PROGRAM-FOR-RESULTS INFORMATION DOCUMENT (PID)

APPRAISAL STAGE
Report No.: #####69395

Program Name Bridges Improvement and Maintenance Program

Region South Asia
Country Nepal
Sector Roads and highways (70%); Central government administration (30%)
Lending Instrument Program for Results (PforR)
Program ID P125495
Parent Program ID N/A
Borrower(s) Government of Nepal (GON)
Implementing Agency Department of Roads (DOR)
Date PID Prepared May 7, 2012
Estimated Date of Appraisal
May 7, 2012
Completion
Estimated Date of Board
June 21, 2012
Approval

I. Country Context
1. Nepal is still emerging from a 10-year armed conflict that ended in 2006. It is currently passing
through a momentous and prolonged political transition. This transition entails two interrelated processes:
promulgation of a new Constitution and the completion of the ongoing peace process. The Constitution is
expected to lead to a major restructuring of Nepal into a federal state while the completion of the peace
process is expected to resolve the integration/rehabilitation of former Maoist combatants. Nepals peace
process is progressing with the closure of Maoist cantonments, a Supreme Court ruling to bring in a new
constitution, and political parties attempting to resolve all contentious outstanding constitutional issues.
These issues include state restructuring, forms of governance, electoral system, constitutional court, and
citizenship questions to be enshrined in the new constitution.
2. Nepal's economic growth has been adversely affected by the political uncertainty. Growth over the
past decade has been below potential, relying largely on remittances and tourism. Nonetheless, Nepal has
made good progress both in terms of poverty reduction and improvement of social indicators. The
proportion of poor people has fallen substantially from 45 percent in 1995-96 to 25 percent in 2010-11.
This reduction in poverty level has come with improvements in income equality. Nepals overall Gini
coefficient has simultaneously declined from 0.41 to 0.35 as poor segments of the population have been
able to increase household incomes (often with the help of remittances). Nepal has also made impressive
improvements towards the achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) including in the
areas of primary education, gender parity and under-5 child mortality. Several MDGs have already been
met, and Nepal has received the United Nation's MDG award for reducing maternal mortality.
3. Many of the improvements in social outcomes have benefitted from improved access to all weather
roads. In the period 1995-96 to 2010-11 the proportion of people with access to paved roads have
increased from 24 percent to 51 percent. However, while the quantity of access has increased, the armed
conflict and the political instability have had a detrimental impact on the overall quality of the road
network and bridges on those roads. The proportion of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in poor
condition has increased from 18 percent in 2008 to 22 percent in 2010 and much of the existing bridge
stock is over 35-40 years old and in desperate need of rehabilitation and maintenance. Further, there are
still many gaps in SRN caused by lack of bridges contributing to a substantial lack of physical access to

1 of 8
economic centers and social services, particularly in remote areas. Nepal's topography and geology also
complicate efforts to provide adequate transport infrastructure. The lack of physical access is seen as one
of the root causes of the conflict and the current instability in the country. Roughly a fourth of the district
headquarters (18 out of 75 district headquarters) do not have an all-weather road connection. This lack of
connectivity has adversely impacted the ability of people, particularly in the severely affected rural areas,
to participate in economic activities and access quality health care and education services. As a result,
Nepals economic growth has not reached its potential. One of the key priorities of the Government of
Nepal is investing in physical and social infrastructure to attain broad-based growth and poverty
reduction.
II. Sectoral and Institutional Context
4. The road network in Nepal totals about 42,800 km. The length of SRN and Local Roads Network
(LRN) are roughly 10,800 km and 32,000 km respectively. National highways, feeder roads and other
roads of national importance constitute the SRN. Rural roads and urban roads constitute the LRN. The
SRN is managed by the DOR under the MoPPW and the LRN is managed by the Department of Local
Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR) and municipalities under the Ministry of
Local Development (MoLD). Due to the challenging terrain of Nepal, bridges play a particularly
important role. They are managed and budgeted for as a subset of the main DOR roads program. Most
new bridge construction on both the SRN and LRN has been managed by the DOR to date. This is
because DOR is considered to be the most technically capable organization to undertake this work.
DoLIDAR have, so far, focused on trail bridges, which provide non-vehicular access to remote
communities. Going forward, the GON wants to clarify institutional responsibilities. Under the new
arrangement, DOR will only be responsible for the bridges on the SRN and DoLIDAR will take over all
LRN bridge related responsibilities.
5. In 2007, GON developed a 10-year (2007-2016) Priority Investment Plan (PIP) for the road sector
which prioritized investments to reach target accessibility levels by 2016 (87 percent of hills and 100
percent of Terai population within 4-hour and 2-hour of walk time respectively to a nearest all weather
road). The projected estimated upgrading and maintenance costs of SRN during the plan period are in the
region of NPRs100 billion (US$1.25 billion). It is estimated that since June 2007, the development
partners have committed approximately US$400 million for strategic road projects. This still leaves a
substantial deficit (approximately US$0.85 billion) to implement the plan. Bridges have largely been
ignored to date and hence there is a need to provide support for bridges in Nepal.
6. The nature of funding and its allocation process have also been a considerable challenge for DORs
bridge sector investments. The overwhelming majority of the bridge maintenance and new construction
budget is allocated directly, through separate budget lines, to DOR. To date, these funds have been used
for bridges on both the SRN and LRN and been subject to an ad-hoc prioritization procedure which is
often driven by political expediency. Until recently, maintenance activities have taken second place to
new construction. However, some recent bridge failures have made the government rethink its priority.
Now maintenance activities receive a higher priority and funding. The lack of clear institutional mandates
and opaque planning and funding mechanisms for bridge development have resulted in a proliferation of
bridges on non-priority routes, over procurement and under completion. Some bridges have remained
incomplete for up to 10 years.
7. The priority for the sector, and the focus for this operation, is to clarify institutional responsibilities,
coordinate funding follows and to develop mechanisms for funding and planning that prioritize activities
that maximize social and economic returns to scarce resources. The Roads Board Nepal (RBN) was set up
to manage maintenance activities on the countrys road network. Revenues to the RBN come from the
fuel levy and vehicle registration fees of which RBN received roughly 78 percent from the Ministry of
Finance (MoF) in FY 2011/12. RBNs limited revenues diminish its role and effectiveness in the

2 of 8
sustainable maintenance of road and bridge infrastructure. RBNs current level of funding is only
sufficient for fully supporting routine maintenance of roads and bridges.
8. The ongoing Bank assisted Road Sector Development Project (RSDP) has been helping DOR in
improving their management of bridge assets. Consultancy services procured under RSDP have been used
for updating bridge inventory and condition data, development of a Bridge Management System (BMS),
and preparing prioritized maintenance and investment plans based on sound technical, economic and
social criteria. The BMS now includes updated asset inventory data and DOR is working to fully integrate
BMS into its operating processes. Consultancy services under RSDP will also be used for capacity
building to support this operation.
III. Program Scope
9. Program overview: The Bank will support DORs SRN bridge related activities (hereinafter
referred as the SRN Bridge Program or Program), a subset of DORs overall program of capital
investment in Nepals road and bridge infrastructure. The scope of the SRN Bridge Program encompasses
three primary activities: (i) planning, technical design and quality control of bridges; (ii) major and minor
maintenance of existing bridge assets; and (iii) new bridge construction. There are also a number of
complementary activities that fall outside the scope of the SRN Bridge Program that relate to DORs
overall road and bridge program. These activities include DORs Annual Road Maintenance Plan
(ARMP) which is funded and monitored by RBN and does include some routine maintenance activities of
bridges on the SRN, and recurrent expenditures as DOR budgets for salaries, utilities, office space etc.
across multiple programs concurrently.
10. DOR has identified the following medium term goals to make progress against intended SRN
bridge related outcomes: (i) Completing all urgent major maintenance requirements; (ii) Completing the
current backlog of unfinished bridges already under construction; (iii) Reducing the accumulated backlog
of major maintenance requirements; (iv) Undertaking minor and routine maintenance to prolong existing
asset lives; and (v) Continuing to develop economically and socially important new bridge crossings. The
Banks operation will support DOR in developing more explicit quantitative targets for SRN program
results.
11. Sound investment planning and improved implementation procedures are the key to the success of
the SRN Bridge Program. While bridges do require specialized expertise and some pose significant
engineering challenges, the majority of bridges under the SRN Bridge Program in DOR are relatively
small and involve straight-forward engineering design. The existing stock of bridges on the SRN has an
average span of 43 meters, 47 percent are single span (average length 22 meters) and only about 10
percent have 6 or more spans (average length of 214 meters). Cost estimates for the SRN Bridge Program
suggest that for 71 percent of SRN bridges requiring urgent major maintenance interventions, the costs
will be less than US$250,000 per bridge. Similar estimates suggest that 85 percent of new bridges are
likely to cost less than US$1 million per bridge. The single most expensive bridge that is being
considered is estimated to cost US$8 million. Costs of engineering designs, feasibility studies, and quality
management are estimated to be approximately 5 percent of civil work spending.
12. Government commitment to the program: GONs recent budget activity reflects increased priority
for the bridge sector. DORs overall expenditures across its bridge sector programs have increased
substantially in recent years. Most notably, there has been a 450 percent increase in the budget for major
maintenance works albeit from a low base. In FY 2011/12 the total budget for bridges on the SRN was
approximately US$10 million and GON has indicated that this figure will increase to US$18.5 million in
the next fiscal year. While this is encouraging, the estimated cost of meeting all SRN bridge needs is in
the range of US$328 million. With GON funding alone the SRN bridge program may take nearly two
decades to meet all of its current needs. Adding inevitable future needs would extend this estimate further.

3 of 8
13. The proposed operation will support GONs efforts to clear the backlog of urgent and major
maintenance, which over time will reduce the overall maintenance burden for bridges. That said, there are
still huge needs in the sector and limited resources and capacity, and it is expected that GON will
continue to rely on donor financing and technical assistance in the foreseeable future. The other key to
sustainability is ensuring high quality construction and good bridge asset management. Through the
institutional strengthening supported by the operation, the management capacity of DOR and other
implementing agencies will be enhanced, so that these agencies can better carry out the responsibilities
for management and delivery of services
14. Program scope Planning, technical design and quality management: A minimum of 5 percent of
its capital budgets (US$7.4 million over the SRN Bridge Program support period) will be budgeted for
activities to plan, prepare, supervise and monitor the civil works, including social and environmental
aspects. This will include funding for consulting services to prepare detailed engineering designs,
supervision of bridge construction works, quality assurance and monitoring, collection of data linked to
bridge conditions and the maintenance of BMS, auditing and verification, training and miscellaneous
activities.
15. Program scope - SRN bridge maintenance: The SRN Bridge Program is expected to address
approximately 89 bridges (about 5,800 meters) that urgently need major maintenance in order to prevent
impending failures. Many of these bridges are considered structurally unsound and therefore unsafe. The
SRN Bridge Program will also complete major maintenance (242 bridges; 11,325 meters in length) and
minor maintenance (95 bridges; 3,500 meters in length) works on bridges that are in relatively stable
condition.
16. Program scope SRN bridge construction: The SRN Bridge Program will construct approximately
121 new bridges (6,000 meters). This total includes approximately 95 bridges (5,000 meters) in DORs
existing backlog of bridge construction. In addition, a total of 26 new bridges (1,000 meters) on existing
gaps will be constructed.
IV. Program Development Objective(s)
17. The DOR has a Bridge Policy and Strategy (2004) which sets out the overall vision for the bridge
program in Nepal. In that document the program objective, which will be used as the Program
Development Objective for this operation, is stated as follows: to provide safe, reliable and cost effective
bridges on Nepal's Strategic Roads Network.
V. Environmental and Social Effects
Environmental Benefits and Risks
18. Given the SRN Bridge Program scope, coverage and size of the bridges, the anticipated adverse
environmental issues and impacts related to program implementation are expected to be limited in nature
and also limited in their geographic extent. While the SRN Bridge Program is expected to be national in
scope it will not include investments which may affect environmentally sensitive areas such as national
parks and conservation areas listed by the GON. Impacts associated with bridge maintenance and
construction are not expected to be complex and can be readily managed with known mitigation and
management techniques. Thus, the Program as currently defined is not expected to pose significant
adverse environmental risk, although individual bridge projects will vary. At the same time, the Program
is expected to deliver a number of environmental benefits. The rehabilitation and maintenance of bridges
will ensure that the risks of bridge failure are reduced and that erosion and sedimentation are minimized
through repair of failing foundations and river training or abutment works. Improved performance of the
DOR with respect to environmental planning and management will help to ensure that issues are
identified earlier and more consistently and that contractors will be supervised more regularly with
respect to environmental provisions of contracts enforced more consistently.

4 of 8
19. From a regulatory, legal and operational guidance perspective, the environmental management
system for the SRN Bridge Program is considered to confirm with the core principles and elements set
forth in the Banks OP/BP 9.00. However, it is recognized that field implementation by the DOR is not
always consistent or optimal.
20. The following have been flagged as environmental issues of concern: (i) construction impacts
associated with dredging, foundation works, or river bank reinforcements which may affect aquatic
biodiversity; (ii) occupational health and safety of the construction workforce during construction phase;
(iii) community health and safety related to traffic accidents during the operation phase of the program;
(iv) waste management, from the construction activities as well as from the labor-camps; (v) pressures on
the surrounding environment (extraction of sand and gravel, pressures on local forests) in some of the
bridge locations; (vi) often the environmental mitigation costs are not included in the contract bid
documents and proper environmental management and mitigation during construction of bridges and
environmental monitoring are lacking. In some cases, there may be a need to redesign or construct new
approach or access road links which may present additional effects.
Social Benefits and Risks
21. Limited adverse impacts of land acquisition and resettlement have been anticipated from the SRN
Bridge Program. This is because the area of impact will be confined, mostly, within bridge worksites.
Past experience shows that adverse social impacts are likely to be temporary in nature (during
bridgeworks) linked to bridge maintenance operations. Given that the Program will involve the
construction of new bridges the issues of land acquisition is likely to be relevant. However, very few new
bridges are likely to involve land acquisition or resettlement related actions. This is because many of
these bridges are located in areas where public land is available and the chance of affecting private
property is low.
22. With the aim to improve physical access, the SRN Bridge Program is expected to benefit a large
number of isolated communities. The Program will also benefit indigenous communities as they make up
a third of the population in Nepal and SRN Bridge Program interventions are bound to benefit them, like
other communities. Furthermore, past experience shows that indigenous communities demand and
support such programs to improve physical access that is vital to public services and economic
development. Nonetheless, bridge rehabilitation and construction activities may also have adverse
impacts upon nearby indigenous communities (as a result of land acquisition and public health impacts).
23. The key shortcomings of the management of social impacts, which are also relevant to the SRN
Bridge Program, are: (i) lack of focus of national programs to vulnerable communities (e.g. limited
application of vulnerable community development plans or VCDPs); (ii) Nepalese laws do not allow
assistance to squatters and compensation payments for the restoration of livelihoods and replacement
costs of the properties, although in many cases such assistances/compensations are provided informally;
(iii) Nepal practices the notion of land donations, especially in projects in rural areas. Such practices are
hardly regulated and formalized, apart from internationally financed projects; (iv) non-exclusive treatment
of social issues. For example, social issues are subsumed under the environmental screening, assessment
and documentation process; (v) non-existence of GRM at the operational level. The use of the formal
legal system is the only avenue available to any aggrieved persons.
Environmental and Social Management
24. The DOR has developed and adopted an Environment and Social Management Framework
(ESMF), that includes environmental and social procedures, practices, mitigation measures and analytical
approaches applicable to road projects. The ESMF has been reviewed, evaluated and endorsed by the
MoPPW and since 2007 has been a key document guiding the DOR projects funded by international
donors. The ESMF supplements the relevant national environmental and social legislation and
regulations,and is authorized by the DOR to be implemented in letter and spirit within the Ministry. The

5 of 8
ESMF covers the national legislative framework; potential environmental and social impacts of road
projects; consultation requirement; standards for land acquisition, compensation and assistance; standard
impact mitigation measures; and treatment of vulnerable communities including Indigenous Peoples. The
ESMF is comprehensive in scope with respect to roads sector issues and lays down procedures and
requirements that are assessed to be consistent with the principles and attributes of OP9.0. The ESMF
includes measures to address key gaps in the local legal and regulatory system for management of
environment and social risks in a way consistent with OP9.00. However, the ESMF developed in 2007
was not designed to specifically take into account bridge-specific risks, therefore will require minor
revision to ensure that environmental and social aspects of bridge maintenance and construction are fully
incorporated. The Environmental and Social Systems Assessment (ESSA) report makes specific
recommendations on the nature and scope of changes required to update the ESMF to take into account
bridge impacts.
Environmental and Social Systems Improvement
25. Given that the SRN Bridge Program poses moderate levels of environmental and social risk, the
ESSA recommends proceeding with the Banks operation. To address some of the operational
performance issues raised above a set of actions have been proposed within the ESSA. The ESSA has
been disclosed and consulted upon with key stakeholders and the actions were agreed. The primary
objective of the actions is to improve the implementation of existing social and environment management
guidelines, and formalizing some of the systems particularly related to social impacts. The proposed
actions are: (i) Geo-Environment and Social Unit (GESU) of DOR will be given a clear mandate for the
SRN Bridge Program and strengthened in terms of manpower and financial resources; (ii) as part of a
broader Program-wide initiative, project management teams will be set up for each sub-project greater
than US$125,000 equivalent (roughly NPRs10 million). These project management teams will include
dedicated social and environmental experts; and (iii) the environmental and social management guidelines
of DOR will be revised to include bridge specific issues and to mainstream social issues in DOR.

VI. Financing
Amount % of
Item
(US$ m) Total
Estimated Program Expenditures
SRN bridge maintenance 58.5 40%
SRN bridge construction 81.7 55%
SRN bridge feasibility, design and quality
management 7.4 5%
TOTAL estimated expenditures 147.6 100%
Program Funding Sources
IDA (via DOR budget lines) 60.0 41%
GON (via DOR budget lines) 87.6 59%
TOTAL sources 147.6 100%

VII. Program Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

26. Five entities within DOR will have major roles in delivering the SRN Bridge Program as
summarized in the table below:

6 of 8
Internal DOR Entities and SRN Bridge Program Roles
DOR ENTITY SRN BRIDGE PROGRAM ROLES
Coordinating all activities under the SRN Bridge Program
Providing technical advice and design vetting for Regional and Divisional
Offices implementing SRN bridge investments
Implementing technically complex SRN bridge investments
The Bridge Project Managing and maintaining BMS to provide inputs into the Annual Road
(Lead entity for Program Maintenance Plan (ARMP)
delivery)
Planning, monitoring, and maintaining budgetary control for all SRN
Bridge Program investments
Undertaking quality monitoring and evaluation of SRN Bridge Program
investment
All coordination activities with the Bank

5 Regional Directorate Offices Design, procurement and contract management of SRN Bridge Program
and 25 Divisional Offices investments within their respective financial limits and technical capacity

Financial Administration Section Financial control and reporting

Geo-Environment and Social Unit
Social and environmental assessment and impact management
(Planning and Design Branch)
Integrating SRN Bridge Programs maintenance planning within DORs
Maintenance Branch ARMP Plan. The basis for this planning will be outputs from the BMS
system.

27. There are eight other GON institutions that have noteworthy roles relating to different aspects of the
SRN Bridge Program, including: (i) Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MoPPW); (ii) Ministry of
Finance (MoF); (iii) Office of the Auditor General (OAG); (iv) Public Procurement Monitoring Office
(PPMO); (v) Financial Comptroller General Office (FCGO); (vi) National Vigilance Centre (NVC); (vii)
Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA); and (viii) National Planning Commission
(NPC). The National Planning Commission will play a particularly critical role in supporting DLI
verification through the appointment of independent consultants. The table below summarizes the roles
for each of these institutions.
Non-DOR Institutions and SRN Bridge Program Roles
SRN BRIDGE PROGRAM ROLES ENTITY
Line item budgeting and funding MoF overall ministerial budget allocations
allocations MoPPW departmental and SRN Bridge Program budgeting
Procurement oversight and complaints PPMO
resolution mechanisms
Oversight of financial control and internal FCGO
audit
NVC (Program specific integrated technical audit)
Governance and anti-corruption
CIAA (ex-post investigation and prosecution)
Compliance and Performance Auditing (for OAG
MoPPW, DOR )
NPC (DLI verification with support from independent technical
National planning and DLI verification
consultants)

7 of 8
28. While the institutional framework is in place to implement the SRN Bridge Program and manage it
at all levels of government, the various assessments (technical, fiduciary and social and environment)
have highlighted capacity constraints and the need for long term capacity building. To support the various
institutions outlined here, consultancy services procured under the on-going RSDP project will support
long term capacity building for the Bridge Project, regional and divisional offices, and the various
institutions responsible for audits and oversight of the SRN Bridge Program. The capacity building
program will support all the major business processes related to the functioning of the SRN Bridge
Program. This will include fiduciary, social and environment, planning, implementation, monitoring and
managing maintenance/new construction activities. These services (henceforth referred to as the Capacity
Building Consultants) will be structured to give particular weight to activities that support in meeting the
DLIs and the various elements of the Action Plan (to be available in the disclosed PAD).
VIII. Contact point

World Bank
Contact: Farhad Ahmed
Title: Sr Transport. Specialist
Tel: +977-1-422-6792
Fax: +977-1-422-5112
Email: fahmed8@worldbank.org
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal (IBRD)

Implementing Agency / Client Contact

Contact: Mr. Krityanand Thakur
Title: Project Chief, Bridge Project, Department of Roads
Tel: +977-1-426-8580
Email: bridgeprj@dor.gov.np

IX. For more information contact

The InfoShop
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20433
Telephone: (202) 458-4500
Fax: (202) 522-1500
Web: http://www.worldbank.org/infoshop

8 of 8