bank

BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

CIIPP City Infrastructure Investment Programming and Prioritization toolkit

CMT Core Management Team

FS Feasibility Study

GFP Gender Focal Point

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH

IFI International Financing Institution

IPSIA Initial Poverty and Social Impact Assessment

KfW German Development Bank

LFI Local Financing Institution

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MoUD Ministry of Urban Development, India

MTR Mid-Term Review

NEA National Environment Agency, Singapore

NPO National Partner Organization

RPO Regional Partner Organization

PFS Pre-Feasibility Study

RETA Regional Technical Assistance

SDS Social Development Specialist

SECO State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, Switzerland

SEI Singapore Environment Institute

Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

SMG Shanghai Municipal Government

UCCRTF Urban Climate Change Resilience Trust Fund

UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Program

YAPP Young Asian Professional Program

WB World Bank

Six-monthly Progress Report January – June 2014 and Workplan July – December 2014 iii

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.

Six-monthly Progress Report January – June 2014 and Workplan July – December 2014 1

A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report covers the progress achieved by CDIA from January to June 2014 and includes a brief work plan for July to December 2014.

The following summary reflects the main highlights and challenges of CDIA’s progress during the reporting period:

From January to June 2014, 3 CIIPP exercises were conducted, 10 city applications for PFS support approved, and 4 PFS projects in 3 cities completed. CDIA thus counts a total of 65 PFS partner cities as of June 2014 including 110 PFS projects out of which 67 have been completed, with 39 of these being at least partially linked to financing. Adding the 26 cities with CIIPPs but no PFS application to date, CDIA accounts for city interventions in 91 cities;

Additional MoUs and workplans have been agreed upon with 3 national and 1 regional partner organizations aiming to implement the newly established accreditation system. All of the 3 CIIPPs undertaken during the reporting period were led by NPOs;

2 NPO staff members from UDRC (Mongolia) and Sevanatha (Sri Lanka) supported PFSs in their respective countries under the Young Asian Professional Program (YAPP) and will join the CDIA office in Manila in August 2014;

the PRC decided at its 12th meeting in March 2014 to continue the previous institutional and financial set up and arrangements of CDIA and CDIA Inc. as the preferred option recommended by a respective study.

During the reporting period, the CDIA team was further strengthened by a new Regional Networking Specialist, a Communications specialist and a project assistant joining to support and expand its activities. These included the organization of several training courses with participants from partner cities and organizations, the approval of PFS applications for two additional Asian countries (Georgia and Sri Lanka), and increased regional and international interest in and recognition of CDIA.

In addition, efforts have been increased to improve the CDIA Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system with its various instruments. Among others, an evaluation of IPSIAs of all completed PFSs was undertaken and is provided as a separate Annex 5 to this progress report. A larger share of resources was dedicated to receiving advice and to resuming client satisfaction surveys and tracer studies as well as gathering additional and analyzing this along with existing data. Initial results of ongoing activities are reflected in Section B and D of this report.


B CONTRIBUTION TO OVERARCHING DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

Regarding CDIA’s contribution to over-

arching development objectives like pro-

poor development, environmental sustain-

ability, mitigation of and adaptation to

climate change as well as enhanced

governance, Figure 1 shows the number of

PFS projects that consider each of these.

By June 2014, CDIA counted 67 completed

and 12 ongoing PFS projects, while 16

approved PFS projects are expected to start

within 2014.1

Figure 1 Number of PFS projects contributing to each

overarching development objective (June 2014).

As a result of increased efforts regarding the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of CDIA activities,

client satisfaction surveys were distributed to all four cities that completed a PFS in 2013. Three of

these replied in time for including their responses in this progress report. Immediate post-training

evaluations reflected high rates of satisfaction

(cmp. e.g. p. 6-7). In addition, tracer studies

were initiated on the status and impact of

CDIA projects considered as “linked to

financing” (cmp. Table 3, p. 10) and in the

form of follow-up surveys also with

participants of CDIA training courses in 2014.

Samples of the responses received so far also

entered this report (cmp. Figure 2). These

efforts will be pursued on a continuous basis.

Figure 2 Response rate of follow-up surveys per training

Interviews conducted with stakeholders in 11 of its partner cities in 2013 were also evaluated and

served to identify good practices and potential CDIA Centers of Learning. Preparations started for a

workshop in fall under the 2014 Annual Thematic Focus where selected cities will be trained on

various ways of documenting and sharing good practices and lessons learnt.

Pro-poor and gender-related aspects: Under the responsibility of a long-term Social Development

Specialist (SDS), CDIA focused on the M&E of its activities in relation to pro-poor and inclusive

infrastructure development to respond to the achievement of results stated in the CDIA Strategy and

Business Plan 2013-2017. Appendix 5 shows a detailed analysis of IPSIAs implemented from January

2013 up to June 2014. In addition, resources have been facilitated to ensure that all Pre-Feasibility

Studies (PFSs) of CDIA since the S&BP 2007-12 have been appraised through the “Initial Poverty and

Social Impact Assessment” (IPSIA). 57 IPSIAs were completed until 2012, and additional 10 IPSIAs can

be counted since release of CDIA’s new S&BP in 2013.

CDIA activities for the Pro-poor and Gender dimension have been and will continue to be

mainstreamed by the Pro-Poor Checklist, ToRs for consultants, the Municipality Guide, as well as the

1 2 PFS projects were deferred and 13 projects cancelled, thus amounting to a total of 110 PFS inter-

ventions in 65 cities across Asia.


IPSIA checklist. After an intensive review of these internal CDIA tools at the beginning of 2014, the

ToRs for consultants are updated to better respond to the need of poverty reduction orientation. As

CDIA Pre-Feasibility Studies combine different disciplines, they should be better connected and

consultants need to strongly cooperate with each other. For instance, pro-poor design features like

waste banks can be enhanced by integrating poverty and gender concerns as well in the ToR tasks

for the Solid Waste Management and Financial Specialist. In addition, it was experienced that the

IPSIA often does not cover sufficiently the level of participation. “Participation” is now integrated

into the IPSIA template in order to assess the multi-stakeholder involvement on all levels leading to

pro-poor governance.

As the below example of Hai Phong City in Vietnam demonstrates, the preparation of IPSIAs

contributes greatly to ensuring that social aspects are considered in most city interventions. By June

2014, there were 6 out of 67 completed PFS (9%) with poverty reduction as their explicit target2,

while as many as 46 (69%) aim for enhanced inclusiveness3.

Gender aspects remain mainstreamed in all CDIA guidelines, going hand in hand with the pro-poor

tools as mentioned above. CDIA constantly incorporates gender considerations or gender-sensitive

design features, thus significantly influencing the work with partner institutions and cities. This

involves for example the request for and collection of gender-disaggregated data and the raising of

gender-related questions and development aspects while working with them.

The CDIA Gender Focal Point (GFP) actively participated in the Gender Working Group meetings of

GIZ Philippines and the Pacific in the first half of 2014. Main concerns have been to discuss disaster-

related issues, like the governmental report of the Philippine National Economic and Development

Authority, to discourse the Operational Plan for 2014, and to follow up on the "Online survey

Corporate Culture & Gender Competence” to address gender discrimination and harassment within

the organization and programs.

The GFP/SDS is aiming to raise awareness of gender issues in all direct and indirect city

interventions. Since a common understanding is essential to promote the social part of a PFS, the

SDS organized a Pro-poor and Gender Orientation for all CMT members including the Philippine,

China and India office. The first hour provided an introduction/refresher on Social Development at

CDIA, while the second hour served as a discussion round on practical issues. CMT members got the

possibility to provide recommendations to the content needed for facilitating their daily work.

For more details on pro-poor and gender-related aspects, please see Annex 5.

Hai Phong in Vietnam improves its drainage and sewerage system in a pro-poor way (PFS duration: August 2012 – January 2013; total cost of city interventions USD 345,000; still to be linked to financing) Through enhancing the wastewater system and its treatment facilities the project will lead to better living conditions by reducing environmental and health risks from water related diseases. The PFS focused on two severly affected districts of Don Son and Duong Kinh, where the average poverty rate varies between 2% and 8%, and being much higher in unsewered areas. The majority of the urban poor have migrated from surrounding rural areas, in search of employment opportunities. As many are unable to find suitably paid jobs or accommodation, they settle in the peri-urban areas of the city.

2 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. 3 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.


From an economic perspective, the project’s benefits include stimulating the tourism industry and thereby increasing employment opportunities. Agriculture as well as fishery will benefit from an improved overall water quality. A reduction in water related diseases can lead to increased productivity and thus contributes to poverty alleviation. Women in the project area will specially benefit from improved health, living, and overall economic conditions. As tourism and agriculture provide job opportunities for women in particular they can contribute to household income, therefore reducing the poverty rate. In the scope of both infrastructure projects organizational strengthening and capacity building are central project components. Apart from ensuring that the urban poor will have access to the infrastructure network, the tariff system will be shaped in an affordable way. As the urban poor are scattered throughout the city those residing in new settlements within the peri-urban project area will benefit from the intervention. In addition, the PFS recommends further studies on user charges or fees for the system. It is therefore recommended to conduct a detailed tariff study as part of a feasibility study taking into account anticipated cost-recovery levels and recommend pro-poor policy measures in order to ensure that the whole population will benefit from the improved sanitation services. Once implemented, the wastewater and sanitation project is expected to improve the living conditions of approx. 100,000 residents in Hai Phong. Based on the household surveys and poverty rate for the target areas about 51,000 urban poor would benefit directly from the infrastructure components.

Environment: As visualized by Figure 1, environmental aspects are considered in the vast majority

of PFSs, mostly ensured through respective expertise of at least one of the PFS consultants. In an

effort to create synergies in promoting environmental planning in cities, CDIA played an active role

in the launch of ADB’s GrEEEn Cities Initiative in May 2014. The regional conference “Enabling

GrEEEN Cities” brought together various organizations and networks concerned with integrated

urban development as well as several representatives from Asian cities. At the 4th Global

Infrastructure Basel Summit, the Distributed Energy System & District Cooling and Heating Project in

Xiaolan Zhongshan, China was featured as a best practice case (PFS completed in Feb. 2014, cmp.

description in previous progress report).

Water supply and wastewater management in Darkhan, Mongolia (PFS duration: February – June 2014; PFS input: USD 315,000; ADB loan of USD 13 mio. expected) The PFS team worked together with the city officials and the NPO UDRC towards an improved environment in peripheral ger areas by targeting essentially poor income households. It proposed decentralized sanitation solutions and water supply and proper water treatment through better wastewater management of the Khara River. The entire process was supported by an employee from UDRC under the CDIA Young Asian Professional Program (YAPP) who will join the CDIA office after completion of the PFS in Darkhan. An ADB pre-loan agreement is already in place for financing of the wastewater treatment plant.

Climate Change: The project ‘Linking Climate Change Resilient Planning to Urban Investments in Asian Cities,’ supported by the Rockefeller Foundation started in October 2013. The collaboration aims at identifying and developing bankable infrastructure projects rooted in cities’ Climate Resilience Strategies (CRS), and the focus cities have been Hat Yai, Quy Nhon, Semarang and Surat.

While there are many organizations that are supporting cities with climate change planning, including the Rockefeller Foundation, ICLEI, GIZ, UN-Habitat and others, there are very few support mechanisms in place to support cities translate these broad plans into concrete projects that can be picked by financiers. In order to facilitate this transition from strategy to financing, CDIA has developed a Climate Resilience City Infrastructure Investment Programming and Prioritization (CIIPP) Toolkit. The modified CIIPP Toolkit integrates elements of resilience, such as redundancy, safe-failure, and robustness into an already proven prioritization methodology.


Due to CDIA’s relatively unique experience working towards building this bridge between climate planning and project development, the Rockefeller Foundation invited CDIA to present some of the lessons learned in early June at the Foundation’s meeting on “Investing in Urban Climate Change Resilience: Sharing Lessons and Accelerating Action.”

Selected Lessons Learned in Linking Climate Strategies to Finance

Momentum generated by the development of the CRS needs to be leveraged in order to effectively translate planning into projects.

The current approach to CRS orientation means it is less focused on infrastructure invest-ment and the identification of priorities requires review of additional city strategies & plans.

Linking infrastructure investments to financing requires targeted outputs to financiers’ spatial and sectoral requirements.

Some climate change adaptation priorities are strategic and will require investment beyond the city boundary.

Climate change projections are uncertain and their localization difficult, and this uncertainty needs to be built into project design.

Infrastructure investments are, by their nature, longer-term, and design horizons need to build in climate projections.

Infrastructure investments will require quantitative cost-benefit analysis in line with the investment life cycle.

Addressing urban resilience issues, in common with urban development more generally, will prove opportunistic, i.e. investments tend to be driven also by supply of finance rather than exclusively by the needs of the city.

The procurement of specialists with requisite urban development and climate change adaptation skills and experience may prove challenging.

One of the significant outcomes of the project was that CDIA has been asked by the Rockefeller Foundation to continue the partnership with work on a new project called “Aligning Downstream Finance with Upstream Urban Climate Change Resilience Planning.” The objective of the new project will be to find modalities to ensure that Urban Climate Change Resilience (UCCR) planning efforts, project development and downstream financing are integrated through a more connected and leveraged ecosystem of actors, so that an expanded and more streamlined pipeline of projects that contribute to UCCR is built.

Capacity Development in Cities and Climate Change A training on Cities and Climate Change with a focus on flood management was conducted by CDIA with the support of the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Singapore Environment Institute (SEI) / National Environment Agency (NEA) from 26-28 March, 2014. 19 participants came from ten cities in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. An important indicator of the relevance and requirement for such a training was reflected by the fact that there was high ranking representation, including two mayors from the Philippines and one Vice Chairman of a Vietnamese Province along with 8 heads of department. In addition to covering issues related to governance, co-benefits, financing for CC project, there was also a ‘Mayors’ Roundtable’, and a session on ‘peer-to-peer advice’, which intensively explored two real cases: Blitar City (IND): How to achieve support at House of Representatives, and how to increase community awareness for implementing the CC Action Plan. General Santos (PH): Localized flood risks are being addressed through combined infrastructure development (drainage) and land banking/resettlement. How to cope with opposition by the concerned community groups?

According to feedback from the participants, the strong focus on the ‘special theme’ Flood Risk

Management made the training more concrete and more relevant to key challenges in many Asian

cities. The evaluation of the training provided high scores especially for the issue ‘relevance to your


work’, which had a tendency to be assessed lower during previous trainings. This high relevance

seems to be related to the fact that the training addressed one of the key themes for Asian cities in a

quite concrete and specific way. A powerful way of transferring training messages to the day-to-day

work of the participants was the exercise ‘The Way Forward’ during day 3. Rather than focusing on

fictitious case situations, the trainees identified key challenges in their home countries/cities in

categories addressed by the training and developed approaches to overcome them (‘To-do-list’).

The demand prior to the course and the response following the course so positive, the CDIA and

MFA, along with the ABD’s Urban Climate Change Resilience Trust Fund (UCCRTF) will conduct a

training of trainers to up-scale and roll out a similar training, albeit with a greater focus on urban

climate resilience, in the countries of Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, and

Vietnam, which are not only the countries eligible for UCCRTF funds, but are also among the most

vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change in Asia.

Good Governance: Among the above mentioned development impacts, good governance

represents the largest increase due to a respective focus of most CDIA interventions approved

during the reporting period. This can partly be explained through an increased awareness of CMT

members about the importance of ensuring the participation of various stakeholders early on in the

infrastructure investment process. Based on input from the CDIA Social Development Specialist, they

are now better equipped to give respective advice to cities in the PFS application process.

The training follow-up surveys indicated that the CDIA approach to stakeholder involvement has

been taken into account for projects by the Pakistani NPO Infrastructure Project Development

Facility (IPDF), including for the following projects: Karachi-Lahore Motorway, Karachi-Hyderabad

Motorway, Lahore-Islamabad Motorway & Coal Transportation.

Public transport system in Peshawar, Pakistan (PFS duration: November 2013 – March 2014; PFS input: USD 372,000; ADB financing of USD 533 mio. expected) In order to cope with its increasing demand of commuters for transport, the city of Peshawar requested CDIA to conduct a PFS for potential public transport modalities. For the first time in its history of planning urban infrastructure, the city officials followed a participatory and consultative process based on the CDIA support. The PFS consultants led focus group discussions with the urban poor residing in the envisioned transport corridor, who also sent representatives to later presentations and discussions. Other involved stakeholders included business owners in the corridor, city planners and the transport department. The process hence led to a change in dynamics of the city government with non-governmental actors. Peshawar expects to access ADB financing for a Bus Rapid Transport system.


C CITY INTERVENTIONS

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.

Prioritization

As of June 2014, there were 15 active Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) between CDIA and its regional and national partner organizations (RPOs/NPOs) and initial partnership discussions with 2 others. For various reasons, NPO engagement was not renewed for 2 NPOs each in China, India, and Vietnam, and 1 each for Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Together with its partners, CDIA has so far supported cities in prioritizing infrastructure investment projects by using its CIIPP toolkit in as many as 45 reported cases since 2012, with 3 undertaken in the reporting period by previously capacitated NPOs in Surat (India), Ha Giang and Vinh Yen (Vietnam). Out of all CIIPPs, most took place in the Philippines, India and Vietnam (see Figure 3). Tracer studies with training course participants aim to identify any potentially unreported CIIPPs.

Figure 3

CIIPP interventions by country

Pre-Feasibility Studies

From January until June 2014, final PFS reports have been submitted for the cities of Xiaolan and Yongzhou (China) and Peshawar (Pakistan). CDIA further approved PFS applications from 10 additional cities. The PFSs in Darkhan and Colombo (Sri Lanka) were strongly supported by YAPs from the NPOs UDRC and Sevanatha, respectively.

As of June 2014, CDIA has approved PFS applications in 65 different cities in 16 Asian countries for a total of 110 PFS projects (completed: 67 in 40 cities, ongoing: 12 in 8 cities).4 In addition to its prior sectors, the CDIA project portfolio has been extended to include social infrastructure as well (see Figure 4).

4 Out of these, 13 PFS applications were cancelled, and 2 were deferred due to limitations in budget,

changing local political situations and priorities (see Table 1).


Table 1 City Interventions (City applications/PFS)

City Applications Cities PFS projects

Completed 40 67

Approved 10 16

Ongoing 8 12

Deferred 2 2

Cancelled 7 13

TOTAL 65* 110

* Guiyang and Da Nang each submitted 2 successful applications which are thus subtracted from the total number of cities.

Figure 4 CDIA engagement by sector (June 2014)

Linking to Finance

Out of the 67 PFSs completed in 40 cities (13 countries) by June 2014, at least one component of 39 PFS projects was linked to finance (either through entering into FS phase for an International Financing Institution (IFI) or a Bilateral Agency, or through a signed letter of intent for PPP or other, mostly local, financing institutions). For 17 of these projects, actual construction of project components has started or is completed. Once implemented, at least 6.85 mio. people are expected to benefit.

Table 2 shows the distribution of projects linked and pipelined for financing per institution/ arrangement. The few KfW linkages result from the CDIA city demands not always being within BMZ/KfW focus sectors, a more complex CDIA application process, and KfW officers’ easier access to alternate study funds. Negotiations for the projects previously considered for WB financing were cancelled for reasons out of reach for CDIA, so that the respective linkages did not materialize. Other financing modalities included a detailed engineering design financed by Australian Aid and the Government of Indonesia for Balikpapan and Tangerang, and commercial borrowing in Palembang (Indonesia). Figure 5 shows the share of linked CDIA projects by financing institution.

Table 2 Summary of envisaged financing of completed CDIA supported projects

Primary Financing Institution

PFS linked to finance PFS linking in pipeline

no. of PFS

USD mio. no. of

PFS USD mio.

ADB 15 691.8 8 269.6

KfW 2 93.8 8 866.0

LFI 12 2566.7 8 17.7

PPP 6 948.2 8 407.7

WB 1 23.14 0 0.0

Other 3 112.5 0 0.0

Sub-total 39 4,436.1 32 1,561.0

TOTAL USD 5,997.1 LFI – Local Financing Institutions

Figure 5 CDIA projects Linked to Finance by Financing Institution

Definition Linked to Finance: At least one PFS component entering into FS phase for IFI or bilateral agency

(e.g. KfW); signed letter of intent (PPP, other financial institutions). Pipeline: Long term planning for IFI or bilateral agency (e.g. KfW); documented

correspondence of interest (PPP, other financial institutions).

The detailed status of CDIA PFS projects linked to finance (as of Dec. 2013) is indicated in Table 3 and Figure 6. For more information on each project, please refer to Annex 3.


Linked to finance

Main Financing

Institution

Feasibility

EIV

Construction

EIR**1 Khulna, Bangladesh Solid Waste Management 6.5 ADB 6.51 Financing agreement signed 700,000

2 Khulna, Bangladesh Drainage 11.1 ADB 11.06 Financing agreement signed not specified

3 Khulna, Bangladesh Urban transport 13.8 KfW 13.76 Follow-up financing informally confirmed 1,300,000

4 Battambang, Cambodia Sewage/drainage system improvement 9.2 ADB 9.18 Financing agreement signed 130,000

5 Battambang, Cambodia Solid Waste 4.8 ADB 4.83 Financing agreement signed not specified

6 Geiju, China Land Development 900.0 PPP 900.00 Financing agreement signed 120,000

7 Guiyang 1, China Water resources rehabilitation 101.0 ADB 150.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed not specified

8 Guiyang 1, China Urban transport (LRT project) 2300.0 LFI 2300.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed 1,000,000

9 Guiyang 2, ChinaUrban transport (passenger hub and freight

logistics)200.0 LFI 59.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed 530,000

10 Pu’er, China Rehabilitation Simao River 225.5 KfW 80.00 Construction ongoing 175,000

11 Yangzhou, China Water supply 60.0 LFI 60.00 Construction fully completed 500,000

12 Greater Suva Area, Fiji Drainage and flood management 24.4 LFI 10.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed 256,000

13 Greater Suva Area, Fiji Urban transport 13.2 LFI 5.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed [256000]

14 Pimpri, India Water Supply 66.4 LFI 11.70 Follow-up financing informally confirmed 150,000

15 Rajkot, India Urban transport 15.7 LFI tbc Some components completed not specified

16 Balikpapan, Indonesia Solid Waste Management 53.6 Other 38.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed 350,000

17 Banda Aceh, IndonesiaRiver-based urban infrastructure development,

CBD rehabilitation22.6 PPP 15.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed not specified

18 Palembang, IndonesiaUrban transport (Bridge project + selected bus

routes)175.0 Other 19.50 Some components completed not specified

19 Surakarta, Indonesia Urban transport 49.0 LFI 36.70 Some components completed not specified

20 Tangerang, Indonesia Solid Waste Management 91.1 Other 55.00 Some components completed not specified

21 Yogyakarta, Indonesia Urban transport 62.8 LFI tbc Follow-up financing informally confirmed not specified

22 Pakse, Lao PDR Sewerage/drainage system 25.4 ADB 25.40 Financing agreement signed 25,000

23 Pakse, Lao PDR Solid waste management 1.9 ADB 1.86 Financing agreement signed 135,000

24 Pakse, Lao PDR Green Infrastructure 6.9 ADB 6.90 Financing agreement signed not specified

25 Kathmandu, Nepal Urban Infrastructure improvement 23.7 ADB 23.70 Follow-up financing informally confirmed not specified

26 Kathmandu, Nepal Solid waste management 1.0 ADB 1.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed not specified

27 Kathmandu, Nepal Urban transport (Bishnumati link road) 8.8 ADB 8.80 Follow-up financing informally confirmed not specified

28 Faisalabad, Pakistan Urban transport 583.2 PPP tbc Follow-up financing informally confirmed not specified

29 Faisalabad, Pakistan Industrial waste water management 141.9 PPP tbc Follow-up financing informally confirmed not specified

30 Islamabad, Pakistan Urban Transport 400.0 LFI 79.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed 1,151,900

31 Cebu, PhilippinesReview of existing SRP Plan Service utilities

(Urban public transport)23.1 WB 23.14 Follow-up financing informally confirmed not specified

32Metro Iloilo-Guimaras,

PhilippinesFerry Terminal System (GIFTS) 9.2 PPP 3.40 Construction ongoing not specified

33Metro Iloilo-Guimaras,

PhilippinesCBD revitalization 29.8 PPP 29.79 Construction ongoing not specified

34 Naga, Philippines River walk 4.9 LFI 4.85 Some components completed not specified

35 Naga, Philippines River transport 0.4 LFI 0.40 Construction fully completed not specified

36 Da Nang 2, Vietnam Sewage/drainage system improvement 35.7 ADB 35.70 Follow-up financing informally confirmed 150,000

37 Da Nang 2, Vietnam Waste water treatment 368.0 ADB 368.00 Follow-up financing informally confirmed 90,000

38 Thanh Hoa, Vietnam Water supply 19.5 ADB 19.45 Financing agreement signed 40,000

39 Thanh Hoa, Vietnam Waste water treatment 19.5 ADB 19.45 Financing agreement signed 48,000

1,657.4 2,778.7 6,850,900

* Expected Investment Value (in mio. US$) 6,108.3

** Estimated Investments Realized (in mio. US$)

T O T A L S (in mio. US$)

Status: As of June 2014, 69 PFS projects have been completed in 41 cities (13 countries). Of these, 39 PFS projects in 24 cities were linked to finance (either through entering into FS phase for an IFI

or Bilateral Agency or through a signed letter of intent for PPP or other financing institutions). For 17 of these projects actual construction has started or is completed.

Target

PopulationStatus of Linked Projects

4,436.1

City, Country Project Sector/PFSEIV*

as per PFS

Implementation Phase

STATUS DETAILS

Construction completed: The construction of the infrastructure project is completed. Individual components completed: Individual components of the infrastructure project are already constructed while other components remain to be completed. Construction ongoing: All components of the infrastructure project are under construction. Financing agreement signed: A financing agreement for the infrastructure project has been signed and the construction phase is to commence. Follow-up financing informally confirmed: An informal statement (e.g. by a Project Officer at an International Financing Institution, a CDIA Country Manager) confirmed that follow-up financing has been secured (e.g. in the scope of a Detailed Technical Design (DTD), Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA), Feasibility Study (FS)). In some cases, initial parts of the project have already been implemented with city resources and are thus counted as being under construction.

Figure 6 Status of CDIA projects Linked to Finance

Table 3 Status of CDIA PFS Projects Linked to Finance (June 2014)


D PROGRESS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD

The following tables present the progress made towards achievements of the overall development objective, outcomes and outputs on the basis of the program Impact Chain and Indicators Framework 2013 – 2017 (Annex 1). In addition to progress made towards achieved outcomes and outputs in the current reporting period and overall achievements of the CDIA Strategy and Business Plan 2013-2017, this report will also inform on main activities. Based on suggestions from an M&E consultant, a more refined “traffic light” coding has been introduced 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: facing 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 how to address them.

D.1 PROGRESS AGAINST ENVISAGED OUTCOMES & OUTPUTS

Indicators Results achieved to date/Traffic Light 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: partner organization

certification, partner organizations

contract data, client surveys).

CDIA has a total of 8 accredited partner

organizations as of June 2014. During the

reporting period, MoUs were renewed with 3

NPOs that included work plans (as the basis for

accreditation) for providing city-level support.

Re-accreditation is envisioned in Q4 2015.

While some MoUs expired and others were

not renewed for different reasons, active

MoUs are in place with 11 NPOs in 7 countries

as well as with 4 RPOs. Discussions are ongoing

with other potential partner organizations.

Progress to date

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.


Indicators Results achieved to date/Traffic Light Remarks

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 implemented (sources:

tracer studies, baseline end-2012: 20

projects in 10 cities).

To date, components of 39 PFS projects in 24

cities have been linked to financing. For 17

projects in 10 cities implementation of at least

some components has started, with only 2

projects in 2 cities being fully completed and

operational.

All CDIA supported PFSs address at least two

development impacts (see column “Develop-

ment Impacts” in Annex 3).

Progress to date

Justification for progress assessment: Indicator is unlikely to be met. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period:

Substantial external delays have been identified in project implementation.

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).

The evaluation of existing CDIA good practice

documentation and new client satisfaction

surveys indicate that at least two CDIA partner

cities already apply CDIA good practices in

their routine processes.

At the national level, CDIA is in dialogue with

ministries in Cambodia, China, Indonesia and

the Philippines to institutionalize change

processes.

Progress to date

Justification for progress assessment: Evidence shows impact of CDIA inter-ventions at local level. The CDIA flagship event aims at documenting good practices. Action needed to demonstrate influence on national frameworks. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period:



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

“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).

Currently 8 regional and national partner

organizations are accredited to provide

support to cities using CDIA tools and

approaches. All of the 3 CIIPP exercises during

the reporting period were conducted by

accredited NPOs.

Follow-up surveys with NPO participants in

CDIA training courses indicate that also non-

accredited partner organizations already do

so.



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 additional PFS was

implemented by a CDIA NPO

during the reporting period. 3 out of 4 city

interventions that were previously implement-

ted by NPOs reflect inclusive processes.

The indicator can never be met completely

due to one NPO implemented city intervention

that did not comply with CDIA standards.

Justification for progress assessment: 3 out of 4 (75%) NPO implemented PFSs were implemented in compliance with CDIA PFS requirements. 1 (25%) was implemented below standard. Thus the indicator will never be met 100%. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period:





implemented city interventions explore

options for private sector involvement in

project implementation and/or financing

(sources: PFS reports, progress reports).

At least 4 of the CDIA NPOs

have an explicit mandate to

facilitate private sector involvement in project

implementation and/or financing. In order to

capacitate other NPOs with knowledge about

opportunities and challenges of private sector

financing and public private partnerships, CDIA

incorporates these topics in its training

courses.

However, ensuring that all NPOs indeed will be

able to consider, justify and advice cities on

private sector financing still requires

substantial work.

Justification for progress assessment: By June 2014, CDIA NPOs have been involved in 4 completed PFS assignments. 2 out of these (50%) seriously considered private sector involvement while 2 (50%) did not. Thus the indicator will never be met 100%. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period:

This indicator was marked as yellow during the previous reporting period. Given the indicator will never be met 100%, there is a need to review whether it should be adjusted.


“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 develop-

ment (sources: signed agreements).

To date, components of 39 PFS projects in 24

cities have been linked to follow-up financing.

2 PFS projects are fully operational, and 14

others in various stages of implementation,

including full-fledged feasibility studies,

detailed technical designs, tendering for

public-private partnerships, or under

construction.

Follow-up financing is in the pipeline for

components of PFS projects in an additional 17

cities.

Justification for progress assessment: Progress is on track.

Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period:


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).

Since the start of the second S&BP in 2013, 2

targeted poverty reduction projects have been

linked to financing.

By June 2014, 4 additional targeted poverty

reduction projects were in the pipeline to be

linked to financing.

Justification for progress assessment: Progress is on track.





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).

During the reporting period, 2 PFS projects

have been linked to private sector

partnerships, bringing the total number to 3

since the start of the second S&BP.

8 additional projects are expected to be

financed with private sector participation.



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).

Since 2013, collaboration

exists with 2 PPP centers in

Indonesia and the Philippines, but no formal

collaboration has been established yet with

national institutions which have an explicit

pro-poor financing focus. Continuous scanning

of possible institutions is taking place though

without success so far.

Justification for progress assessment: Collaboration with 2 PPP centers but no national pro-poor financing institution has been secured to date. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period:

Challenges consist in lack of pro-poor financing institutions which invest in infrastructure. Substantial action will have to be taken in order to reach this indicator within the set timeline.



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).

This target has not been

met. During the reporting

period, additional resources have however

been invested and advisory services were used

so that client satisfaction surveys and tracer

studies for cities and participants to training

courses could be resumed. These efforts will

further be taken over by an M&E specialist

who will ensure an integrated framework.

Justification for progress assessment: While the deadline of Dec. 2013 was not

met, building blocks for a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system are in

place. A GIZ consultant has reviewed and endorsed CDIA’s M&E framework

and an intern joined in June 2014 to support respective activities. The

recruitment of a national M&E specialist was delayed due to few suitable

applications but has been secured for Sep. 2014.


In the previous reporting period, this indicator was marked as red. As M&E

activities have been resumed, it was now changes to yellow.

“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).

So far, record exists only for

one city (Hai Phong,

Vietnam) that learned lessons of a CDIA

partner city. This indicator is thus not

expected to be reached by end 2015.

However, the 2014 Thematic Focus of CDIA

serves to clarify the concept further by means

of an expert group discussion in the sidelines

of the World Cities Summit. It is furthermore

planned to officially establish some initial

Centers of Learning by training selected

partner cities in documenting and ways of

sharing good practices and lessons learnt.

Client satisfaction surveys were updated to

include a question on city-to-city learning.

Justification for progress assessment: Based on documented good practices & lessons learnt, action is required for monitoring their sharing across cities. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period:

In the previous reporting period, this indicator was marked as yellow. Substantial action is required to reach it before end 2015.



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, where CDIA has

strategic entry points for contributing to and

enhancing the development of National Urban

Development Policy. Further options to

synchronize CDIA’s operations with nationally

mandated procedures are being explored in

China, Indonesia, the Philippines, and recently

also in Cambodia.

Limitations in resource availability may impede

the possibilities to meet this target. In

addition, monitoring of CDIA influence on

national development processes will be

difficult in order to demonstrate respective

results.

Justification for progress assessment: While in Indonesia and Philippines progress is on track, additional work is required to make sure that also in other countries CDIA tools and approaches are closely aligned with and have enhanced nationally mandated urban development processes. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period:

In the previous reporting period, this indicator was marked as yellow. As changes at the national level prove to be challenging, it was now changed to orange.

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).

Financing from 3 regional

partners has been secured

within the second business phase of CDIA,

contributing about 35% of CDIA resources. The

funds from Shanghai Municipal Government

(SMG) and Singapore were however restricted

to specific purposes instead of CDIA core

functions.

The assessment mission looking at the long


term organizational and financial sustainability

of CDIA made recommendations for increasing

regional contributions which were the basis

for follow up action from PRC members.

During his visit to the Philippines in March

2014, the PRC Chairman met with ADB DGs

and planning started for a high-level side

event at the ADB Annual Meeting 2015.

Justification for progress assessment: ADB is still the only regional contributor of completely untied CDIA core resources. PRC members support the efforts of CMT at a higher political level, e.g. with a side event at the ADB Annual Meeting 2015 in Baku. In order to reach 60% of core resources by end 2017, more action is however required. Justification of change in progress assessment vis-à-vis previous reporting period:

In the previous reporting period, this indicator was marked as yellow. Due to challenges in securing regional contributions to CDIA core resources, it was now changed to orange.

3.4. By end 2017, 30% of CDIA city

interventions will have (partial) cost-

recovery mechanisms in place (sources: TA

agreements).

12% out of all CDIA city

inter-ventions (or 83% since

2013) have (partial) cost-recovery mechanisms

in place. All Technical Assistance (TA)

agreements for new partner cities in which PFS

support will be provided are designed to

consider principles for partial cost-recovery.

While the mechanism is in place, actual cost

recovery is not yet happening to a significant

degree. Based on the recommendations from

the long-term sustainability study, internal

discussions took place during the reporting

period and an existing concept note has been

revised that explores various ideas for cost

recovery along with their potential

implementation.


During the previous reporting period, this indicator was marked as red. Among others with the help of the assessment mission on CDIA long term organizational and financial sustainability, additional ideas were generated on how CDIA can approach cost-recovery from cities in a pragmatic manner and advance its implementation. This indicator was thus changed to yellow.


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


implemented city interventions explore

options for private sector involvement

in project implementation and/or

financing (sources: PFS reports,

progress reports).

By June 2014, CDIA NPOs have been involved in 4 completed

PFS assignments. 2 out of these (50%) seriously considered

private sector involvement while 2 (50%) did not. Thus the

indicator will never be met 100%.

MTR to consider rephrasing of the indicator in order

to acknowledge the limited influence of CDIA on NPO-

implemented PFSs.

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 develop-

ment impacts (out of four: environ-

ment, climate change, pro-poor, and

good governance) have been accepted

for funding and are implemented

(sources: tracer studies, baseline end-

2012: 20 projects in 10 cities).

CDIA only has limited influence on the negotiation process

between a city and financiers following a PFS.

Significant delays between the finalization of a PFS, the

granting of funds and the completion of an infrastructure

project up to its operation and maintenance present

considerable challenges for reaching this indicator.

MTR to consider rephrasing of the indicator through

reducing the target cities in light of the CDIA mandate

and influence, or through limiting the target to the

level of funding and thus excluding implementation.

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 main challenge consists in the limited number of explicit

pro-poor financing institutions which invest in infrastructure.

CDIA thus aims to mainstream pro-poor investments in

traditional financing institutions.

Due to the rather low share of targeted poverty reduction

projects among all CDIA projects, a low demand can be

assumed for establishing such cooperations.

A Senior Infrastructure Financing Expert is expected to

join CMT in fall 2014. This person will support the

identification of suitable pro-poor financing

institutions.

MTR to review this indicator and consider changing

the number of pro-poor financing institutions to 1.


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).

So far, only one CDIA partner city indicated to have learned

from a previous experience of another.

Challenges consist in adequately documenting and sharing

good practices and lessons learnt and making them accessible

for / distributing them to other cities.

In addition, the monitoring of lessons learnt beyond CDIA

partner cities is challenging.

As agreed by the PRC in March 2014, the MTR should

make recommendations on how this indicator can be

achieved within the given timeframe, and consider

reducing it to a target of 10 cities by end 2015 or

extend the timeframe.

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).

Given the limited staff resources and influence of CDIA,

changes at the national level prove to be challenging.

Interventions mostly focus at the city level within a timeframe

of several months only.

So far, this is only achieved to some extent in Indonesia, with

additional potential and efforts undertaken in China, the

Philippines and Cambodia.

Instead of working in an increasing amount of

countries, the focus on specific countries may help to

achieve a greater impact.

Based on recommendations by the MTR, the PRC

should take a respective decision at its next meeting.

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).

Challenges persist in securing regional contributions to CDIA

core resources.

MTR to review and consider rephrasing of the

indicator to refer to “CDIA functions” instead of “CDIA

core functions” to also reflect tied regional

contributions.


E CMT TIME REGISTRATION, CDIA CORE RESOURCES EXPENDITURE AND BUDGET

Introduction: CDIA core resources used in the first half of 2014 were in cash and in-kind from ADB (including resources channeled through RETA from Austria, Sweden, and Switzerland as well as through the UCCRTF/Urban Financing Partnership Facility also from DFID, Rockefeller Foundation and USAID) and from BMZ (through GIZ). Additional resources originated from the Shanghai Municipal Government for CDIA China, and others were generated through CDIA Inc. The different financial management procedures (commitment- vs. disbursement-based expenditure tracking) employed for various streams of funds continue to pose challenges in coherent financial reporting. Financial data in the standard expenditure type classification of ADB and GIZ budgets is reconciled with the more detailed CDIA activities classification. Therefore, CDIA CMT time registration by main CDIA activities classification assigns CDIA CMT resources to certain components to obtain integral costs of activities and to monitor their development over time.

lesser focus on pipeline activities, investment programming and prioritization, and linking to finance work due to an existing pipeline of cities. The release of funds for the new S&BP at the end of 2013 enabled the approval of 10 Pre-Feasibility Studies and thus an increase of time spent on PFS work within the reporting period. Under the heading Capacity Development, time spent on regional capacity development, networking and knowledge development has increased due to several training courses taking place during the reporting period and vast number of attended events (cmp. Chapter F.1 Key Activities Undertaken). The release of funds in 2013 is also reflected in a decrease in time allocation on ADB administration and management. Table 5 shows a more detailed overview of expenses per component.

Time registration: January-June 2014 CDIA time registration outcomes for CMT professional staff are presented in Table 4. This includes ADB, GIZ and CDIA Inc. staff and consultants, for a total of 13.69 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) staff time at end June 2014 – compared to 11.42 FTE at end December 2013. The table indicates that in the first half of 2014, CMT staff spent 33% of their total time on preparing and backstopping city-level activities, 32% on capacity development (including NPO collaboration, networking activities and knowledge development), and 12% on institutionalization activities (including Nodal Offices development, program resource mobilization and PRC support activities). Time spent on various non-project/overhead activi-ties amounted to 24% of time spent.

Compared to 2013, the proportions for the above broad categories varied by showing slight decrease on time allocated to city-level project and non-project/overhead activities, and in-crease in capacity development.

Within these categories themselves, under the heading City-level project preparation activi-ties, there were some changes including a

Table 4 CDIA Time Registration Jan.-Jun. 2014

Summary outcome CMT time registration 2013 Jan - June 2014

City Level Project Preparation Activities

General Specific Pipeline Activities 14% 11%

Investment Programming & Prioritization 1% 0.4%

Pre-Feasibility Studies 14% 20%

Linkage to Financing 8% 2%

Sub-total 36% 33%

Capacity Development

Capacity Development in City 0% 1%

Regional Capacity Development 3% 7%

NPO Collaboration / YAPP 4% 5%

Networking / SHF / Conferences / PR 10% 12%

Knowledge Development 4% 6%

Sub-total 21% 32%

Institutionalization

Institutionalization 12% 12%

Sub-total 12% 12%

Non-project activities

CMT Meetings 3% 4%

CMT Administration 1% 1%

Sick Leave 2% 0.4%

Annual Leave (including national holidays) 13% 11%

Staff Training 4% 0.5%

GIZ Administration/management 3% 3%

ADB Administration/management 5% 2%

CDIA Inc. Administration 1% 2%

Sub-total 32% 24%

Total 100% 100%


Component ADB GIZCDIA Inc.

(other source of

funds)

SMG Total Expenses

in '000% of TE

City Intervention Preparatory Activities 27 59 11 96

Investment Prioritization 0 4 4 8

Pre-Feasibility Studies 625 105 220 950

Linkage to Finance 58 43 101

Total Expenditure CLPA 710 212 15 220 1,156 41%

Capacity Development - in City 13 33 74 119

Regional Capacity Development 21 111 45 177

NPO Collaboration /YAPP 7 12 19

Networking / SHF / Conference / PR 75 53 21 149

Total Expenditure CD 116 208 45 95 464 16%

Nodal Offices 0 4 4

Strategy Development 0 0

CDIA Institutionalization 18 8 26

Resource Mobilization 0 0

Monitoring & Evaluation 0 0

Project Review Committee (PRC) 13 13

Total Expenditure Institutionalisation 18 20 4 43 2%

CMT Costs 29 173 201

ADB in Kind 225 225

Management/Administration Cost 75 73 33 86 267

GIZ Overheads (HO & Regional Offices) 466 466

Total Expenditure NPA 329 712 33 86 1,160 41%

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 1,172 1,152 92 405 2,822 100%

Non-project Activities

City Level Project Activities January - June 2014

Capacity Development (CD)

Institutionalization

Table 5 Consolidated CDIA Core Funds Expenditure per Component from Jan.-Jun. 2014 in USD thousand

Available budget and expenditure 2013: The available budget and expenditure for the first six months of 2014 (Table 6) shows a total aggregate expenditure of US$2.8 million from ADB, GIZ, the Shanghai Municipal Government, and CDIA Inc. resources. This is about 13% total utilization of the overall funds available in 2014. ADB through Regional Technical Assistance (RETA), and GIZ through Financing Agreement continue their support to CDIA Inc. for networking and capacity development activities and operational expenditure. Both institutions allocated a total budget of US$185,605 in 2014 and out of this amount, US$76,718 were released as of June 2014.

The disbursements and percentage of funds utilization per source shows that for 2014, about US$1.1 million (58%) of the GIZ resources for CDIA and CDIA Inc. for capacity development activities were spent. About US$1.2 million (7%) of the funds from ADB RETA sources and in-kind contributions were used. About US$0.4 million (68%) from the available resources of the Shanghai Municipal Government (SMG) were utilized to support the CDIA China Nodal Office, and about US$0.01 million (15%) from the CDIA Inc. resources out of the grant from Rockefeller Foundation, were utilized to support activities related to climate change.


Table 6 Available Budget and Expenditure in 2014 in USD

Available Funds

in 2014

Breakdown of 2014

Expenditure of ADB

Supports to CDIA

Jan. - June 2014

Expenditure

% of Utilization

per Source

Supports to CDIA Inc. for 2014 $ 53,200.00

Asian Development Bank (ADB) ($ 17,313,000.00) 1,172,361.00$ 7%

Supports to CDIA Inc. for 2014 $ 132,405.00

Switzerland (SECO), 2015-2017 $ 4,000,000.00

Total $ 6,400,000.00

- RETA 7450: Project Preparation

Support for Livable Cities in Asia

(TA completion 31 Dec. 2014)

$ 379,000.00 47,843.00$ 13%

Austria, 2013-2015 $ 2,000,000.00

Sweden (Sida), 2013-2017 $ 7,084,000.00

Urban Financing Partnership

Facility (UFPF), 2013-2018 $ 5,000,000.00

Total 14,084,000.00$ 14,084,000.00$ -$ 0%

- ABD in-kind allocation $ 450,000.00 225,000.00$ 50%

Shanghai Mun. Govt (SMG) financial

support to CDIA1,260,000.00$ 405,234.64$ 68%

Cities Development Institute for Asia

(CDIA), Inc.68,883.00$ 10,615.00$ 15%

21,341,883.00$ 2,717,359.33$ 13%

CDIA Source of Funds

Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

GmbH

Cities Development Initiative for Asia Program

financial support for 20142,700,000.00$ 58%

Total per Regional Technical Assistance (RETA)

and in-kind allocation for 2014

Remaining funds for CDIA implementation up to

2017 $ 2,400,000.00 $ 899,518.00 63%

1,129,148.69$

- RETA 6293: Managing the

Cities in Asia


- RETA 8556: Supporting the

Cities Development Initiative

for Asia


Remaining funds to support CDIA under the ADB

special funding until 31 Dec. 2014

Professional & Admin Support for 2014

Supports to CDIA China for 2014

Grant from Rockefeller Foundation (RF) , Asian

Cities Climate Change Resilience Network

(ACCCRN) (Oct. 2013 - 30 Nov. 2014)

Total Available Funds and Expenditure in 2014

In order to allow for a better comparison with the budget scenarios introduced in the S&BP 2013-2017 (cmp. Table 4, p. 30), the Table 7 below reflects the Jan.-Jun. 2014 expenditure components rearranged according to the expenditure areas and activities outlined therein:

Expenditure Area ADB GIZ

CDIA Inc.

(other source

of funds)SMG

Total Expenses

in '000 % of TE

City Intervention Preparatory Activities 27 59 11 97

Investment Prioritization 0 4 4 8

Pre-Feasibility Studies 625 105 220 950

Capacity Development - in City 13 33 74 119

Total Expenditure Project prep. city level 664 201 15 294 1,174 41.6%

NPO supportNPO Collaboration /YAPP 7 12 19

Total Expenditure NPO support 7 12 19 0.7%

Linking to finance supportLinkage to Finance 58 43 101

Total Expenditure Linking to finance support 58 43 101 3.6%

Networking activitiesRegional Capacity Development 21 111 45 177

Networking / SHF / Conference / PR 75 53 21 149

Total Expenditure Networking activities 96 164 45 21 326 11.6%

Activities 1,620 57.4%

CMT Costs 29 173 201

Strategy Development 0 0

CDIA Institutionalization 18 8 26

Resource Mobilization 0 0

Monitoring & Evaluation 0 0

Total Expenditure CMT staff support and development workers 47 181 227 8.0%

CMT structure costs (incl. nodal office and PRC)Nodal Offices 0 4 4

Project Review Committee (PRC) 13 13

Total Expenditure CMT/nodal office costs 13 4 17 0.6%

ADB in Kind 225 225

Management/Administration Cost 75 73 33 86 267

GIZ Overheads (HO & Regional Offices) 466 466

Total Expenditure ADB/GIZ in-kind general costs and institutional

overheads

300 539 33 86 958 33.9%

1,202 42.6%

TOTAL 2,822 100%

Project preparatory city level interventions (cities)

Direct and indirect support costs

CMT staff support and development workers (incl. travel costs)

ADB/GIZ in-kind general costs and institutional overheads

Table 7 Expenditure per area from Jan.-Jun. 2014 according to S&BP 2013-2017


F KEY ACTIVITIES (UNDERTAKEN AND PLANNED)

This section highlights key activities undertaken and planned in relation to ensuring institutional and financial sustainability of CDIA and providing an overview of key events in which CDIA participated.

F.1 KEY ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN (JANUARY – JUNE 2014) Institutional and financial sustainability of CDIA: The recommendations from the study on long term institutional and financial sustainability of CDIA were discussed at the 12th PRC meeting in March 2014. It was unanimously decided to continue the institutional set-up of CDIA as it is along with CDIA, Inc. to allow for further channeling of funds and expenditures that cannot be accommodated through the ADB and GIZ systems. The CDIA Mid-term Review will be tasked with suggesting ways of mainstreaming the governance structures of CDIA and CDIA, Inc. It was also decided to organize a side event at the 2015 ADB Annual Meeting as incentive to regional funders. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): Following the 12th PRC meeting, CDIA has increased its efforts to improve its M&E system which had suffered from a sudden staff leave in spring 2013 and subsequent lack of handover to new staff joining in late 2013. An advisory session with a GIZ M&E consultant in June 2014 served to revive client satisfaction surveys and tracer studies. The recruitment of an M&E specialist through the ADB is expected to be finalized in August 2014. In preparation of the 2014 Mid-Term Review, CDIA furthermore undertook a self-assessment. Major events/workshops: Thanks to its strengthened team, CDIA was able to be a key organizer or participant in the following events and workshops during the reporting period:

Event Title Venue Date

1 PPP Workshop: The Role PPP can Play in Urbanization of China

China, Shanghai 10 January

2 Introduction Training for Implementing the CDIA CIIPP & PFS Toolkits

Thailand, Bangkok 14-17 January

3 PPP Module I Training China, Beijing 23-25 February

4 5th High-Level Seminar on Environmentally Sustainable Cities

Indonesia, Surabaya

28 February – 1 March

5 Effective Urban Infrastructure Programming Course

Singapore 5-14 March

6 Metropolis Peer Review Process Workshop Korea, Seoul 12-14 March

7 Regional ToT on Pro-Poor Urban Climate Resilience in Asia-Pacific (UN HABITAT/UN ESCAP/Rockefeller Foundation)

Philippines, Manila 17-22 March

8 12th PRC Meeting Germany, Berlin 18-20 March

9 Executive Seminar on Cities and Climate Change: Financing Module - Thematic Focus on Flood Risk Management

Singapore 26-28 March

10

World Urban Forum 7 – CDIA hosted events: Networking event: Linking Cities To Financing:

Realizing Low-carbon And Climate Resilient

Infrastructure Investments; German booth event:

Connecting mobility plans with financing and

Colombia, Medellin 5-11 April


knowledge; Training event: How to Strengthen

Urban Spatial Planning to reduce Social Vulnerability

and Exclusions in South Cities; Side-event: Linking

Cities to Financing: Bridging the gap between plan-

ning and implementation of urban infrastructure

investments

11 Community Resilience and Human Security Workshop

Singapore 10-11 April

12 2nd City Creditworthiness Academy Korea, Seoul 21-26 April

13 ADB GrEEEn Cities Forum Philippines, Manila 13-14 May

14 4th Global Infrastructure Basel Summit Switzerland, Basel 21-22 May

15 Intl. Training Program on Urban Planning Infra-structure and Service Delivery for Indian Officials

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur

22-24 May

16 Myanmar Urban Development Conference Myanmar, Yangon 25-28 May

17 5th Global Forum on Urban Resilience Germany, Bonn 29-31 May

18 CDIA Expert Group Meeting during the World Cities Summit

Singapore 1 June

19 World Cities Summit: Young Leaders & Mayors Forum

Singapore 2-5 June

20 Presentation at Eco-City Event (EU-Asia Dialogue) Singapore 5 June

21 Investing in Urban Climate Change Resilience: Sharing Lessons and Accelerating Action (Rockefeller Foundation)

Italy, Bellagio 2-6 June

22 Eschborner Fachtage: Word in motion: mobility, migration, digital change

Germany, Eschborn 17-18 June

23 Connective Cities Platform Launch Event (GIZ) Germany, Leipzig 24 June

24 Urban Nexus: Third Regional Workshop on Inte-grated Resource Management in Asian Cities (UN ESCAP/GIZ)

Vietnam, Da Nang 25-27 June

F.2 KEY ACTIVITIES PLANNED (JULY – DECEMBER 2014) Institutional and financial sustainability of CDIA: The 13th PRC meeting will be held in December 2014. A South-South City Leaders Forum organized by the ADB in early December 2014 and its 2015 Annual Meeting in Baku are furthermore used as opportunities to increase regional ownership of CDIA through more Asian funders. Major events/workshops: Key activities planned for July – December 2014 include:

Event Title Venue Date

1 ICLEI – ACCCRN Process Review Philippines, Makati 3-4 July

2 IPCC 5th Assessment Report Outreach Philippines, Manila 8 July

3 Urban Infrastructure Financing Options in the Asia Pacific Region: Short-course for City and Municipal Officers

Korea, Seoul 14-17 July


4 Urban Infrastructure Financing Options in the Asia Pacific Region: Training of Trainers

Korea, Seoul 14-19 July

5 Inter-American Development Bank Sustainable Urban Development Summer Course in Santander

Spain, Santander 28 July – 1 August

6 Partner Meeting - City Climate Finance Leadership Alliance

USA, Washington DC

4-5 August

7 OECD Bangkok Knowledge Sharing Workshop on Urban Green Growth in Dynamic Asia

Thailand, Bangkok 6-7 August

8 ADB Waterlinks Forum Philippines, Manila 11-13 August

9 APEC Urban Infrastructure Financing Forum Australia, Melbourne

1-2 September

10 UCLG ASPAC Congress 2014 Taiwan, Taipei 3 September

11 ADB conference: Innovation and Learning in a Changing Asia

Philippines, Manila 9-10 September

12 GIZ Sector Network Governance Asia Steering Group meeting

Philippines, Manila 10-12 September

13 ADB Transport Forum Philippines, Manila 15-18 September

14 Metropolis Congress GIZ-FMDV Session India, Hyderabad 7-10 October

15 1st Connective Cities Dialogue Event in Asia: Greening Cities and Promoting Urban Green Growth

Thailand 20-25 October

16 CDIA-MFA Singapore: Cities and Climate Change Singapore 10-14 November

17 7th Annual City Development Conference Singapore 21 November

18 CIIPP training for facilitators Cambodia 19-21 November

19 Clean Air Asia Better Air Quality Conference Sri Lanka, Colombo 19-21 November

20 CDIA Flagship Event: Investing in Asia’s Urban Future: Strengthening City-to-City Learning

Philippines, Manila 24-26 November

21 CityNet Congress Vietnam, Hue 28-30 November

22 ADB South-South City Leaders Forum Philippines, Manila 2-3 December

23 13th PRC Meeting Indonesia, Tangerang (tbc)

15-16 December

F.3 CDIA PUBLIC RELATIONS (PR) AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY In light of the increased attention CDIA is receiving at the international level and to attract regional partners and applications, CDIA has boosted its PR and Communications to further institutionalize the corporate identity of CDIA and to support program goals with adequate PR instruments that will enhance CDIA’s image and create more awareness of what CDIA does. The PR and Marketing Activities as carried out by the new Communications specialist who joined CDIA in January 2014 are set out below:

Publications: Existing CDIA publications and knowledge material are being updated based on the latest achievements and assimilated through the use of a corporate design. During the reporting period, CDIA was approached by G20 to serve as an example for a comparison of project development facilities. The draft document suggests that CDIA compares fairly well.


Exhibitions/public presentations: Exhibition booth and staffing in selected strategic regionally focused events such as the World Cities Summit, Singapore (June 2014, cmp. image to the left) and the ADB conference Enabling GrEEEn Cities (May 2014). CDIA China co-organized a GIZ booth at the EU-China Exhibition on Urban Development (Nov. 2013) to strengthen the relationship with GIZ Beijing and promote CDIA with the aim of increasing regional ownership of the initiative.

Targeted presentations: Creating standardized set of communication materials that each expert can carry on mission for presentation at local and national levels; as well as with potential strategic partners in each country.

Web- and Electronic Media: (1) Building an attractive and useful website that will encourage ‘return’ visitors and elevate ‘ranking’ of CDIA in search engines; (2) distributing a quarterly E-newsletter to a mailing list; (3) maintaining a CDIA Facebook page with visible interactivity and popularity based on LIKES (increase of about 44 new “LIKES” per month since Jan 2014); (4) producing a 60-second CDIA corporate video showing a simple, explaining-type video what CDIA does to be shown during presentations in training courses, conferences and activities.

The Key Messages We Are Communicating: Who We Are: CDIA is an international partnership 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

What We Do: CDIA assists medium-sized Asian cities in identifying and developing urban investment projects and links them with potential financiers.

What We Have Done: By Aug. 2014, CDIA had interventions in 91 medium-sized Asian cities (65 PFS cities plus 26 others with CIIPP only); and 67 completed infra project studies in 9 different sectors (cmp. Figure 4 on page 9).

Where We Are Going: To carry out our mandate more effectively, CDIA will strengthen its activities in the following areas: (1) Service delivery processes to cities in pursuance of bridging the capacity gap, (2) Linking to finance in pursuance of bridging the planning-financing gap, and (3) CDIA as a catalyst for innovation in pursuance of bridging the institutional gap.


ANNEX 1 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 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


“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

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-

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


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]

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

involvement in project implementation and/or

financing (sources: PFS reports, progress

reports [Dec. 2013]

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]


ANNEX 2 IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONES

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1.1 6 CDIA process tools (Prioritization, PFS, PPP, Pro-poor and two others) which mainstream environment, climate change, pro-poor, gender, good governance, will be developed, updated and/or localized (source: CDIA manuals/guidelines and software) (Dec. 2017)

1.2 20 partner organizations will be trained and supported in localizing and using CDIA process tools (source: training courses held, client satisfaction surveys) (Dec. 2017)

1.3 40 cities will receive capacity development support through partner organizations in using CDIA process tools (source: NPO agreements and training reports) (Dec. 2017)

1.4 A support accreditation system for partner organizations (and consultants) will be developed and made operational (source: CDIA quality assurance protocol, accreditation system) (Dec. 2017)

2.1 50 additional cities will be supported in managing the preparation of sustainable urban infrastructure investment projects (source: CDIA city long list) (Dec. 2017)

2.2 10 urban infrastructure investment projects with a demonstrable pro-poor focus will be prepared(source: CDIA city long list, project reports, IPSIA evaluation) (Dec. 2016)

2.3 10 urban infrastructure investment projects will be prepared for private sector participation and funding (source: CDIA city long list, project reports) (Dec. 2016)

2.4 A financier map of possible downstream investors will be developed at regional level and for 6 selected countries (source: financier map, country strategies) (Dec. 2014)

2.5 All CDIA CMT implemented PFS will apply tools to secure increased inclusiveness (source: PFS ToR, IPSIA, PFS reports, Progress Report). (Dec. 2013)

2.6 All CDIA CMT PFS will apply tools to secure reflection of possibilities of private sector involvement in project implementation and/or financing (source: PFS reports, Progress Report (Dec. 2013)

3.1 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. (Source: online data base, NPO reports, client satisfaction surveys). (Dec. 2017)

3.2 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)

3.3 The CDIA governance structures will be enhanced to ensure CDIA operations reflect client demands and regional partner interests (source: minutes of advisory panel-; expert groups-; and stakeholders- meetings) (Dec. 2013)

3.4 The CDIA monitoring and evaluation system will be adapted to respond to the requirements of the results chain, made operational and accessible (source: online monitoring and evaluation) (December 2013)

3.5 The Cities Development Institute for Asia will be legally recognized and made operational in at least 3 locations (source: legal documents, operational manual, budget) (Dec. 2017)

Six-monthly work plans

Annual CMT Reviews

* to be firmed up in detailed activity planning on a six-monthly basis 2nd Mid-term review

Key Monitoring and Evaluation Milestones

Six-monthly progress reports

1st Self-assessment review (Q4/2014)

1st Mid-term review

2nd Self-assessment review (Q4/2016)

OUTPUT 3: Sustainable knowledge and innovation support for urban infrastructure

investment is available and accessible to stakeholders

Strengthen CDIA as a catalyst for innovation

2017

OUTPUT 1: Partner organizations (national/ regional) have been strengthened to support

cities in preparing infrastructure investment projects

OUTPUT 2: Cities have enhanced capacities to access finance for prioritized sustainable


CDIA S&B Plan 2013-2017 Activities and Broad Milestones

2013 2014 2015 2016 Indicative Progress 2013-2017*

Strengthen service delivery processes

Strengthen linking cities to finance

1ST MID

- TERM REVIEW

2ND MID

- TERM REVIEW

1ST MID

- TERM REVIEW

2ND MID

- TERM REVIEW

20% 40% 80% 60% 100

25% 40% 60% 85% 100

15% 35% 50% 75% 100

30% 75% 100

20% 40% 60% 80% 100

25% 50% 75% 100

25% 50% 75% 100

50% 100

100

20% 40% 60% 80% 100

20% 40% 80% 90% 100

40% 50% 80% 90% 100

100

20% 40% 80% 90% 100

100

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 APPROVED CITY INTERVENTIONS STATUS AND EXPECTED IMPACTS (JUN. 2014)








ANNEX 4 SUMMARY CDIA INC. ACTIVITIES REPORT (JAN.–JUN. 2014) AND OUTLOOK 2014

CDIA Inc. Strategic Context

In 2009, the Cities Development Initiative for Asia Incorporated (CDIA Inc.) was established to support the implementation of the program of activities of CDIA. CDIA Inc. is legally incorporated as a non-stock, non-profit corporation in the Philippines. In general terms, this arrangement provides for legal recognition of CDIA in the Philippines and facilitates ease of CDIA Core Management day-to-day operations.

The Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws reflect the subservience of CDIA Inc. to the overall governance structure of CDIA, in particular to the policy guidance of the CDIA Program Review Committee (PRC). To further safeguard this, two members of the Board of Trustees of CDIA Inc. (including the Chairman) serve with bilateral mandates of the PRC members ADB and BMZ respectively. In 2011, the Articles of Incorporation were changed and refer to CDIA Inc. as Cities Development Institute for Asia Inc. (changing from “initiative” to “institute”).

CDIA Inc. work plans are an integral part of the CDIA CMT work plans. As such, CDIA Inc. activities have been included in the main part of this progress report. However, this annex separately reports on CDIA Inc. operational activities as per PRC members’ request. Operational activities January – June 2014

Activities in the reporting period have been carried out in the areas of Regional Networking and Capacity Development. Table 8 below specifies the expenditures of CDIA Inc. for the first half of 2014:

Table 8 Financial Overview of CDIA Inc. for 2014

For 2014, the budget of CDIA Inc. totaled about USD254,488. CDIA Inc. is supported by ADB for operational activities through RETA 6293 (provision of office facilities & utility bills and admin-istrative staff). GIZ provided support through Financing Agreement for the activities on (i) capacity strengthening of NPOs, (ii) indirect city interventions through NPOs; (iii) Young Asian Professional Program (YAPP); (iv) cross-cutting topic on Climate Change Mitigation and adaptation; (v)

Stakeholders’ Forum Expert Group; and (vi) Publications. Rockefeller Foundation funded CDIA Inc. to complete the study “From Climate Change Resilient Planning to Urban Investments in Asian Cities”.

Jan - June

in USD

Professional Expert - Local 4,089.45

Local Experts on IT 434.45

Locally Contracted Personnel 20,569.50

Maintenance & Other Operating Expenses 11,716.40

Sub-total 36,809.80$

17,659.57

13,762.58

8,771.43

4,866.00


Consultancy Services (support to project activities)

10,615.00


Over-all Expenditures 1st half of 2014 92,484.38$

Budget Available for 2014 254,488.00$

Percentage of Utilisation 36%

Pre-Feasibility Studies (PFS) and Public Private Partnership Tools

Linking Climate Change Resilient Planning to Urban Investments in

Asian Cities

2014 Financial Overview CDIA Inc

Expenses

Operational Expenses

Project/Activities

CDIA Cities Infrastructure Investment Priority Programming (CIIPP)

Training Course on Cities and Climate Change

Training Course on Effective Infrastructure Programming


Following are the activities supported by CDIA Inc. in the first half of 2014:

i) Regional Networking and Capacity Development

During the reporting period, CDIA Inc. resources were among others used for, and in the form of participation fees also partially generated from, the following:

Introduction Training for Implementing the City Infrastructure Investments Prioritization and Programming (CIIPP) and Pre-Feasibility Studies Toolkits, 14-17 January 2014, Bangkok, Thailand

Effective Urban Infrastructure Programming Course, 5-14 March 2014, Singapore

Training on Cities and Climate Change, 26-28 March 2014, Singapore

Pre-feasibility Studies (PFS) and Public Private Partnership Tools

ii) Climate Change related topics

During the last quarter of 2013, CDIA Inc. started work through a grant from Rockefeller Foundation on a study called “From Climate Change Resilient Planning to Urban Investments in Asian Cities”. The study will undertake a scan of climate resilience action plans as prepared in 10 cities and identify down-stream financing options for infrastructure investments as prepared through climate resilience action plans. A consultant was recruited by CDIA Inc. to undertake the work. This assignment is expected to conclude in the last quarter of 2014.

iii) 13th Board of Trustees (BoT) meeting and 5th Annual General Meeting (AGM) of members

On May 28, 2014 the CDIA Inc. Board of Trustees and members gathered to discuss the audited financial report of 2013, the outcomes of the 12th PRC meeting concerning CDIA’s sustainability and the vacancy of CDIA Inc.’s Executive Director. Also, the trustees with expiring terms were re-elected. It was reiterated that CDIA Inc., in its present form, still provided value added to the CDIA Program by (i) obtaining funds that the CDIA Program is not able to receive, and (ii) receiving funds through cost recovery which the CDIA Program also cannot do.

Operational activities envisioned for 2014

It is envisioned that the following activities are pursued through CDIA Inc. subject to budget availability:

Complete the work for Rockefeller Foundation to undertake a scan of climate resilience action plans as prepared in 10 cities. For this CDIA Inc. has recruited one consultant which is funded with Rockefeller funds while another consultant has been recruited using GIZ funds;

Workshops within the framework of the 2014 cross-cutting theme which is focusing on how cities learn;

Capacity strengthening of National Partner Organizations (NPOs) including direct work in cities as well training activities for NPOs;

Young Asian Professional Program (2 YAPPs from Mongolia and Sri Lanka);

Stakeholders’ Forum Expert Group meeting activities;

Continue to run smaller assignments through CDIA Inc. for which third parties such as World Bank and Rockefeller pay CDIA Inc. a fee;

Continue to work toward CDIA Inc. tax-free status and following up on the CDIA Inc. bill in the Senate.

As CDIA is working towards financial long-term sustainability, CDIA aims that in at least 30% of CDIA city interventions, partial cost-recovery mechanisms are in place (CDIA Impact Chain in Strategy and Business Plan 2013-2017). Since both CDIA implementing parties, GIZ and ADB, are unable to receive funds generated through cities or financing agencies through such cost-recovery mechanisms, CDIA Inc. is essential for accommodating such funds. This requires endorsement by the CDIA Program Review Committee at its next meeting.


ANNEX 5 PRO-POOR AND INCLUSIVE PROGRESS NOTE

In response to PRC requests for increased M&E efforts, a comprehensive evaluation of the previous “Initial Poverty and Social Impact Assessments” (IPSIAs) for PFSs was undertaken. The results are attached to this report as a separate document. This section thus only refers to some highlights.

During the reporting period, the following progress was achieved with regard to poverty reduction and inclusiveness:

By the first half of 2014, CDIA staff and partners were able to successfully disseminate and initiate discussions on the needs of disadvantaged groups in the urban context among its training course participants.

To respond to the need of providing innovative examples and well-thought-through ideas for a pro-poor and socially inclusive project design, CDIA developed a brief overview of sector-specific good practices and started to disseminate the information to PFS consultants and municipal officials.

CDIA strengthened its collaboration on pro-poor activities with UN ESCAP and UN-Habitat by supporting their regional Training of Trainers (ToT) on Pro-poor Urban Climate Resilience in Asia-Pacific, held at UP Diliman in Quezon City, Philippines, in March 2014.

In April, CDIA hosted three events as part of the official program of the World Urban Forum 7. Among them an event on “How to Strengthen Urban Spatial Planning to Reduce Social Vulnerability and Exclusions in South Cities?” – a training session highlighting urban vulnerability and social segregation and developing innovative solutions on how spatial planning and infrastructure investments can address these challenges. The event was jointly organized with CDIA’s partner organization CEPT and locally supported by SKL International.

IPSIAs were completed for all of CDIA’s completed 67 PFS projects. While 57 IPSIAs were completed under S&BP 2007-12, 10 IPSIAs can be counted since release of CDIA’s new S&BP in 2013. In total 6 completed PFSs explicitly target poverty reduction, while as many as 47 aim at enhanced inclusiveness. From all the PFSs carried out during 2007 to 2012, 79% are considered as ‘pro-poor’-targeted and enhancing inclusiveness by improving the living conditions of the urban poor and disadvantaged people like women, the elderly and children.

80% of the 10 PFSs completed since 2013 reflect a ‘pro-poor’ approach, with 1 explicitly targeting poverty reduction – meaning the majority of beneficiaries are vulnerable with low resources – and 7 approaching enhanced inclusiveness.

Under the new S&BP, the estimated number of poor and disadvantaged residents to benefit from infrastructure investments of completed PFSs in 7 different cities is about 514,000, with about 17,000 urban poor and members of other vulnerable groups, like the elderly, women and children benefiting from direct positive impacts.

In contrast to the PFSs applied before 2012, all PFSs from 2013 onwards assigned a Social Development Specialist (SDS) to the respective consultant team working with the city.


ANNEX 6 PRC RECOMMENDATIONS & FOLLOW-UP

Recommendations were made by the CDIA Program Review Committee (PRC) during its 12th meeting in Berlin in March 2014; none were received via email.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRC FOLLOW UP BY CDIA

AGENDA ITEM 4 – ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE 10TH

AND 11TH

PRC MEETINGS

1. According to the PRC Protocol, the Minutes are to be finally approved by the Chair after circulation to the PRC members and upon receipt of their comments.

Done.

AGENDA ITEM 5 – CDIA JULY-DECEMBER 2013 PROGRESS REPORT

1. The formulation of the indicators is not consistent in relevant management documents and the progress report. This needs to be revised based on the formulation in the S&BP.

Done.

2. M&E efforts should be increased based on the CDIA Results Chain and Indicators Framework 2013-2017.

In progress. Revised M&E draft concept note expected to be shared with PRC for comments in October 2014.

3. M&E efforts need to track how many of the investment projects that are linked to financing and implemented tackle development impacts addressed by CDIA. The focus should be on monitoring whether as part of CDIA project preparatory work, the various development impacts are sufficiently addressed and flagged for further downstream financing.

Tracer studies were initiated during the reporting period and results will be presented in future progress reports.

4. Concrete Baseline and Target values will be added to each indicator. Also, possible changing of indicator 3.1 should be assessed by Mid-term Review.

Initial advisory services regarding the M&E system were received at the end of the reporting period. Recruitment of an M&E specialist is expected to be finalized in September 2014.

5. The Pro-Poor Progress Note in Annex 5 was welcomed. From now on, the progress report should focus on the overall performance of CDIA on poverty reduction and gender-related activities for the respective reporting period, and elaborate on specific activities and the use of relevant tools, in particular the IPSIA.

Done. In addition, a comprehensive IPSIA assessment has been undertaken and published as separate report.

AGENDA ITEM 6 – PLANNING FOR CDIA MID-TERM REVIEW Q3-Q4

1. Based on the previous discussion on the M&E system (Agenda Item 5), it was decided to focus on Objective 1 and 2 mentioned in the current draft Terms of Reference (ToR) rather than overburdening the mission with objective 3. Objective 2 is to be split so that a new Objective 3 refers to reviewing the M&E system and give recommendations how it can be further improved to assess development impacts within the CDIA mandate.

Done.

2. The CMT was asked to submit a revised ToR by 10 April in track changes.

Done.


AGENDA ITEM 7 – CDIA PARTNERSHIP ACCREDITATION

1. The Mid-Term Review is expected to give recommendations concerning the role of RPOs and NPOs.

Noted.

2. It was furthermore suggested to circulate the concept note for comments to the Stakeholders’ Forum Expert Group.

Done. However, in spite of various reminders, no comments have been received to date.

AGENDA ITEM 9 – CDIA LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY

1. It was agreed that the following PRC Priorities need to be reflected in the future institutional set-up of CDIA:

• Regional Ownership/Membership of regional partners • Maintain policy guiding body • Demand driven-approach • Options for cost-recovery • Capacity development activities • Funding options for KFW and ADB

Noted.

2. It was agreed to further pursue Option 1 while at the same time remain open for trust-fund option in the future and explore potential when window of opportunity opens up.

Noted.

3. ADB is to make a proposal on how it could increase its role within and support to CDIA, including stronger coordination between ADB and CDIA, HR support, strategic support, and lobbying for regional membership.

In progress.

4. Mid-Term Review is to submit a proposal at the next PRC meeting how CDIA Inc. can be streamlined with CDIA.

Included in ToR and briefing for MTR consultants.

5. Core funding It may be considered to allow for a variety of membership/sponsorship from regional donors in addition to the present flexibility regarding tied and untied contributions.

A working group consisting of SECO (Alain Geiger), BMZ (Josef Füllenbach) and the CMT will submit a proposal of financial mechanisms and criteria for new CDIA contri-butors to the next PRC meeting, including various kinds of memberships, membership fees, and the potential impact of the suggested changes on the current PRC Protocol, and a footnote on the development priorities of potentially new donors.

No feedback on progress during the reporting period.

6. Engaging new members through initiatives on the political level It is intended to convene current and prospective PRC members in the sidelines of the annual ADB meeting in May 2015.

ADB (Gil-Hong Kim) will inquire within ADB on this possibility.

BMZ will include a paragraph in briefing note of Mr. Fuchtel (State Secretary) for bilateral talks with the ADB during the ADB Annual Meeting which takes place in the first week of May 2014. Other PRC members are encouraged to do likewise.

Such talks should also remark that ADB is encouraged to assume a stronger role within CDIA.

ADB (Srinivas Sampath) will draft a concept note (0.5 pages) on the objective of this side event to be used by PRC members to raise the issue with the respective delegations to the ADB annual meeting in 2014.

Forum on urban development secured for next ADB Annual Meeting in Baku. Done. Done. Done. Done.


7. Cost recovery The Strategic Options Study has highlighted a range of options for cost recovery mechanisms.

CMT will submit a proposal for concrete steps for the next PRC meeting including ways of cost sharing and parallel financing as an alternative and how more regional consultants can be engaged to lower the cost per PFS.

In progress for next PRC meeting.

8. Stronger coordination of CDIA with ADB and KfW

Respective suggestions and decisions are to be

communicated at next PRC meeting. These should include the use of the KfW study fund.

The internal CDIA country strategies should take into account potential synergies.

The latest progress report should reflect the reasons for

the few successful linkages.

In progress for next PRC meeting. During the reporting period, coordination took place with regard to cities of common interest in India and Indonesia, and an application was approved by CMT for a collaboration in Batumi, Georgia. Done, cmp. p. 9.

9. Programmatic approaches to project development It was decided to “maintain the demand driven approach by CDIA and to further pursue programmatic ap-proaches where deemed necessary”.

CMT to report on activities undertaken with regard to its annual themes and to facilitate a discussion on their implications at the next PRC meeting.

The Mid-Term Review is to make further recommendations in case it perceives a programmatic approach as necessary for CDIA to reach its indicators.

In progress for next PRC meeting. In progress.

10. Focus on core countries If CDIA is to focus on certain countries, its relationships with NPOs are highly important therein.

CMT is to suggest criteria for the selection of core countries in light of increasing demand for its support to cities.

For next PRC, CMT will share for information up to 4 country strategies.

Noted and in progress. Discussions are among other countries ongoing in Indonesia. In progress for next PRC meeting. In progress for next PRC meeting.

AGENDA ITEM 12 – ANY OTHER BUSINESS

1. The chair noted that much better use could be made of CDIA’s advisory panel.

CMT to provide list with advisory panel members for the PRC to decide whether or not to reactivate the panel and debate composition at next meeting.

Done.

Cities Development Initiative for Asia

Suite 202-203 Hanston Building, Emerald Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605,

Metro Manila, Philippines Phone: +63-2 631-2342 • Fax: +63-2 631-6158

Website: www.cdia.asia

CDIA is supported by:

Documents

June 2014 and Workplan July December 2014 · From January to June 2014, 3 CIIPP exercises were conducted, 10 city applications for PFS support approved, and 4 PFS projects in 3 cities