tonga niip implementation review (2015) imp review draft final report-v2 (2) … · the report was...

Tonga NIIP Implementation Review

(2015)

NIIP Implementation Review Report (Draft Final) April 26

th, 2015

Tonga NIIP Implementation Review (2015)

ii

This report is developed under the auspices of the Government of Tonga (GoT), with the support of the Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility (PRIF). The report was prepared by Philippe Bergeron working under the guidance of the PRIF Coordination Office and with administrative support by the Asian Development Bank. PRIF is a multi-development partner coordination, research and technical facility which supports infrastructure development in the Pacific. PRIF Members include Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), European Union and European Investment Bank (EU/EIB), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (NZMFAT), and the World Bank Group. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of ADB, its Board of Governors or the governments they represent or any of the other PRIF Members. None of the above parties guarantees the accuracy of the data included in this publication nor accepts responsibility for any consequence of their use. The use of information contained in this report is encouraged with appropriate acknowledgement. This report may only be reproduced with the permission of both the Government of Tonga and the PRIF Coordination Office on behalf of the PRIF Members. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their appreciation for the support provided by everyone consulted during the course of preparing the Tonga NIIP2 Implementation Review, in particular the Deputy Secretary and staff of the Ministry of Finance and National Planning and the Ministries representing economic sectors involved in the review. Thanks to the staff of the National Planning and Budgeting Divisions of the Finance and national Planning who provided assistance to the consultant on a daily basis. The author is also very grateful for the logistical support provided by the ADB country team and the technical guidance provided by the PRIF Coordination Office.

For more information, contact: Government of Tonga Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MFNP) Development Planning and Policy Division Address: PO Box 87, Vuna Rd, Nuku’alofa, Kingdom of Tonga Email: [email protected] Home page: www.finance.gov.to PRIF Coordination Office c/- Asian Development Bank Level 20, 45 Clarence Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia [email protected] www.theprif.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.finance.gov.to/


iii

Contents

1 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY OF THE NIIP2 IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 14

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ASSIGNMENT 14 1.2 THE NIIP WORKING GROUP 14 1.3 THE TONGA NIIP2 15 1.4 THE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 16

2 MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS SINCE NIIP 2 COMPLETION 17

2.1 SECTORAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE 17 2.2 NEW TONGA STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 18 2.3 THE “ONE PROCESS” ONLINE BUDGETING PROCESS 19 2.4 CYCLONE IAN 20 2.5 THE 16TH

PACIFIC GAMES 20 2.6 ECONOMIC AND FISCAL DEVELOPMENT 21

3 NIIP 2 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS 21

3.1 INVESTMENT PROJECTS 21 3.2 COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES 23 3.3 PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES 24 3.4 MOBILIZATION OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR 25

4 INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENDITURE AND FUNDING 26

4.1 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SINCE NIIP2 26 4.2 MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES 26

5 PROGRESS AND PERFORMANCE OF NIIP SECTORS 28

5.1 ENERGY 28 5.2 ICT 28 5.3 WATER AND SANITATION 29 5.4 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 30 5.5 ROADS 31 5.6 MARINE & PORTS 31 5.7 AVIATION & AIRPORTS 32 5.8 MULTI-SECTORAL (CCA & DRM) 33 5.9 ASSET MANAGEMENT ISSUES 33

6 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NIIP AS A PLANNING PROCESS 34

6.1 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND BUDGETING FRAMEWORK 34 6.2 PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESSING 35 6.3 CROSS-SECTORAL PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 36 6.4 ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURAL SECTORS (EDUCATION AND HEALTH) 36 6.5 CONCLUSION 37

7 THE WAY FORWARD FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING 38

7.1 NIIP PROCESS STRENGTHENING 38 7.2 OPPORTUNITY FOR NIIP IMPACT ENHANCEMENT 39

8 HIGH LEVEL ROAD MAP FOR NIIP ENHANCEMENT 40

8.1 ROAD MAP TO TRANSITION NIIP AS REINFORCED PROCESS 40 8.2 RESOURCES AND CAPACITY IMPLICATION 45


iv

ANNEXES 47

ANNEX 1: TORS 48 ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF NIIP2 PROJECTS AND COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES 52 ANNEX 3: COMPARISON TSDF I AND TSDF II 54 ANNEX 4: LIST OF PERSONS MET AND MEETINGS HELD 56 ANNEX 5: NIIP2 REVIEW DATASHEET 58 ANNEX 6: NIIP2 COMPLETED PROJECTS AND NEW PROJECTS 62 ANNEX 7: NIIP2 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS DISBURSEMENT 2013- 2016 64 ANNEX 8: ASSETS MANAGEMENT GOOD PRACTICE FRAMEWORK AND SURVEY RESULTS 67 ANNEX 9: RECOMMENDED SECTORAL INFRASTRUCTURE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 71 ANNEX 10: TEMPLATES FOR PROJECT PROFILE DOCUMENT (PPD) 73 ANNEX 11: GUIDANCE FOR ENHANCED PROJECTS PRIORITIZATION 78 ANNEX 12: LINKAGE PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA AND TSDF II 82 ANNEX 13: NIIP MONITORING REPORT - DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENT 83 ANNEX 14: MAIN DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 84 ANNEX 15: TRAINING MISSION PLAN 85 1. STRENGTHENED PROJECT DOCUMENTATION (PPD) 85 2. DEMAND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 16TH

PACIFIC GAMES. 85 3. STREAMLINING CCA & DRM ASPECTS IN NIIP PROJECTS 85 4. PRIORITY PROJECTS UPDATING TOOLS AND ROUTINE 86 5. NIIP IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING REPORTING 86 6. TRAINING MISSION PLAN 87 7. TIME INPUT REQUIREMENT FOR TONGAN STAFF 88 8. DATA TO BE MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE TRAINING MISSION START 88


v

List of Tables Table 1: Summary of projects under the NIIP 2 (2013- 2023) .......................................................................... 16 Table 2: Development Partners active in Tonga in NIIP+ sectors .................................................................... 17 Table 3: Sectoral Responsibilities for Infrastructure in the Economic Sectors .................................................. 17 Table 4: Macroeconomic and fiscal framework ............................................................................................... 21 Table 5: Current Status of NIIP 2 Project Progress (Number of Projects) ........................................................ 21 Table 6: Current Status of NIIP 2 Project Progress (Value of projects – TOP million)...................................... 22 Table 7: Updated sectoral NIIP 2 projects lists (Proposed, Committed and Underway) .................................... 22 Table 8: Complementary measures under the NIIP2 and their current status .................................................. 23 Table 9: Financial performance of Tongan PEs over the period 2010-2014 ..................................................... 24 Table 10: Infrastructure projects expenditures disbursement 2013 to 2015 (TOP million) ................................ 26 Table 11: Performance indicators for the power sector.................................................................................... 28 Table 12: Performance indicators for the ICT sector ....................................................................................... 29 Table 13: Performance indicators for the water and sanitation sector .............................................................. 30 Table 14: Performance indicators for the solid waste sector ............................................................................ 31 Table 15: Performance indicators for the road sector ...................................................................................... 31 Table 16: Performance indicators for the marine sector .................................................................................. 32 Table 17: Performance indicators for the aviation sector ................................................................................. 33 Table 18: Infrastructure managed by MOH ..................................................................................................... 36 Table 19: List of infrastructure projects addressed by MOH ............................................................................ 36 Table 20: Current list of infrastructure managed by MET ................................................................................. 37 Table 21: Gaps of the NIIP application and recommended improvement measures ......................................... 38 Table 22: Process to include a new project in the NIIP .................................................................................... 43 Table 23: Projects prioritization process in the NIIP ........................................................................................ 43 Table 24: NIIP annual monitoring reporting process ........................................................................................ 44 Table 25: Infrastructure project budgeting ....................................................................................................... 44 Table 26: Five years NIIP updating and reporting ........................................................................................... 45 Table 27: Road map processes, roles, frequency and capacity development needs ........................................ 45

List of Figures

Figure 1: Maintenance expenditures of four Ministries in TOP / per year ......................................................... 27


vi

Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank BCP Budget and Corporate Planning Division (MFNP) BP Business Plan (PEs) CAD Civil Aviation Division (MOI) CBD Central Business District CCA Climate Change Adaptation CEDC Cabinet Economic Development Committee (project approval committee) CG Criteria Group (for Project Prioritization) CP Corporate Plan (by Ministries) CSO Community Service Obligation DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australian Aid Agency) DP Development Partner (IFIs and donor community supporting Tonga development) DRM Disaster Risk Management EBIT Earnings before Interest and Tax EBITDA Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation EU European Union FIAT Fisheries Industry Association of Tonga ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation ICU Information and Communication University (Korea) IIMM International Infrastructure Management Manual IMO International Maritime Organisation IPD Infrastructure Project Database IPWEA Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia ITU International Telecommunication Union IUDP Integrated Urban Development Project IUDSP Integrated Urban Development Sector Project JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JNAP Joint National Action Plan (JNAP) for CCA & DRM KPI Key Performance Indicator MAFFF Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Forests and Fisheries MCA Multi-Criterion Assessment MECC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (now under MEIDECC)

MEIDECC Ministry of Meteorology, Energy, Information, Disaster Management, Environment, Climate Change and Communication

MET Ministry of Education and Training MFAT Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (New Zealand Aid Agency) MFNP Ministry of Finance and National Planning MIC Ministry of Information and Communication (now under MEIDECC) MLCI Ministry of Labour, Commerce and Industries MLSNR Ministry of Lands, Survey & Natural Resources MOH Ministry of Health MOI Ministry of Infrastructure MOT Ministry of Transports (now MOI) MOW Ministry of Works (now MOI) MPD Marine & Port Division (MOI) MPE Ministry of Public Enterprises MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework (3 years rolling budgeting framework) NDC Nuku’alofa Development Corporation NEMO National Emergency Management Office NIIP National Infrastructure Investment Plan NPED National Planning and Economic Development Division (MFNP) NUDSP Nuku’alofa Urban Development Sector Project NZAID New Zealand’s official aid agency OO Organizational Outcome (TSDF) PACC Project and Aid Coordination Committee (Coordinated by MFNP) PAM Projects and Aid Management Division (MFNP) PAT Ports Authority of Tonga PCO Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility Coordination Office PE Public Enterprise PIPIs Pacific Infrastructure Performance Indicators PPA Pacific Power Association PPD Project Profile Document PTD Project Tracking Database (under PAM) PUMD Planning and Urban Management Department PWWA pacific Water and Wastes Association QSW Queen Salote Wharf (Nuku’alofa) TA Technical Assistance TAL Tonga Airports Ltd TBC Tonga Broadcasting Commission TCC Tonga Communications Corporation TCCI Tonga Chamber of Commerce and Industry TCL Tonga Cable Ltd TERM Tonga Energy Road Map TNO Targeted National Outcome (TSDF II) TPL Tonga Power Ltd


vii

TSCP Transport Sector Consolidation Project TSDF Tonga Strategic Development Framework TWB Tonga Water Board UNDP United Nation Development Programme UPMS Urban Planning and Management System Project WAL Waste Authority Ltd WBG The World Bank Group WG Working Group (NIIP related)

Currency Equivalents Currency Unit Tongan Pa'anga (TOP) TOP 1 = USD $0.4975 USD $1 = TOP 2.010


viii

Summary

In October 2010 and then in July 2013 for an updated version, the Cabinet of Tonga approved a National Infrastructure Investment Plan (NIIP) which were prepared with the assistance of the PCO (PRIF Coordination Office). The NIIP 2013 called NIIP2 covers essentially utilities (energy, ICT, water and waste) as well as transport (roads, marine, and aviation) As the NIIP2 was approved nearly 2 years ago and because it is a central part of investment for growth in the budget, GOT requested the PCO assistance in undertaking a review on the implementation of the NIIP2 to coincide with the drafting of the 2015 new Tonga Sustainable Development Framework (TSDF II). This review tracks progress with the implementation of the NIIP2, and gauges the usefulness of the NIIP instrument as a planning and programming process for both GOT and the Development Partners supporting the PCO. New Developments Developments since 2013, of significance in relation to the implementation of the NIIP2 included:

A consolidation of ministerial sectoral responsibilities into a smaller number of Ministries dealing with infrastructure.

A new TSDF “II” being now finalized following the election of November 2014 covering a 10-year period 2015-2025 and expected to be approved soon by the cabinet.

An attempt with the help of an ADB TA to move the national budget planning process online onto an integrated internet based platform called the ‘One Process’ system. This attempt does not include yet any module for a capital infrastructure budgeting framework.

The cyclone Ian which in January 2014 swept across the northeast islands of Ha’apai, impacting around 5,000 people. Damages and losses were estimated to be around TOP 60 million or 7 percent of Tonga’s GDP.

The planned hosting by Tonga of the sixteenth Pacific Games in Nuku’alofa in August 2019, which may require the upgrade of existing sports facilities in Nuku’alofa and the renovation of schools to be used as Games village to accommodate the sports teams. No infrastructure project has been documented by any Ministries so far in this respect.

A change of policy by the WBG since 2013 and by ADB since 2015 requiring future ODA funding to Tonga to systematically include a mix of loan and grant. Until then most support was in the form of grant only.

Implementation and Use of the NIIP2 In the context of these developments, the review offers a mixed picture regarding the capacity of the NIIP2 to impact on the planning and programming of public infrastructure in the country. A clear strength of the NIIP is the fact that it is the only framework available currently in Tonga to develop a Public Sector Investment Plan. It is also an official document approved by the Government through the Cabinet and is mentioned as infrastructural sector plan in the TSDF II under the MOI. All DPs welcome the NIIP and are using it as important reference document to guide their choices of projects to sponsor. From the list of projects listed in the NIIP2 as committed or underway 52 % (64 % in value) could be completed. From the list of high priority new projects 33 % (36% in value) could be advanced to the status of “committed” or “underway” projects. Regarding the complementary measures, out of the 26 measures listed in the NIIP2, 9 measures (35%) have been completed while another 9 are still work in progress. This leaves 8 measures that have not yet been addressed including the development of national sectoral road maps for water and solid waste. Against this positive outcome, the current NIIP implementation process suffers from a few shortcomings. There is a limited awareness of the NIIP2 priority projects lists by the sector Ministries and the PEs. A number of projects are initiated and advanced outside the NIIP. Project listed as low priority proposed investment in the NIIP2 or even new projects introduced after the completion of the NIIP2 are moving ahead toward commitment and implementation at the same pace if not faster than the projects listed as high priority in the NIIP2.


ix

The coordination of the advancement and the tracking of the projects listed in the NIIP2 by the planning and budgeting divisions of the MFNP may be incomplete due to limited technical expertise there. MOI now essentially in charge of road and ports and marine plays a subordinate role in managing the NIIP. Sector Ministries and some PEs have very limited planning capacity and lack (with the exception of the energy sector) reasonably recently updated master plans or road maps for the medium term planning and programming of infrastructure. Another group of shortcoming relates to projects development and processing. Documentation about NIIP projects is fragmented and incomplete. For most proposed projects there is no more available than the brief description included in the Appendices of the NIIP2. Justification of projects demand is difficult to find. This could in first approximation be improved on the basis of sectoral performance indicators that allow the tracking of trends that signal emerging demand. Expected project benefits in terms of economic, social or environmental returns, which are important to raise the interest of DPs, are mostly not addressed nor documented. Finally tentative projects implementation timing remains basic and fails to take into account the lengthy project cycle needed when a DP becomes the sponsor of the project. A third group of shortcomings are linked to the applied cross-sectoral project prioritization process. The MCA scoring methodology applied seems to have been applied with scant quantitative data about the projects leaving ample room to subjective interpretation affecting the robustness of the prioritization process and the credibility of the recommendation. To strengthen the NIIP process in the future a stronger active involvement of the lead ministries and agencies in the project scoring for prioritization may be desirable. Finally although the NIIP has a clear focus on economic infrastructure, it misses two important sectors (Heath and Education) which both have significant economic dimension and are actively assisted by DPs already. Infrastructure Expenditure and Funding The assessment of the disbursement of capital expenditures in infrastructure projects between 2013 and 2015 indicates that the absorptive capacity of the country may be limited to around TOP 80 million per year which is lower than the average of TOP 107 million targeted in the NIIP2 for the 3-year period 2013-2016. This signals institutional capacity constraint in implementing the NIIP, the need for capacity development efforts and the desirability to limit the NIIP yearly high priority projects pipeline to an affordable funding envelop from an absorptive capacity perspective. The comparison of new versus rehabilitated investment highlights a balanced situation with 51 % of the capital invested dedicated to new capacity development and 49 % to the rehabilitation and renovation of existing infrastructure. This balance is being slowly tilted in newer projects toward more rehabilitation (around 55%) and less new capacity (around 45%). Of the capital invested, GOT contributed a marginal 4.6 % essentially in terms of taxes rebates and import duties holiday for imported goods. The PEs contributed 28.2 % of the capital invested. The contribution of the DPs was 67.2 % essentially in the form of grants although the loan component is expected to grow slightly in the future due to the new WBG and ADB loan policy for Tonga. Based on a rough estimation of managed assets ”Infrastructure-heavy” Ministries appear to have maintenance expenditure in the range 1% to 2% of their asset values which may be below needs considering the back-log of infrastructure that need first rehabilitation. While the NIIP2 suggested an overall maintenance budget of TOP 15 million per year across all NIIP2 sectors, Ministries and PEs may be jointly spending only around half this amount. Significant progress can be however found in the road sector. Based on the findings of the TSCP project, a new approach to road maintenance is being deployed that relies on a dedicated road fund fed by programmed increased vehicles fees and fuel taxes. For maintenance works, the approach taken is to build on the capacity of the private sector with contracts for routine maintenance being now systematically awarded to private firms.


x

Asset Management A rapid survey of the capacity of PEs and MOI (roads) to manage their fixed assets was implemented during the review. The survey assessed the existence and level of maturity of a number of asset management functions as defined in the edition 2011 of the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) published by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA). Against the IIMM benchmarks, TPL (power) which has a commitment to continuity of services and TAL (aviation) which needs to meet high international safety and security standards have reasonably mature and efficient asset management plans. The other PEs seems to have weaker asset management plans in place corresponding to minimal requirements only. TPL is considered in the country as the leader in asset management practice and has been invited by MPE to train staff of other PEs in order to help them develop more robust asset management plans. Opportunities for Improvement In conclusion it appears that the NIIP as now deployed in Tonga only moderately influences the orientation of infrastructure programming in Tonga and may fall short in fulfilling its potential as lead public sector investment plan and program for economic infrastructure. Opportunity for improvement could encompass: Encouraging the development or updating of sector plans and road maps that help clarify

sectoral objectives and operational strategies. Promoting the systematic use of salient sectoral performance indicators. Ensuring the NIIP is operated as a process which frequently (yearly) updates the pipeline of

proposed priority projects. Requesting the Ministries and PEs to insist on the presence of a project in the NIIP project

pipeline database before accessing sponsorship. Deepening the documentation of proposed project with quantitative data to better raise the

interest of DPs and facilitate the cross sectoral projects prioritization process. Refining the MCA project prioritization methodology to allow an assessment dovetailing into the

objectives and targeted outcomes of the current TSDF II and consider the use of quantitative analysis of net benefits.

Involving more actively the NIIP working group and the Project and Aid Coordination Committee (PACC) in the prioritization and scoring of priority projects offered to DP sponsorship.

Promoting the yearly publication of a brief NIIP implementation monitoring report to track infrastructure project implementation progress and strengthen the coordination of the DPs interest under the leadership of the Government.

Technically it may also be desirable to explore ways and means to enhance in the NIIP framework the mainstreaming of CCA & DRM aspects into planning, design, standards and management and to promote improvement of asset management and the sustainable maintenance of infrastructure. High Level Roadmap for NIIP Impact Enhancement The findings of the review lead to a roadmap to enhance the effectiveness of the NIIP as a domestic owned national infrastructure programming framework for the country. These proposed tasks comprise a strengthening of the NIIP as a public sector infrastructure planning policy framework that (i) may expand the NIIP to cover additional infrastructure-heavy sectors not yet covered in the NIIP such as education and health, (ii) link more strongly project planning and programming with budgeting and (iii) strengthen the commitment of ministries and agencies in advancing and documenting infrastructure projects. The flow chart in table A below summarizes some of the improved process steps proposed to enhance the position of the NIIP in Tonga as the national infrastructure planning and programming policy framework.


xi

Table A: Proposed Enhanced Steps under a Reinforced NIIP framework

Projects prioritization process in the NIIP

Task Year 1 Year 2 NIIP Projects Prioritization Process

six-monthly project re-prioritization within sectors

Updating of projects priority ranking in PPDs

Submission of revised PPDs to MFNP

Scoring of projects in the PTD/IPD by PAM

Submission of NIIP projects to PACC NIIP-WG for ranking approval

(Re)-edition of NIIP prioritized projects pipeline list

Sector ministry or agency PAM and MFNP PAAC and NIIP WG

NIIP annual monitoring reporting process

Task Year 1 Year 2 NIIP Annual Monitoring Reporting

Annual reporting on sector infrastructure by Ministries and PEs

Submission of sectoral infrastructure chapter of annual report to PAM

Compilation of sectoral data into a NIIP annual reporting report

Integration of (re)-edited NIIP prioritized projects pipeline list into NIIP annual report

Submission of report to DP for comments

Meetings with DPs to clarify projects to be supported

Joint meeting with DPs under MFNP coordination leadership

Finalization of NIIP annual monitoring report with re-edited NIIP project pipeline

Publish NIIP annual report online for open dissemination

Sector Ministries or Agencies PAM and MFNP Ministries and DPs

Five-year NIIP updating and reporting

Task Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 NIIP report Re-edition Sector plans update Review of NIIP projects pipeline advancement and related emerging issues

Review of project demand based on current TSDF, sector plans, KPIs and new developments

Dialogue with stakeholders by Ministries and PEs to identify needs and issues

Review of sectoral asset management and maintenance strategies

Review of mainstreaming strategies for CCA & DRM

Review opportunities for enhanced private sector participation

Review price of infrastructure services and affordability for population

Review MTEF data for infrastructure projects

Revise NIIP projects pipeline and priority lists of projects

Revise financing strategy considering capital and recurrent maintenance investment costs

Provide recommendation for updating KPIs, PPDs, cross sectoral prioritization methodology and others

re-edit NIIP report and disseminate to DPs and stakeholders

Sector ministry or agency Cooperation ministries and PAM/ MFNP

Revised PPD of low ranked projects

Re-prioritization within sector due to changed

circumstances


xii

Training Mission Plan These steps and others will be tested and trained with stakeholders of the NIIP during an upcoming training mission to contribute to a progressive transitioning of the NIIP process toward a national infrastructure planning policy framework. Annex 15 sets out the proposed training plan that lines up the approach, the tools and the training sessions recommended to be deployed during the mission. Main objective will be to improve (i) the project documentation of proposed projects, (ii) the enhanced cross sectoral scoring and prioritization methodology needed to periodically update the priority projects of the NIIP and (iii) the development of an annual NIIP implementation monitoring report that can serve as discussion basis for coordination meetings with the DPs in future budget years. Included in the training sessions will be also discussions on how best to integrate CCA/DRM issues and how to advance new projects for the 16

th Pacific Games as exemplary current practical

concern to enhance the NIIP as national infrastructure planning policy framework.


13

MAP OF TONGA


14

1 Context and Methodology of the NIIP2 Implementation Review

1.1 Introduction to the assignment

In July 2013, the Cabinet of Tonga approved a National Infrastructure Investment Plan referred as NIIP2 which was prepared with the assistance of the PCO (PRIF Coordination Office). It followed a first NIIP (2010) that needed updating because of a change of national policy. As the NIIP2 was approved nearly 2 years ago and because it is a central part of investment for growth in the budget, GOT requested the PCO assistance in undertaking a review on the implementation of the NIIP2 to coincide with the drafting of the 2015 new Tonga Sustainable Development Framework (TSDF II). The strategic objective of this NIIP2 Implementation Review is to take stock of the implementation of the NIIP2 as an infrastructure planning process. It is then to propose in collaboration with the government a roadmap for optimizing the future use of the NIIP instrument for the best mutual benefits of the socio-economic development of the Kingdom of Tonga and the interest of the Development Partners (DPs) which finance most of these infrastructures. In line with the ToR (Annex 1) the main tasks implemented during the NIIP implementation review 2015 included:

i. Assess the progress in implementing the NIIP 2 by collecting information on capital investments in economic infrastructure and related complementary measures.

ii. Suggest a process to keep the NIIP 2 relevant and up to date and to improve its continued use as a strategic planning document by the Government, national stakeholders and DPs.

iii. Identify existing or desirable additional linkages with stakeholders and other government systems/ committees and national policies to enhance the sectoral and cross-sectoral infrastructure prioritization process for national projects.

iv. Review the current situation of asset management at a high level and identify key areas for future attention in improving asset management planning and funding, and how asset management can be better embedded into the infrastructure and investment planning process.

v. Identify in collaboration with the Government, the preferred positioning of the NIIP in the National infrastructure planning and budgeting process and the need, role and responsibility for future NIIP monitoring, review and updating.

vi. Recommend a format for future NIIP progress reporting and train selected government staff in preparing such reports.

The review was undertaken by a consultant, Philippe Bergeron, who visited Tonga from February 19 to March 17, 2015. The consultant reported to the PCO and to a NIIP Working Group within the Government of Tonga. A second mission aiming at training the Government staff on the processes and procedures recommended in this report is programmed later in the year to support the transitioning of the NIIP tools toward a formal national infrastructure programming policy framework.

1.2 The NIIP working group

A revision of the NIIP working group (NIIP WG) established at the time of the preparation of the NIIP2 became necessary because of ministerial portfolio changes in the new Government and staff rotation in the administration. The list of members

1 and the tasks of the working group were discussed and agreed

with the Deputy Secretary for Planning of the MFNP.

1 The NIIP WG members include: Chairperson: Tatafu Moeaki (CEO, MFNP); Ringo Fa’oliu (CEO, MOI);Paula Ma’u (CEO,

MEIDECC); Sione ‘Akau’ola (CEO, MPE); Siale ‘Akau’ola (CEO, MOH); Emily Pouvalu (CEO, MET); ‘Asipeli Palaki (CEO, MLSNR); Viliami Ma’ake (TAL); Mosese Lavemai (PAT); Robert Matthews (TPL); Tapu Panuve (WAL); Secretariat: Lesieli Tufui Faletau (Deputy Secretary for Finance, Head NPED, MFNP).


15

The tasks of the NIIP WG for the NIIP2 implementation review as endorsed by the Deputy Secretary for Planning of MFNP comprise:

1. Supporting and guiding the collection of data about the progress of the projects of the NIIP2 since 2013.

2. Participating to the 3 NIIP implementation review workshops during the review phase. 3. Commenting on the impact of the NIIP as an effective planning and budgeting tool for GOT

and the Development Partners 4. Making suggestion and providing sectoral guidance on desirable enhancement of the NIIP

report and process in the future 5. Making suggestion and providing sectoral guidance on the structure, content and process for a

NIIP implementation monitoring report 6. Reviewing and commenting the draft NIIP implementation Review Report and the NIIP future

development roadmap developed with the PCO Consultant 7. Endorsing the final recommendations and action plan of the NIIP implementation Review

Report and the NIIP future development Roadmap developed with the PCO Consultant. 8. Taking ownership of the action plan to implement the NIIP further implementation roadmap

agreed with PCO and the Development Partners including the drafting of periodic NIIP implementation monitoring reports.

9. Designating participants to the training courses of the 2nd phase so that each Ministry/ PE has enough competence and skill to implement and sustain the agreed action plan of the roadmap without much external assistance.

10. Coordinating under the oversight of the MFNP, the autonomous development of NIIP future monitoring reports.

The consultant met with a wide range of stakeholders from Ministries, Agencies and Public Enterprises (PEs) with the support of staff of the national Planning and Economic Development (NPED) division of MFNP. The list of persons met is highlighted in Annex 4. Meetings and interviews were guided by a NIIP review datasheet reflected in Annex 5. It was presented and discussed at the start-up workshop and passed in advance to the concerned stakeholders to allow them to prepare by collecting information and data. The review was interspaced by three workshops with NIIP WG representatives to keep them abreast of the progress of the review activities and brainstorm together preferred enhanced linkages and processes for future NIIP impact improvement. A wrap-up workshop was held with representatives of the NIIP working group chaired by the Deputy Secretary for Planning of the MFNP on 16 March 2015 to present the major findings of the review and to seek feedback on draft recommendations considered.

1.3 The Tonga NIIP2

The Tonga NIIP2 consists of: i. a review of the Strategy for the Development of Tonga under the NSDF 2011-2014, an analysis of

the current situation and of the main drivers of demand for and investment in economic infrastructure,

ii. an overview of the condition and performance of current infrastructure and related service delivery in various sector,

iii. a prioritized list of investments (23 projects underway, 6 committed and 13 first priority new proposed projects) in economic infrastructure with a short description how these projects were prioritized (MCA),

iv. a funding strategy for the financing of capital and recurrent costs for infrastructure, v. a brief guidance for NIIP future monitoring and updating.

NIIP2 covers economic infrastructure defined as utilities (power, telecommunication, water, and solid waste management) as well as the three modes of transport (roads, maritime and ports and aviation and airports). Given the vulnerability of Tonga islands to climate change and natural disasters, it also covers investment dedicated to Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risks Management (DRM). The planning horizon of NIIP2 is a 10-year period 2013-2023 with a deepened assessment for the first 5-year period of 2014-2018.

Besides infrastructural investment, the NIIP2 documents a number of complementary measures that are TAs and studies to prepare investment and facilitate their implementation and sustainable operation. Annex 2 summarizes the infrastructure projects and complementary measures reflected in the NIIP2 and


16

their links to the underlying targeted outcomes of the TSDF 2011-2014 approved by the Government in 2011. The NIIP2 investment program and complementary measures documented in 2013 is shown in table 1. :

Table 1: Summary of projects under the NIIP 2 (2013- 2023) Types of Projects / Sectors

Number of Projects Complementary

Measures

Value of Investment Projects 1)

Total Underway Committed High Priority

new Lower

Priority new TOP million

USD million equivalent

Multi-sector 6 2 4 13 2) 15 7.46

Energy 19 6 4 2 7 4 96.8 48.16

Telecom 10 3 2 2 3 2 99.0 49.25

Water 7 1 2 4 1 33.4 16.62

Solid Waste 5 1 1 3 1 6.8 3.38

Roads 11 4 1 6 1 42.0 20.90

Ports 17 5 1 11 2 32.0 15.92

Airports 13 3 2 8 2 67.0 33.33

Total 88 23 6 13 46 26 392.0 195.00 1)

Complementary measures have no cost estimates in the NIIP 2 2)

3 complementary measures concern all sectors i.e. (i) Institutional reform to clarify and simplify institutional responsibilities across all sectors; (ii) Develop a national policy for Strategic Asset Management, that promotes asset management as a core function of agencies and incorporates a longer-term view of infrastructure needs and asset management; and (iii) Investigate the potential for establishing a multi-sector regulatory regime that reviews and make recommendations regarding pricing of common-user services (power, water, waste, telecom wholesaling

1.4 The development partners

All the main development partners were consulted during review and in particular WBG, ADB, DFAT, MFAT, JICA, EU and UNDP. They all welcome the NIIP as an important guiding document to orient their future investment support. Infrastructure development is essentially driven by a smaller number of larger “sector projects” supported by the DPs which tend to bundle smaller projects mentioned in the NIIP2 to improve the economy of scale. These sectors projects are:

The Tonga Energy Roadmap (TERM) implementation; it is a diverse and multi-year program aimed at improving quality access to modern energy services; increasing use of alternative renewable energy sources; reducing vulnerability to external price shocks; and implementing related institutional and regulatory reforms and DSM initiatives. Supporting DPs include essentially (WBG – ADB – MFAT- JICA and EU)

The Tonga-Fiji Submarine Cable Project (TFSCP); it developed a communications cable linking

Tonga with existing international networks at Fiji with planned extension to the outer islands (Vava’u and Ha’apai) and provides technical assistance and capacity strengthening to improve the regulatory framework (supported by ADB, DFAT and WBG).

The Nuku’alofa Urban Development Sector Project (NUDSP). This project focus on high priority

investments in the water and solid waste sector in the capital city with accompanying strengthening measures of the policy, planning, and management environment for delivery of urban services, including asset management (supported by ADB and DFAT).

The Integrated Urban Development Sector Program (IUDSP), which improved urban infrastructure

in Nuku’alofa through high priority road and drainage projects (supported by ADB).

The Transport Sector Consolidation Project (TSCP) which support a program of investment in airports, roads, and ports plus technical assistance and capacity building. A TSCP2 project is under consideration to build on the outcome of TSCP with a narrower focus on roads maintenance and outer island ports (supported by WBG and DFAT)

The Pacific Aviation Investment Program (PAIP), which improves operational safety and oversight

in the international air transport sector. In Tonga this includes the resurfacing of Fua’amotu and Vava’u airport runways, air safety improvement measures and capacity building (supported by WBG).


17

The Pacific Resilience Program (PREP) that strengthen early warning and preparedness, mainstream risk reduction and facilitate resilient investment and disaster risks financing in participating countries including Tonga (supported by the WBG and UNDP)

The Climate Resilience Sector Project (CRSP) which complement the PREP to facilitate the

mainstreaming of climate resilience into the national development planning of vulnerable sectors. This include support for the monitoring and management of climate data and information, the development of sustainable climate financing mechanism to support community-based climate responsive investments and the promotion of ecosystem resilience and climate-resilient infrastructure investments (supported by ADB and UNDP)

The Outer Island Renewable Energy Project (OIREP) will construct grid-connected solar

photovoltaic (PV) power plants on the outer islands of 'Eua, Ha'apai, and Vava'u, thereby contributing a reduction of the country's heavy reliance on imported fossil fuels for power generation (supported by ADB and JICA). This project may receive a complement called OIEEP for Outer Island Energy efficiency Energy Project that will focus on energy efficiency and the reduction of losses in the distribution networks in Tongatapu and the outer islands

Table 2 reflects the main DPs Development Partners active in Tonga and their current major projects.

Table 2: Development Partners active in Tonga in NIIP+ sectors

Sector Development Partners Major Projects

Multi-sector Exim Bank/ China, China Aid IUDP

Energy generation and supply WBG, EU, JICA, MFAT TERM, OIREP, OIEEP

ICT ADB, WBG, DFAT, ITU, SPC, JICA, ICU/Korea

TFSCP

Water Supply & Sanitation JICA; DFAT; ADB NUDSP

Waste ADB; JICA; DFAT NUDSP

Transport Road WB, ADB, DFAT, Exim Bank China, China Aid

TSCP, IUDP

Transport Maritime JICA; Exim Bank China TSCP

Transportation Aviation WBG TSCP, PAIP

Climate Change & Disaster Management

UNDP, WBG, ADB PREP, CRSP

Education and Training MFAT, WBG, JICA TESP

Health ADB, JICA, EU,

2 Major Developments since NIIP 2 Completion

2.1 Sectoral responsibilities for infrastructure

The overall responsibility for the coordination of the NIIP development and implementation rests with the Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MFNP). Table 3 provides an updated overview of the main economic sectors relevant for infrastructure investment with responsibilities by Ministries, Authorities, Agencies or PEs in each sector. A noteworthy change since the NIIP2 is the consolidation of ministerial responsibilities into a smaller number of Ministries dealing with infrastructure. Energy earlier under the MLSNR as well as ICT formerly under the MCI and the Environment under MECC, have now been integrated into one large Ministry (MEIDECC) although operational departments remain scattered in the separate offices of the former Ministries. MOW (works) and MOT (road, ports and harbors and aviation) have also been consolidated into the MOI. It is too early to assess the improvement brought about by the consolidation of MEIDECC and MOI.

Table 3: Sectoral Responsibilities for Infrastructure in the Economic Sectors

Sector Areas of Services Infrastructure/

Service Delivery Regulation/ Monitoring

Planning/ Policy

Power National TPL

Electricity Commission

MEIDECC (TERM)

Off-grid Outer Islands MEIDECC - Energy

user

Sticky Note

Is PREP current or propose stage?


18

Sector Areas of Services Infrastructure/

Service Delivery Regulation/ Monitoring

Planning/ Policy

Telecoms National TCC/ Digicel PMO/

MEIDECC PMO/

MEIDECC –(ICT) National TCL

Water

National MEIDECC

MOH MAFFF

MEIDECC MOH

Urban Areas TWB TWB MPE

TWB MPE

Villages / Outer Islands

Village Committees TWB

MOH MEIDECC

MOH MEIDECC

Sanitation

National MEIDECC

MOH MEIDECC

MOH

Urban Areas Private Sector/ Community

MOH Community Villages

Solid Waste

National

MEIDECC MOH

MEIDECC MOH

Nuku'alofa WAL

Private sector

Rural Tongatapu WAL

Private sector

Other Islands Community MEIDECC MEIDECC

Drainage National MOI MOI MOI

Roads National MOI MOI MOI

Ports Nuku'alofa PAT MOI MOI

Outer Islands MOI MOI MOI

Airports National TAL MOI MOI

Multi-sector Climate Change Adaptation &

Disaster Risks Management

National MEIDECC

NEMO MEIDECC

NEMO MEIDECC - (CCA&DRM)

Education & Training National MET MET MET

Health National MOH MOH MOH

PMO: Premier Minister Office; MEIDECC: Ministry of Meteorology, Energy, Information, Disaster Management, Environment, Climate Change and Communication; MOI: Ministry of Infrastructure; MPE: Ministry of Public Enterprises; MOH: Ministry of Health; MET: Ministry of Education and Training; MAFFF: Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Forests and Fisheries; NEMO: National Emergency Management Office ;TPL: Tonga Power Ltd.; TCC: Tonga Communications Corporation; TCL: Tonga Cable Ltd.; TWB: Tonga Water Board; WAL: Waste Authority Ltd.; PAT: Port Authority of Tonga; TAL: Tonga Aviation Ltd.

Some fragmentation of responsibility persists. The Public Enterprise PAT is in charge of the main port of Nuku’alofa but not all the port facilities there. The development of some wharfs and jetties are still under the jurisdiction of the Marine and Port Division (MPD) of MOI which pass then operational management to PAT. In the outer islands, MOI is the only competent maritime authority and operator. Sector planning remains insufficient. Besides the energy road map TERM (2010-2020) there is no new or updated robust sectoral plans that can guide future infrastructure development needs and priorities. The two road maps foreseen in the NIIP2 complementary measures for the water and sanitation and the solid waste sectors did not materialize. Sector planning is essentially done in corporate plans (CPs) by Ministries or business plans (BPs) by PEs which usually covers a 3-year period. Most current corporate and business plans reviewed cover the period 2013-2016 (See Annex 14).

2.2 New Tonga strategic development framework

The lead national policy tool for planning and development in the country is the Tongan Strategic Development Framework (TSDF). Responsibility for development and monitoring rests with the National Planning and Economic Development Division (NPED) of the Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MFNP).


19

The TSDF, which was current at the time of the preparation of the NIIP2, covered the period 2011-2014. It was supposed to cover a period of 10 years but the government at that time shorted its validity period to 4 years. The new government following the election of November 2014 is finalizing a new “TSDF II” covering a 10-year period expected to be approved soon by the cabinet. Annex 3 compares the targeted objectives and policies of the TSDFs I and II. Infrastructure planning and maintenance is gaining prominence under the TSDF II. It is now one of the 5 core pillars proposed by the government to support the national vision of a “A progressive Tonga supporting higher quality of life for all the people" The Pillar 4 defined as “Infrastructure and Technology Input” has the objective to achieve a “More inclusive, sustainable and successful provision and maintenance of infrastructure” especially under the transport, ICT and energy services sectors that are targeted to become more “safe, reliable, sustainable and affordable”. The NIIP is specifically mentioned in the TSDF II as the “sector plan” for infrastructure under the MOI although overarching coordination appears to rest by MFNP NPED. Environmental Protection, Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risks management is also reinforced under the Pillar 5 defined as “Natural Resources & Environment Inputs”. Under the TSDF II, special attention is also given to the “Public Enterprises” (PEs) which are tasked to deliver utility and infrastructure services under the Pillar 1. Targeted organizational outcome under that Pillar is a continued improvement of the PEs in “delivering quality services and advancing profitability, accountability, and return on equity”.

2.3 The “One Process” online budgeting process

The TSDF does not provide specific projects, timeframes, priorities or links to expenditure. The expectation is that sector and corporate plans determine the specific operational details of the TSDF in a yearly budget embedded into a 3-year Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Medium term technical planning is done at the sectoral level. A good example is the Tonga Energy Road Map (TERM 2010-2020) now under the oversight of MEIDECC. The detailed infrastructure planning and budgeting is in principle done through a 3-year rolling integrated corporate planning and budgeting system for all ministries, agencies and PEs. Corporate plan (CP) by line ministries and Business Plans (BP) by PEs define sectoral objectives documented as “customers”, impacts, and organizational outcomes together with the inputs (often limited to staffing issues) needed to achieve them. The CPs and BPs provide the justification for the budget. Medium term expenditure frameworks (MTEFs) are meant to be included in the corporate plans of the sector ministries which merge a top-down resource envelope and a bottom-up estimation of the current and medium term costs of policies. MTEFs should link sector plans with the budget process, helping to streamline the mobilization of the resources which can then be applied through the budgets of Ministries and PEs. The budget estimates take the information from the corporate and business planning process and provide the estimates of expenditures, receipts and revenue required to finance the identified outputs. However there is no capital budgeting framework at the national level in the country. The NIIP is the only attempt to establish a public sector investment program in the country although it covers only a limited number of economic sectors. The Budget and Corporate Planning (BCP) Division of MFNP is responsible for establishing and monitoring the government budget which considers only recurrent receipts and expenditures. As most of the public infrastructure development is heavily supported by the DPs, ODA supported project financial planning and monitoring is managed by the Projects and Aid Management Division (PAM) which oversees all types of such projects at the national level. With the help of the ADB TA 7959 TON “Implementing Strategic Economic Management”, the Government is attempting to move the budget planning process described above onto an integrated internet platform called the ‘One Process’ system. As in the off-line budget development process, the central feature of the


20

system is the corporate plan (CP) of Ministries which identifies the “customers”, impacts and outcomes of sector ministries together with the outputs theses customers expect them to deliver. These targeted outcomes are measured against a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to be defined. In addition, the system enables in principle an analysis of the gaps between current and planned levels of outputs to help diagnose the gaps and to identify solutions. These solutions can be programmed to be set in priority order to form the basis of new initiatives which each ministry seeks then to implement taking into account realistic assessments of potential funding levels. The One Process Toolkit available both online and standalone is programmed to set out all the details including the timeline, documents, and component steps for the detailed planning and budgeting work required from all ministries, departments and agencies of the government. A number of excel spreadsheets templates are also available mostly associated with the budget numbers. Introduced in 2014, the “one Process” system is still work in progress and is not yet operational across ministries. It may take some time until the governmental and MFNP PAM staff becomes routinely comfortable with the “One System’ process and procedures. The system has currently no module for capital infrastructure budgeting.

2.4 Cyclone Ian

In January 2014, the tropical cyclone “Ian” hit Tonga severely. The country is highly vulnerable to tropical storms as its population is predominantly in low-lying coastal areas and spread over small isolated islands making response efforts difficult. The storm Ian tracked between Fiji and Tonga for several days before intensifying to a Category 5 system with winds over 200 kilometres per hour. The cyclone skirted east of the Vava’u group, before the eye passed directly over the northeast islands of Ha’apai, impacting around 5,000 people. The cyclone brought destructive winds and heavy rain, and caused flash flooding in low-lying coastal areas, prompting the Prime Minister to declare a state of emergency for Vava’u and Ha’apai. Damages and losses were estimated to be around TOP 60 million or 7 percent of Tonga’s GDP. The housing sector was particularly affected, with nearly a thousand houses and public buildings—or about 75 percent of the Ha’apai housing stock –destroyed or severely damaged. The government, the World Bank Group (WBG), and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), with funding from the Africa Caribbean Pacific-European Union Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Program (ACP-EU NDRR), worked to implement a recovery program which aims to also strengthen the housing and transport infrastructure sectors against future natural hazards. Cyclone-proof housing design was completed and reconstruction contracts were awarded within six months after the disaster. The experience of the rehabilitation effort following the damages caused by cyclone Ian raises the question how to best integrate in the future, some contingency for remedial investment in emergency response to natural hazards. In addition to cyclones, natural hazards in Tonga include earthquakes and volcanic activity. Due to neighbouring seismic activity, Tonga is also vulnerable to tsunamis although no disasters in those later categories struck Tonga since 2013.

2.5 The 16th

Pacific Games

Tonga will host the sixteenth Pacific Games in Nuku’alofa in August 2019. The Games are held every 4 years with the participation of 22 nations in the South Pacific region. The Games will be operated by the Pacific Games Organizing Committee, a special purpose entity. The main investment foreseen for the Games are an upgrading of the existing sports facilities especially in Nuku’alofa and the renovation of several school facilities to be used as Games village to accommodate the sports teams. No project is so far documented in the NIIP regarding these infrastructures nor was any new project submitted for consideration during the implementation review mission. For new or upgraded infrastructure


21

to be available in 2019, planned investment would need to be identified and incorporated into an updated NIIP in 2015/16 to allow enough time for the mobilization of support for their timely deployment. Given the importance of the Games for Tonga and in spite of the fact that needed infrastructure may not be strictly economic in nature, it is proposed to include in the upcoming training mission a discussion about the Pacific Games infrastructure demand and how to conceptualize projects for development as a practical concern to reinforce the NIIP as the national infrastructure programming framework.

2.6 Economic and fiscal development

Table 4 provides a summary of the current macroeconomic and fiscal framework according to the IMF article IV consultation report 2014.

Table 4: Macroeconomic and fiscal framework

Items Target 2012/13 2013/14 Forecast 2014/15

Nominal GDP (TOP million) 767.8 788.5 818.7

Real GDP (% Change) 3% -2.7 2 3.7

Total Revenues + Grants (% GDP) 24.1 29.5 29.0

Total Revenues (% GDP) 18.7 18.8 19.0

DPs Grants (% GDP) 5 10.5 10.0

Total expenditures and net lending (% GDP) 25.1 30.0 29.7

Total current expenditures (% GDP) 23.5 27.2 24.7

Budget Balance (% GDP) 0.0% -1.0% -0.6% 0.7%

Outstanding debt (% GDP) 35 - 40% 41.4% 40.8% 39.9%

The cyclone Ian has shaved ¾ percent off the FY2013/14 GDP relative to the pre-cyclone baseline forecast. According to the IMF report, Tonga’s economy is now rebounding, partially owing to a recovery in agricultural exports and the reconstruction from the cyclone Ian. The outlook for tourism is also improving. The fiscal cost relating to the cyclone Ian is being largely met by confirmed funding mainly from DPs under the WBG lead. The IMF recommends that following the reconstruction activities, the medium-term fiscal strategy should aim at gradually stabilizing and then reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio, in order to improve Tonga’s moderate risk of debt distress and limit the external debt at about 30−35 percent of GDP. In response to the IMF report, the Government accepted that Tonga’s economic growth should not continue to be driven by disaster-related or externally funded project cycles. A large Chinese Exim bank loan for road works triggered recently a rescheduling of repayment. GOT new policy aims to implement an ‘Amended No New Loan Policy’ that prescribes a future more cautious use of concessional loans and restricting domestic debt issuance in principle to refinancing. Against this back-drop of governmental goodwill, the WBG has since 2013 established a new policy requiring future ODA funding to Tonga to systematically include a mix of loan and grant. ADB initiated this year (2015) a similar strategy.

3 NIIP 2 Implementation Progress

3.1 Investment projects

Tables 5 and 6 reflect the number and value of projects documented in the NIIP2 and their advancement since the NIIP2 completion. The two left grey columns provide the status of the NIIP in 2013. The other columns show the progress of the status of these same projects as observed during the implementation review in each category. Projects classified as “new” in the table were not reflected in the NIIP2 and have been created and promoted only since then.

Table 5: Current Status of NIIP 2 Project Progress (Number of Projects)

Status NIIP 2 in 2013

Current Status NIIP2 Review 2015

Total New

1) Proposed

Proposed Priority

Committed Underway Completed

Status Total 7 0 0 3 2 0 12

Proposed others 34 0 26 0 1 5 2 34

Proposed high priority 15 0 0 10 1 0 4 15

Committed 12 0 0 0 7 1 4 12

Underway 16 0 0 0 0 8 8 16

Completed 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 11


22

Total 88 7 26 10 12 16 29 100 1)

New projects were not reflected in the NIIP 2

Table 6: Current Status of NIIP 2 Project Progress (Value of projects – TOP million)

Status NIIP 2 in 2013

Current Status NIIP2 Review 2015 (TOP million)

Total New

1) Proposed

Proposed Priority

Committed Underway Completed

Status Total 94.0 0.0 0.0 33.6 0.9 0.0 128.5

Proposed others 274.2 0.0 206.7 0.0 0.0 62.5 5.0 274.2

Proposed high priority 156.5 0.0 0.0 100.4 20.0 0.0 36.1 156.5

Committed 64.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 6.0 42.0 64.8

Underway 225.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.8 142.9 225.7

Completed 167.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 167.3 167.3

Total 888,5 94.0 206.7 100.4 70.4 152.2 393.3 1,017.0 1)

New projects were not reflected in the NIIP 2

Key observations are:

From the list of projects listed in the NIIP2 as committed or underway 52 % (64 % in value) could be completed.

Eleven projects mentioned in the NIIP2 list were already completed at the time of the completion of the NIIP2 report and could have been retired of the NIIP project list

From the list of high priority new projects 33 % (36% in value) could be advanced to the status of “committed” or “underway” projects.

On the other hand 66 % (64 % in value) of high priority projects of the NIIP2 did not progress and remain classified as “proposed” without committed funding. No change of priority rating of proposed projects took place between 2013 and 2015.

In the category of lower priority proposed projects 30 % (25 % in value) are now “committed” or “underway”, which is a comparable, score to the high priority proposed projects.

Several sectors presented new projects (12 projects) and 45 % of these projects (27 % in value) moved to the status of “committed” or “underway” ahead of high priority proposed projects.

Finally several PEs demonstrated improved capacity of developing and funding smaller projects on their own (TPL, PAT, TWB, TAL and TCC). About half of them were reflected in the NIIP2, others are new projects.

Annex 6 lists the 29 completed projects. 12 of the 29 projects were new infrastructure (TOP 148 million in value) and 17 others (60 % in number or TOP 229 million in value) encompassed essentially renovation works. Table 7 sets out the remaining projects classified as “proposed”, “committed” and “underway” in the NIIP2. It includes also new projects considered by various Ministries and PEs since 2013. Of the 72 projects listed, 39 projects (54% in number of projects) with a cumulated value of TOP 287.6 million (46 % in value) involve investment in additional capacity. The remaining 33 projects (46 % in number) with a cumulated value of TOP 336.4 million (54 % in value) involve replacing or rehabilitating existing capacity.

Table 7: Updated sectoral NIIP 2 projects lists (Proposed, Committed and Underway)

Nr. Projects in

NIIP 2 1)

Priority Project Name Total TOP

million

Status 2)

Operating Agency

Renewal [R]

versus New [N]

Development Partner

Project Start Year

Project End Year

6 Multisectoral

M3 Climate Resilience Sector Project (CRSP) 20.00 C MEIDECC N ADB, GEF + DFAT

? 2015 2019

M4 Disaster response & evacuation infrastructure (CRSP)

in M3 C MEIDECC N in M3 2015 2019

M5 Ha'apai community resilience project tbd P MEIDECC N DFAT ? ?? ??

M6 Government ministerial complex tbd P ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

M7 Pacific Games 2019 tbd P ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

M-2015-1 Outer Islands resilience (Vavau, Eua and the Niuas)

tbd P MEIDECC N ?? ?? ??

18 Energy

E1 Distribution network improvements (multi-year) 45.00 U TPL R NZ-MFAT 2011 2018

E3 Additional/ replacement generators (Vava'u) 1.10 C TPL R TPL Debt 2015 2017

E4 Additional/replacement generators (Ha'apai) 3.10 C TPL R TPL Debt 2018 2018

E5 Additional/ replacement generators ('Eua) 2.60 C TPL R TPL Debt 2018 2018

E6 Village networks (electricity pole replacement) (part of E1)

In E1 U TPL R in E1 2011 2018

E8 Improved street lighting 0.80 U TPL N GOT/ TPL 2013 2015

E9 Upgrade bulk fuel logistics (tank farm, Bunkering) 11.00 P MEIDECC R ?? ?? ??

E12 Renewable energy pilots (Coconut Oil/land fill gas) 3.00 P MEIDECC N ?? ?? ??

E13 Energy Roadmap TGIF Projects P MEIDECC N ?? ?? ??

E15 Biomass Generation ('Eua)

5.00 P MEIDECC/

TPL N Need DP ? ?? ??

E16 Outer Islands On-Grid Renewable Energy Project (OIREP)

10.00 P TPL N ADB/ DFAT 2015 2016

E17 Relocate Tongatapu Power Station and Tank Farm

tbd P MEIDECC R & N ?? ?? ??

E18 Relocate Critical Power Lines Underground P TPL R ?? ?? ??

E19 Upgrade of Nuku’alofa Electricity Network 25.70 P TPL R Need DP ? ?? ??

E-2015-1 Smart Metering and Prepayment Procedures 8.00 P TPL R & N TPL Debt ?? ??

E-2015-2 Tongatapu Wind (2+2 MW) 43.00 P TPL N JICA + NZ-MFAT 2016 2018


23

Nr. Projects in

NIIP 2 1)


million

Status 2)

Operating Agency

Renewal [R]

versus New [N]

Development Partner

Project Start Year

Project End Year

E-2015-3 Ha'apai Micro-Wind Project (11KW) 0.30 U TPL N TPL Funding 2015 2015

E-2015-4 Outer Islands On-Grid Energy Efficiency Project (OIEEP)

10.00 P TPL R ADB - EU ? ?? ??

7 Telecom

T4 Outreach – Expanding Services to Small Islands 4.00 C TCC N TCC Funding 2016 2016

T7 Local Reticulation of High Speed Internet (after TFSCP extension to outer islands.)

in T2 C TCC N in T2 in T2 in T2

T8 E-Government 20.00 P MEIDECC N ??? 2015 2018

T9 Fibre-Optic Cable to Ha‟apai, Vava‟u etc (TFSCP) 30.00 P TCL N WB & ADB ? 2015 2016

T10 Communications for Early Warning and Disaster Recovery

6.00 P MEIDECC N JICA ? 2015 2016

T-2015-1 Mobile Health 0.30 C MOH N ADB ? 2015 2016

T-2015-2 Tele Centra (Internet Rural Areas) 0.30 C MEIDECC N ITU ? 2015 2016

7 Water Supply and Sanitation

W2 Rehabilitate the Nuku‟alofa water system (NUDSP)

11.91 U TWB R ADB-DFAT 2013 2016

W3 Upgrade Neiafu Island mamao water supply (wells, distribution)

15.00 P TWB R & N JICA ? 2016 2016

W4 Expand Nuku'alofa system to growth areas 11.40 P TWB N ADB-DFAT ? ?? ??

W5 Development of a new Tongatapu well field (NUDSP)

in W2 U TWB N ADB-DFAT 2017 2018

W6 Water Softening for Nuku’alofa System 8.00 P TWB N ?? ?? ??

W7 New well field for Neiafu, Vava’u 12.00 P TWB N ?? ?? ??

W-2015-1 Water Treatment Upgrading in Eu'a 0.60 U TWB R & N TWB Loan 2015 2015

2 Solid Waste

S1 Additional capacity for septage treatment NUDSP) 3.00 U WAL N ADB-DFAT 2014 2017

S6 New Landfill or Transfer Station on Ha’apai 4.00 P MOH N WB Cyclone Ian Rehab?

2016 2016

7 Transportation Road

R3 Transport Sector Consolidation Project (TSCP Roads)

11.60 U MOI R & N WB/DFAT 2009 2015

R6 Agricultural Road Program 5.00 P MOI R & N ADB ? ?? ??

R7 Upgrading of Toula Causeway (Vava‟u) 2.00 P MOI R & N ?? ?? ??

R8 New road link to southern side of Fanga‟uta Lagoon

30.00 P MOI N ?? ?? ??

R9 Overlay of AC Road in Tongatapu 20.00 P MOI R JICA ? 2018 2020

R10 Outer Islands Roads Upgrading Program 10.00 P MOI R & N ?? ?? ??

R-2015-1 Backlog Road Maintenance Program (TSCP 2) 20.00 P MOI R WB/ DFAT/ GOT 2015 2019

14 Transportation Maritime

P3 Reseal Queen Salote Wharf (QSW Int. and Dom.) 11.30 U PAT R PAT Funding 2012 2016

P5 Upgrade Container Handling (Forklift) for QSW 6.00 U PAT N PAT Funding 2009 2016

P8 New Pilot Boat for QSW 1.50 U PAT N PAT Funding 2013 2014

P9 Inter-island port and terminal CC Resilience upgrades

now P-2015-1&2

P10 Vuna Wharf (Stage 2 Marina) 20.00 P PAT N PAT Loan

P11 Upgrade of the Queen Salote Domestic Wharf 30.00 C PAT R & N JICA 2013 2015

P12 Yellow Pier Upgrade 7.50 P PAT R ?? ?? ??

P13 Slipway for Ferries at Sopu (now under P-2015-2) 1.50 P PAT N ?? ?? ??

P14 Barge for Deep Water Dredging 1.00 P PAT N ?? ?? ??

P15 Upgrade of Vava'u port (terminal, storage, forklift etc.)

25.00 P MOI R & N ?? 2017 2020

P16 Nafanua ('Eua) Port Upgrade (now under TSCP2) 3.00 P MOI R JICA ? ?? ??

P-2015-1 TSCP2 (Nav Aids, Vessels, Repairs) Niuas, Eu'a & Ha'apai

4.00 P MOI R & N WB ? 2016 2018

P-2015-2 Complementary ports repairs and upgrade incl. dredging

9.00 P MOI R & N ?? 2016 2018

P-2015-3 New Domestic Wharf 33.00 C MOI N JICA 2015 2018

10 Transportation Aviation

A4 Upgraded Departure area (Fua‟amotu); (TSCP Aviation)

1.00 U TAL R & N WB TSCP 2011 2014

A5 New fire station at Fua‟amotu airport; (TSCP Aviation)

1.20 U TAL N WB TSCP 2011 2015

A6 Upgraded Arrivals area (Fua‟amotu); (TSCP Aviation)

2.00 C TAL R & N WB TSCP 2015 2016

A7 Additional Fire Tender (Vava‟u) 1.00 P TAL N ?? ?? ??

A8 Resurfacing of Fua‟amotu runway, apron, taxiway (TAIP)

28.00 U TAL R WB TAIP ?? ??

A9 Expand apron area at Fua‟amotu 4.00 P TAL N ?? ?? ??

A10 Resurfacing of Vava‟u runway, apron, taxiway (TAIP)

4.00 C TAL R WB TAIP 2016 2016

A11 Resurfacing Ha‟apai runway, apron, taxiway 9.00 P TAL R China ? ?? ??

A12 Control Tower for Fua'amotu 5.00 P TAL N WB ? 2016 2016

A13 New Aircraft Hangar at Fua'amotu 2.00 P TAL N ?? ?? ?? 1)

New projects have numbers preceded by the year of introduction into the NIIP 2)

U= Underway, C= Committed, P=Proposed

3.2 Complementary measures

Table 8 reviews the 26 complementary measures documented in the NIIP2 and their current status of implementation.

Table 8: Complementary measures under the NIIP2 and their current status

Complementary Measures Completion

Status 1) Progress since NIIP 2

Multi Sector

Sustainability

Institutional reform to clarify/simplify responsibilities across all sectors Not significantly advanced

Develop and implement a national policy and strategy for strategic asset management Progress in the road sector under TSCP Road

Implement new arrangements for sustainable road maintenance funding and delivery (TSCP)

Underway for implementation under TSCP2

Update arrangements for managing and maintaining ports for inter-island shipping No progress. Navigation aids asset management developed

under TSCP maritime

Strengthen EIA system and capacity, and environmental monitoring Not significantly advanced

Safety

Upgrading and capacity development in maritime safety and pollution response Not significantly advanced

Update/upgrade maritime safety and pollution facilities; hydrographical charts, etc Some progress under TSCP Maritime

Resilience

Mainstream CCA/DRM into infrastructure planning, design, standards and management Implemented under Cyclone Ian rehabilitation measures


24

Complementary Measures Completion

Status 1) Progress since NIIP 2

Upgrade Meteorological services and capability Not significantly advanced

Improved arrangements for coordination of major projects with multi-sector implications Not significantly advanced

Cross sectoral

Institutional reform to clarify and simplify institutional responsibilities across all sectors Completed with the consolidation of the MEIDECC Ministry

Develop a national policy for Strategic Asset Management, that promotes asset management as a core function of agencies and incorporates a longer-term view of infrastructure needs and asset management

Partially advanced for the road and urban sectors under TSCP and NUDSP; Some PEs like TPL and TAL well equipped

Investigate the potential for establishing a multi-sector regulatory regime that reviews and make recommendations regarding pricing of common-user services (power, water, waste, telecom wholesaling

Waste fee is collected from the water bill in Nuku’alofa and possibly soon from the power bill in outer islands

Energy

Non-Infrastructure aspects of the Energy Roadmap

Policy, legal, regulatory reform supporting the Energy Road Completed under TERM

Research and feasibility studies of alternative energy sources (wind, wave, coconut oil, etc)

Underway. Study for wind power completed. Oher renewable still pending

Improved fuel supply chain logistics Not advanced

Other non-infrastructure aspects of the Energy Roadmap (DSM, etc) Completed under TERM

Telecom

Update the access/regulatory regime for telecoms sector Completed under TFSCP

Private sector and Government initiatives (e-Government) that take advantage of opportunities emerging from improved internet access

Study completed with the support of ICU from Korea

Water and Sanitation

Prepare a roadmap for the Water Sector that examines the full water cycle, including sanitation and drainage.

Not significantly advanced, except for drainage in part of Nuku’alofa under NUDSP

Solid Waste

Prepare a sector roadmap that addresses the institutional, financial and operational model for the sector and provides a 5 to 10 year investment plan

Not significantly advanced; National waste strategy from 2008 has not been yet updated

Transport Road

Develop private sector capacity for road maintenance (TSCP) Study of road maintenance fund has been completed under

TSCP road; expected to become operational under a planned TSCP 2 road

Transport Maritime

Implement new institutional/financial arrangements for sustainable management and maintenance of domestic ports.

Completed for ports under PAT responsibility

Post-harvest facilities for fishing and agricultural produce (handling, storage, processing)

Not significantly advanced; under the responsibility of MAFFF

Transport Aviation

Update the policy environment for domestic aviation Completed under TSCP

Post-harvest facilities (initial support under EU program) Not significantly advanced; Small study made by TAL 1) completed , work in progress , not advanced

Out of the 26 complementary measures listed in the NIIP2, 9 measures (35%) have been completed while another 8 are still work in progress. The remaining 9 measures have not yet been addressed including the development of national sectoral road maps for water and solid waste. The ICT, road and energy sectors as well as CCA and DRM resilience are areas where complementary measures have mostly been implemented as planned, due to the proactive approach taken by the DPs in advancing these infrastructures and their interest in securing sustainable use.

3.3 Performance of Public Enterprises

The bulk of economic infrastructure covered in the NIIP is managed by Public Enterprises (PEs) which strive to operate under sound commercial principles like in the private sector. With the exception of roads nationwide and ports outside Nuku’alofa, all other economic infrastructures covered by the NIIP2 are managed by PEs. Table 9 recaps the financial performance of PEs. Performance is generally good and since 2010 have steadily improved allowing them to become commercially efficient.

Table 9: Financial performance of Tongan PEs over the period 2010-2014

PE Equity (TOP

million)

Fixed Assets (TOP

millon)

Revenue (TOP

million)

NPAT (TOP

million)

Return on Assets

(%)

EBITDA (TOP

million)

Dividend (TOP

million)

Debt (TOP

million)

Energy - TPL: 2010 38.6 51.3 36.3 2.9 4.75% 4.55 1 22.07

Energy - TPL: 2014 55.6 79.6 46.0 7.9 8.52% 14.58 1.3 37.53

TPL Change 2010-2014 17.1 28.3 9.7 5.1 3.77% 10.0 0.3 15.5

Internet - TCC: 2010 46.1 38.4 28.5 0.2 0.34% 5.6 0.2 11.84

Internet - TCC: 2014 46.0 52.7 24.7 2.0 2.68% 6.44 1 27.14

TCC Change 2010-2014 (0.1) 14.3 (3.8) 1.8 2.34% 0.8 0.8 15.3

Water - TWB: 2010 2)

21.5 na 5.2 0.9 3.95% 1.5 0.02 1.13

Water - TWB: 2014 16.0 13.2 7.1 1.0 6.03% 2.99 0.5 1.89

TWB Change 2010-2014 2)

(5.5)

1.9 0.2 2.08% 1.5 0.5 0.8

Airports - TAL: 2010 34.9 35.1 6.5 (0.9) -2.40% 1.41 0.23 2.3

Airports - TAL: 2014 34.2 30.6 9.3 1.4 3.69% 4.2 0.68 3

TAL Change 2010-2014 (0.7) (4.4) 2.8 2.3 6.09% 2.8 0.5 0.7

Ports - PAT: 2010 15.3 18.3 7.1 0.5 2.60% 2.42 0.4 4.82

Ports - PAT: 2014 17.0 17.2 8.1 1.2 5.20% 3.59 0.59 5.78

PAT Change 2010-2014 1.7 (1.1) 1.0 0.6 2.60% 1.2 0.2 1.0

Telecom - TCL: 2010 1)

- - - - - - - -


25

Telecom - TCL: 2014 44.1 41.44 3.5 0.13 0.28% 0.95 0 0.45 1)

Solid Waste - WAL: 2010 na na 1.9 0.45 0.00% 0 0 0.45

Solid Waste - WAL: 2014 -0.06 2.9 1.89 0.087 2.77% 0.11 0 3.18

WAL Change 2010-2014 -0.06 2.9 -0.01 -0.363 2.77% 0.11 0 2.73 1)

TCL having been created only recently in 2013 no track records are available. 2)

Fixed assets values not known for the year 2010

On the basis of the snapshots between 2010 and 2014 provided by the indicators of table 9 (grey rows), the PEs are all in a financial good health. Even WAL which was long a laggard in terms of financial performance due to its limited capacity to collect solid waste fees from its customers, is now improving following a reshuffle of the CEO position. All PEs have significantly positive primary cash flows (EBITDA). They display improving and reasonably positive return on assets (between 2 and 8 %) and have positive Net Profit after Tax (NPAT) allowing them to pay dividends to the Government as main owner. Most PEs except TAL and PAT have enhanced their asset bases although they have also accumulated additional debts. CEOs of PEs are all confident that their debts to equity ratio (between 0.7 and 0.1) are manageable and that debt servicing is affordable. PEs are showing an increasingly robust capacity to self-fund small and even some medium-sized capital investments. Larger capital investments remain however beyond the financial capacity of PES and require DP sponsorship.

3.4 Mobilization of the private sector

There are encouraging positive examples of private sector engagement with the development and maintenance of public infrastructure. In the Telecom sector fixed telephone lines remain the monopoly of TCC which is a PE. On the other hand, the mobile phone sector is shared by two operators —TCC and the privately owned Digicel – with Digicel capturing 45 % of the market. Digicel is also active in internet service distribution with 30 % of the market. The maintenance of infrastructure managed by TCC and TCL (ICT sector) is also delegated to specialized international private companies through performance based schemes to be able to accommodate the rapid pace of technology change affecting the sector. Due to rapid technology change, it is inappropriate for the PEs to stock spare parts for maintenance that may become obsolete. The performance based agreements define ICT quality of services, reaction time for restoration in case of deficiency of installed infrastructure and others that these international insurance companies have to comply with. The upgrade/ change of technologies to ensure compliance with the terms of performance agreements is allowed. The private sector has also increased its role in the road sector. Following the recommendation of the TSCP, MOI has started contracting out all works linked to the maintenance and upgrading of roads. Three main private contractors are now sharing the market. This trend is expected to intensify in the future with the help of the road maintenance fund currently under deployment. In the aviation sector ground handling tasks at airports and few other minor airport maintenance jobs are contracted out to private companies under the oversight of TAL, the PE operating the airports. Future opportunities for the private sector are expected in three areas: (i) PPP models in sectors that have robust revenue potential (aviation, tourism, ICT), (ii) niche value adding services linked to new ICT technologies such as i-government, i-civil-society services or GIS based systems for infrastructure operation and maintenance and (iii) operational support, maintenance and upgrading works and services in traditional public infrastructure sectors with heavy operation and maintenance requirements (road, ports, water, waste). Tonga has a Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TCCI) which endeavours to advance the interests of private businesses. It promotes economic growth in the Kingdom of Tonga by:

Making representations to Government to improve the current business climate Creating training and learning opportunities for business people Fostering a mutually friendly atmosphere for networking amongst members Providing timely and adequate information on the business environment in Tonga


26

Since 2010, the TCCI has regular quarterly meetings between CEOs of governmental departments and the TCCI Council to strengthen communication and dialogue between public and private sector with the aim to open further private business opportunity also in connection with public infrastructure. Under the new TSDP II, a growing role is imparted to the private sector. The Pillar 1 which focuses on “economic institutions”, includes as targeted organizational outcomes (OOs) OO-1.2: Closer public/private partnerships for economic growth; OO-1.3 Strengthened business-enabling environment and OO-1.5 Better access to overseas trade, employment and foreign investment.

4 Infrastructure Expenditure and Funding

4.1 Capital expenditure since NIIP2

The estimated disbursement of capital expenditures in infrastructure projects between 2013 and 2015 is summarized in table 10. In the absence of accurate yearly data received from the MFNP or the sector ministries and the PEs for projects implemented in the period, a linear disbursement over the implementation period of each project was assumed in first approximation. According to table 10 the average absorptive capacity of the country in terms of capital investment in infrastructure over the three years appears to be limited to around TOP 80 million per year. This compares with an average of TOP 107 million per year targeted in the NIIP2 for the three-year period 2013-2015 which appears to have been then an optimistic estimation. The comparison of new versus rehabilitated investment is evenly balanced with 51 % of the capital invested dedicated to new capacity development and 49 % to the rehabilitation and renovation of existing infrastructure. This balance is being slowly tilted in new projects toward more rehabilitation (around 55%) and less new capacity (around 45%). Of the capital invested, GOT contributed 4.6 % essentially in terms of taxes rebates and import duties holiday for imported goods. The PEs contributed 28.2 %, and the contribution of the DPs was 67.2 % essentially in the form of grants although the loan element is expected to increase in the future due to the new WBG and ADB loan policy for Tonga.

Table 10: Infrastructure projects expenditures disbursement 2013 to 2015 (TOP million) 1)

Spread of Costs of implemented Projects

Expenditure disbursement 2012/13

Expenditure disbursement 2013/14

Planned Expenditure 2014/15

Remaining Planned Expenditure after 2014/15

GOT PE Grant Loan GOT PEs Grant Loan GOT PEs Grant Loan GOT PEs Grant Loan GOT PEs Grant Loan

26.24 78.30 409.5 5.00

2012/13

2012/13

2012/13

2012/13

2013/14

2013/14

2013/14

2013/14

2014/15

2014/15

2014/15

2014/15

2014/15

2014/15

2014/15

2014/15

4.57 3.01 59.18 0.00 4.97 32.58 72.09 0.00 1.87 33.58 33.71 0.00 11.29 6.89 210.3 8.00

519.01 66.76 109.63 69.16 236.48

1) Extracted from the detailed table of Annex 6

4.2 Maintenance expenditures

Most infrastructure assets on the books of PEs are valued but their maintenance expenditures are not clearly documented in the financial and annual reports received from the Ministry of Public Enterprises (MPE). The analysis of the level of spending by PEs on infrastructure maintenance and renewal is complicated by the way repair and maintenance is recorded in some accounts. Most PEs have in-house staff dedicated to maintenance which are accounted as salary costs. This artificially lower stated maintenance expenditures and make it more difficult to document the full cost. No accurate recent maintenance related dataset could be collected from the PEs for an assessment of the adequacy of their maintenance expenditures. For all infrastructure managed by the PEs, and with the exception of the replacement of some assets that may be counted as preventive maintenance, costs for maintenance are covered by revenues for services delivered. Based on available financial performance indicators reviewed above, the PEs appear to have generally an adequate capacity to finance the maintenance of their assets.


27

In the sectors managed by MOI (roads and maritime ports) the value of the assets is not on MOI books, but expenditure on maintenance and upgrading is captured in the budget and expenditure monitoring datasheets of the MFNP. The recent actual and budgeted level of maintenance expenditures of several Ministries including three “infrastructure-heavy” ministries i.e. (MOI: roads and ports outside Nuku’alofa, MOH: health and hospitals and MET: schools and education) as recorded in the MFNP books, are shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Maintenance expenditures of four Ministries in TOP / per year

Based on a rough estimation of managed asset values, MET, MOH and MOI appear to have maintenance expenditure in the range 1% to 2% of their asset values. MEIDECC is spending significantly less but oversees significantly less infrastructure. Maintenance budget and expenditures from “infrastructure- heavy” Ministries in particular MET and MOH appear to remain well below needs. According to World Bank literature

2 , appropriate but by no means generous standards are approximately 2% of the

replacement cost of the capital cost for electricity and roads, 2,5 % for schools or health related buildings, 3% for water and sanitation and about 8% for mobile and fixed communication systems. The NIIP2 suggested an overall maintenance budget of TOP 15 million per year across all NIIP2 sectors. Practically Ministries and PEs may jointly spend around half this amount signalling a significant and on the longer term harmful underspending in this context. Technically some progress can be recorded regarding asset maintenance and management. The Marine & Port Division under MOI has developed and strive to apply a maintenance plan for navigation aids for the period 2014-2016. The situation in the road sector under MOI is also improving. Based on the findings of the TSCP project, a new approach to road maintenance is being deployed that relies on a dedicated road fund with contracts for routine maintenance being awarded to private firms. The government has approved the establishment of a dedicated Road Fund to ensure the long-term sustainable maintenance of the road network. The Road Fund is being progressively implemented from the second half of 2013. When fully operational by 2017, it is expected to collect around TOP 6 to 7 million per year for spending on routine and periodic maintenance and upgrading of roads. Revenues sources for the fund include (i) all vehicle licence fees (from 2014/15 onwards), (ii) progressive increases in the vehicle licence fees from 1st January 2015 to 2016/17, (iii) progressive increases in the fuel excise from 1st January 2015 to 2016/17 . The WB and DFAT are contributing each around TOP 1 million as seed money to the fund to support its start-up phase.

2 Spending on Public Infrastructure, a Practitioner’s Guide, World Bank, 2011

Actual 2012/13

Actual 2013/14Budget 2014/15

- 200,000.00 400,000.00 600,000.00 800,000.00

1,000,000.00

1,200,000.00

1,400,000.00


28

5 Progress and Performance of NIIP Sectors

This chapter recaps the current progress and future orientation of infrastructure investment in the NIIP sectors. It also highlights important performance indicators recommended to be tracked to monitor progress and keep track of emerging needs for investment in the future, although currently none of these agencies (with the exception of TPL) are systematically tracking nor setting targets in this context in their corporate and business plans.

5.1 Energy

Access to electricity in Tonga is good with 78 % of the population on-grid and high levels of supply reliability. The exclusive reliance on diesel powered generation for on-grid services keeps the price of power relatively high (91 TOP/ KWh). System distribution losses are also high but steadily improving (now 9.64 %) due to a dedicated loss reduction programme run by TPL. There is currently only one unified power tariff for residential and commercial customers across all islands of the country. Although there is a discussion underway with the Government regarding the establishment of a lifeline tariff for poorer household, it has not been implemented. TPL is a well-managed PE which has a modern asset management plan in place. It is investing heavily from its own resources to rehabilitate the electricity generation and supply system to increase efficiency and safety. Particular efforts are made to increase the renewable share of energy sources to advance toward the target set in the TERM road map of 50 % of energy from renewable resources by 2020. Significant capacity has already been installed in solar solution on-grid and off-grid essentially in Nuku’alofa (2.4 MW) at two sites but also in the outer islands (0.42 MW). TPL is now turning its attention to wind. 2 times 2 MW of wind power are expected to be installed in the next couple of years in Nuku’alofa with the support JIC and NZ-MFAT. An 11 KW micro-wind turbine will also be tested in Ha’apai. The main remaining challenge besides increasing the share of renewable toward the TERM target is the upgrade of the supply system (generation and distribution) to reduce losses would help reduce tariffs. In terms of complementary measures it may be necessary to explore the feasibility of further use of renewable energy (biomass, coconut oil, tidal waves, etc.). For example, TPL has outline concepts for a biomass project in ‘Eua and for using coconut oil. More in depth feasibility studies are necessary to ascertain the viability of the options available.

Important performance indicators worth tracking and documenting in NIIP monitoring reports for the energy sector are set out in table 11.

Table 11: Performance indicators for the power sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/ 2014

Sources of data PIPIs 2011 TPL Figures

Access: Outreach % of total households 78.1 78.3

Affordability: Tariff residential TOP/ KWh 50 91

Energy Use: Renewable Share % of energy use >1 % 5% (now 7.5%)

Electricity Sold: Household GWh/ year 17.9 19.8

Installed Capacity MW 15.3 16.6

Share of installed renewable capacity % of capacity ? 17 %

Maximal Demand MW 7.7 8.2

Minimal Demand MW 3.1 1.9

Gross Generation (total) MWh/year 45,214 47,169

Length of Distribution Network Km n.a. 186

Distribution Losses % (target 5%) 12.34 9.64

Fuel Consumption KWh/liter n.a. 4.28

Number of Employees # 104 135

Number of Customers # 14000 15195

5.2 ICT

Competition and private sector involvement in the telecommunication sector has been a strong force driving development in the country.


29

The government TCL created two years ago for the international cable connection, which successfully managed and completed the cable connection between Fiji and Nuku’alofa with the support of WBG and ADB. The completion of the undersea fibre-optic link to Fiji delivered a step-change in speed, capacity, and quality off-setting some of the geographical disadvantage experienced by the country and creating new economic and social opportunities A remaining amount of about TOP 10 million from the Fiji-Nuku’alofa cable connection is available for extending the network to the outer islands of Ha’apai and Vava’u. This is expected to cost TOP 24 million. Discussions are ongoing between TCL, WBG and ADB how to mobilize the funding gap which both IFIs want to be a mix of grant and loan. Once the cable link between Nuku’alofa and the outer islands is established, the distribution to the villages will be deployed in the outer island by TCC. Besides the internet, radio communication can play an important role to send messages to remote outer islands communities especially in connection with disaster management. Some of the infrastructure supporting this role is but currently in locations that are at high risk from natural disasters and flooding. A challenge being therefore addressed is the continuation of reliable AM radio coverage throughout the country under all conditions and the strengthening of the CCA/DRM resilience of this and other telecommunications media. Significant performance indicators worth tracking and documenting in NIIP monitoring reports for the ICT sector are reflected in table 12.

Table 12: Performance indicators for the ICT sector

Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/

2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011 2013 WBG

Access: Fixed Lines #/ 100 people 25 28.6

Access: Mobile Subscriptions #/ 100 people 48.73 53.4

Access: Fixed Broadband Subscribers #/ 100 people 0.7 1.4

Affordability: Telecom. Service Price/ Fixed Line % of Aver. Monthly Income 17.5 6.4

Affordability: Telecom. Service Price/ Mobile % of Aver. Monthly Income 11.9 11.0

Affordability: Telecom. Service Price/ Internet % of Aver. Monthly Income ? 62.3

Competition: Number of Service Providers # 2 2

Quality: International Internet Bandwidth per Person bits/ person 1,429 2,733

5.3 Water and sanitation

Many Tongans use a mix of rain water harvesting and piped water supply from water supply. All Tongans have access to reasonably clean drinking water and around 95 % of households in urban areas have reliable and continuous public piped water supply. There is currently only one unified water tariff for all customers connected to the five water distribution networks managed by TBW. TWB manages over 11,350 water connections and serves 61 % of the population spread over 5 separate schemes in Tongatapu and the main outer islands (Ha’apai, Vava’u and ‘Eua). The TWB has sufficient production capacity from its well fields to meet demand although some problems persist in outer islands due to the shallowness of some water lenses that can be exploited for water supply (Nuiafo’ou island). In Nuku’alofa the implementation of the NUDSP supported by ADB and DFAT is radically improving the water supply system. It is a work in progress expected to lead to improved efficiency of pumps and treatment systems as well as a reduction of non-revenue water in the distribution system which is currently more than 50 % of total supply.. In the outer islands water distribution systems are being improved gradually, partially self-financed by TWB (‘Eua water supply) and partially with the help of development partners especially JICA. TWB has water safety plans for each of its 5 technical schemes and is in the process to establish an asset management plan. Tonga does not currently have any central sewerage nor a drainage system in any urban area. Pollution issues related to disposal of grey water and septage (sludge pumped from septic tanks) are becoming more prominent and are likely to require a coordinated response in the short-medium term starting with Nuku’alofa. Important future initiatives in this sector would include the continued improvement of water supply in outer islands and the extension of the Nuku’alofa system in new urbanized areas. This may become the focus of a NUDSP2 project after the completion of the current NUDSP project which is planned to end in 2016.


30

The development of a sectoral water supply master plan especially for the outer islands and the rural villages not yet connected to the TWB systems has become a necessity. The sector plan should examine the full water cycle, including waste water, sanitation, and drainage in urban areas, include a long-term agenda for development and investment and a comprehensive drainage strategy for Nuku’alofa with an investment plan for the next 10 years. Key performance indicators worth tracking and documenting in NIIP monitoring reports for the water and sanitation sector are reflected in table 13.

Table 13: Performance indicators for the water and sanitation sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011, PWWA 2011 PWWA 2013

Number of Water Connection # 11,196 11,315

Population served # 61,608 62,338

Number of schemes # 5 5

Length of pipes km 164 165

Volume Produced 1000 m3/year 4922 3947

Number of drinking water safety plan in use number 5 5

Customer complaints number/year 122 986

Average water tariff TOP/m3 119 106

Volume of water produced - total produced from sources and treatment kl/conn/day 1.2 0.96

Volume of water produced l/capita/day 219 173

Volume of water sold (i.e. billed) - through meters or estimated unmetered kl/conn/day 0.89 0.74

Volume of water sold (i.e. billed) l/capita/day 163 135

Volume of sewage produced - total kl/conn/day none none

Volume of sewage produced l/capita/day none none

Continuity of water supply service (hours available) hours/day 24 22

Non-Revenue Water % of water produced 26 22

Non-Revenue Water kl/km/day 7.7 5.7

Sewerage coverage % of population N/A

Drinking water quality compliance - residual chlorine % compliance 93 97

Drinking water quality compliance - microbiological % compliance 88 97

% of sewage produced which is treated to at least primary standard % of sewage none none

Customer complaints per 1000 connections number/1000 connections 11 87

Affordability new connection % of GNI per capita 2.4 2.7

Affordability - average bill % of GNI per capita 1 1.1

Affordability – bill for 6kL/month/connection % of GNI per capita 0.5 0.4

5.4 Solid waste management

WAL, the PE responsible for solid waste management and septage treatment and disposal in the country was created in 2007. Under the NUDSP, WAL is responsible for the development of a second cell at the Tapuhia landfill site to accommodate waste for the next 10 years together with an upgrading of disposal of sewage sludge there. Efficient sanitary arrangements for sanitary disposal of solid waste are not in place on other islands, except for Vava’u where a formal dumpsite exists. Under the Cyclone Ian rehabilitation initiative the WBG is considering supporting a solid waste management solution for the Ha’apai islands group. A feasibility study being now commissioned should clarify the best option between a landfill site in Ha’apai or the periodic transport of the waste to the main landfill site in Nuku’alofa. Due to the limited number of household there (around 700), it is feared that establishing a landfill site in Ha’apai may not be financially viable for WAL. WAL, under a new leadership for about a year, has dramatically improved its performance. The main issue remains how to convince customers to pay for the services. Following the combining bills for water and waste the situation has improved in urban areas (65 %) while the collection rate in rural areas remains low (15 %). Combining bills for power and waste in rural areas is now being explored as a possible approach to address this issue. On Vava’u, the existing dumpsite is being upgraded with assistance from the Government of Japan to improve its environmental performance. It is still a temporary measure, because the existing facility is at a vulnerable seaside location. In the longer term, relocation to a new, and safer, site where a engineered sanitary landfill facility can be constructed will be necessary. Addressing the challenges facing the solid waste sector will require a new comprehensive sector plan to replace the incomplete national plan dating from 2008. Future investments are likely to include additional steps in the WAL equipment renewal program (septage trucks, compactor, etc), a weighbridge at Tapuhia; and the refurbishment/expansion of facilities to increase capacity to treat septage at Tapuhia.


31

Main performance indicators worth tracking and documenting in NIIP monitoring reports for the solid waste sector are reflected in table 14.

Table 14: Performance indicators for the solid waste sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011 WAL data

Access: Access to Regular Waste Collection (Urban) % Urban Population 73 80

Access: Frequency of Household Waste Collection collection/ week 1 1

Sustainability: Recycling Services and Waste Sorting PET; metals: cans; others metals: cans e-waste, metals, cans

Quality: Environmental Standards of Landfills Sanitary landfill/ dumpsite 1 sanitary landfill/ dumpsites 1 sanitary landfill / dumpsites

Efficiency: Cost Recovery Collection Fee; % collected Fee exist; 6 % collected Urban 65 %; Rural 15 %

5.5 Roads

Tonga’s network of roads comprises some 930 km of which around 60 % is paved. In many areas the condition of roads has deteriorated significantly due to insufficient emphasis on maintenance. Government is addressing this problem by implementing several road rehabilitation programs with support of WBG and ADB. In total, around 200 km of roads have been rehabilitated over the last five years, predominantly on Tongatapu as part of the TSCP. While some trunk road (causeways) improvement projects have also been implemented in outer islands, other branches of the network continue to be degraded especially in outer islands and along agricultural roads. The main task ahead is to accelerate the process of progressively clearing the backlog of road repairs and rehabilitate the road system to a standard where it can be sustainably maintained in a cost-effective way using the recently established Road Fund. In the longer term there is no need for many new roads except for the agricultural sector, and the development of an agricultural road program to support agricultural commerce and access to market may be considered by ADB. Thus, once the backlog is cleared the focus could shift to using effective road construction technologies to reduce life cycle costs and applying GIS and other IT solutions to improve maintenance responsiveness. Given the vulnerability of Tonga to natural disaster, priority for upgrading is also being given to roads that could act as evacuation routes in times of natural disaster, or could be developed to incorporate a coastal protection function. Performance indicators worth tracking and documenting in NIIP monitoring reports for the road sector are reflected in table 15.

Table 15: Performance indicators for the road sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011 MOI Road data

Access: Total Road Network km 680 ? 930

Access: Paved Roads km 184 ? 560

Access: Unpaved Roads km 496 ? 370

Access: Paved Roads as % of Total Road % 27.1 ? 60

Access: Ratio of road network in good and fair condition % n.a. n.a.

Access: Road Density km/ km2 0.95 ? 1.2

Access: Population Density people/ km2 171 ? 140.8

Access: Private Motor Vehicle Registrations cars ? 4270

Access: Private Motor Vehicle Registrations vans and pick-ups ? 4828

Access: Private Motor Vehicle Registrations trucks ? 1972

Access: Private Motor Vehicle Registrations others ? 282

Access; current gas tax % of gas price % ? ?

5.6 Marine & ports

The maritime sector remains fragmented between PAT, the PE in charge of the Queen Salote International and domestic wharves at Nuku’alofa, and the Marine & Port Division (MPD) under MOI in charge of all the other ports and facilities in Tongatapu and in the outer islands. According to the Tonga Transport Sector Review updated in 2012, the existing ports have sufficient capacity for foreseeable needs and there are no plans to build any new ports for commercial shipping operations. Although the port system meets basic needs for coverage, capacity, and compliance with regulation, the standard of infrastructure has suffered from a lack of investment in core infrastructure and facilities and insufficient emphasis on maintenance in outer-island ports and channels.


32

For the medium-longer term, the pipeline of investment planning is weak. A good sector plan for development is not available. Important tasks are the development of an integrated approach to enhance the overall safety, efficiency, and resilience of the port system as a whole. An important task is building resilience to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters. With sea levels predicted to rise and cyclones expected to become more intense, ports are especially at risk. Ensuring that ports can withstand these impacts to secure continuity of shipping services is a high priority task. The MPD has lined up a number of smaller projects in this direction. These include: (i) the upgrading of berths and related shore facilities to be more resilient to CCA & DRM, (ii) the upgrading of navigational aids and channel/ mooring markers, and the updating hydrographical charts, (iii) the dredging of channels and berths to increase safety in all weathers, (iv) the building of local capacity and systems for enhanced maritime safety oversight; and (v) the revitalising local training programs for seafarers and the associated facilities. Some of these investments may be incorporated into a TSCP2 project now being considered by the WBG. Another major priority for the maritime sector is to update institutional arrangements for managing, maintaining, and financing the outer island ports. As noted above, responsibility for outer islands port operations is with the MOI, but this is inconsistent with the MOI’s regulatory role in the maritime sector. A complementary initiative may be to develop or improve post-harvest facilities (handling, storage, and processing) at ports so that fishing and agricultural produce can be processed and stored for export markets. Major performance indicators worth tracking and documenting in NIIP monitoring reports for the ports/ marine sector are provided in table 16.

Table 16: Performance indicators for the marine sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011/ PAT data PAT data

Access: Number of Main Ports # 3 3

Trade Tonnes 235,197 250,664

Containers Throughput (TEUs) 12,047 14,751

Vessel Arrivals # 169 161

Efficiency/Productivity: Cargo Handling Equipment Forklifts Forklifts

Efficiency: Private Ownership of Port Terminal no no

Efficiency: Private Participation Ground Handling no no

5.7 Aviation & airports

All commercial airports in Tonga are managed by TAL. The existing commercial airports provide sufficient coverage to all island groups, and at this stage, there are no plans to build any additional airports. Domestic air transport to outer islands is currently provided by Real Tonga Airlines, a locally based airline which with the help of leased aircrafts initially from China and now from New Zealand took over in 2013 from the bankrupted Airlines Tonga. The airports have sufficient capacity for expected growth in passenger demand, but the length condition of runways limit the operation of larger aircrafts. In addition much of the infrastructure assets are either nearing the end of their useful lives or require upgrade to continue to meet international and national safety and security standards. Tonga continues to meet required service standards and complies with most International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requirements. For some requirement it has been granted a temporary exemption during a transition period. The runway and associated aprons and taxiways at Ha’apai will require resurfacing within the next five years to ensure safe ongoing operations for aircraft types/sizes likely to operate to Ha’apai and for compliance with ICAO requirements. Safety, security, and continuity of service are the key imperatives driving investment and reform in the sector. In the medium-longer term, additional investments will be required to maintain compliance with increasingly stringent industry safety and security requirements; to ensure that current aircraft types and new international and domestic aircraft likely to be used on Tonga services can operate safely and without weight restrictions. This will be important to keep Tonga competitive as an exporter and international travel destination.


33

One major challenge is to ensure that a supportive policy and institutional environment is in place for competitive and stable international and domestic air services. Given the vast distances between island groups, it may need to involve community service obligation (CSO) for non-commercial air services. It is also to ensure that the necessary skills and qualifications for effective oversight of international safety and security standards are available in Tonga. This will require ongoing capacity building initiatives to keep pace with aviation market developments, high industry standards and rapid technology change. Another complementary initiative may be to develop post-harvest facilities (handling, storage, and processing) so that perishable fishing and agricultural produce can be processed and stored for export markets. Performance indicators worth tracking and documenting in NIIP monitoring reports for the airports/ aviation sector are reflected in table 17.

Table 17: Performance indicators for the aviation sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011 TAL data

Access: Number of Operational Airports (Paved) # 1 4

Access: Number of Operational Airports (Unpaved) # 5 2

Access: Inbound Flights per Week Inbound flights / week 16 16

Access: Inbound Seats per Week International seats/ week 2100 2200

Access: National Airlines Carrier Airlines Tonga no

Access: Other Airlines Carriers 2 Real Tonga Airlines

Access: XXXXXXXXX Air Services no no

Affordability: International Air Freight Rates TOP/kg 640 ?

Efficiency: Private Ownership of Airport no no

Efficiency: Private Ownership of Terminal no no

Efficiency: Private Participation Ground Handling yes yes

5.8 Multi-sectoral (CCA & DRM)

The multi-sector type of projects addressed in Tonga involves essentially CCA and DRM which are particularly sensible in Tonga because of the vulnerability of the islands to natural disaster and climate change impacts. The Joint Action Plan on Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management 2010-2015 (JNAP) which has been prepared with assistance from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Applied Geoscience and Technology Division of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC-SOPAC), and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is nearing completion. Coastal Protection for Eastern Tongatapu has been completed. It is being complemented by a Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (CRSP) for the country supported by ADB which has been prepared under the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) process as well as actions in Tonga under the regional Pacific Resilience Program (REP) supported by the WBG and UNDP. The objective addressed by JNAP and now by CRSP and PREP is to ensure that potential CCA/DRM impacts are considered in all aspects of infrastructure planning, design, construction, and management and that Tonga is adequately prepared to respond quickly and effectively to disasters when they happen. Upcoming projects involve a range of infrastructure to support disaster response coordination and capacity and to support community evacuation prior to natural disaster events. This will provide more resilient facilities for the National Emergency Management Office (NEMO), climate-proof disaster command centres, improved inter-island communications and the infrastructure required to support implementation of the Tongatapu Tsunami Evacuation Plan.

5.9 Asset management issues

Another cross-sectoral priority is the improvement of asset management, and especially the maintenance of public infrastructure. Most PEs have or are in the process of developing more effective maintenance programs and asset management plans. The challenge is to deepen the effort being made by some PEs (such as TWB, TCC, TBC and PAT) and extend it to infrastructure that is not in the remit of PEs (roads and ports).

user

Cross-Out

user

Replacement Text

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)

user

Cross-Out

user

Replacement Text

will be completed by 2015.

user

Cross-Out

user

Replacement Text

PREP


34

A brief survey of the capacity of PEs and MOI (roads) to manage their fixed assets was carried out during the review. The survey assessed the existence and level of maturity of a number of asset management functions against benchmarks defined in the edition 2011 of the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) published by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA) (see Annex 8 for details). The assessment included 17 core functions from policy development to level of services, asset register data and condition, financing and funding down to planning, quality management and asset management teams with scoring varying from 0 when the function was inexistent or not documented to 5 when the function was considered “advanced” according to the IIMM benchmark description. TPL (power) which has a commitment to continuity of services and TAL (aviation) which needs to meet high international safety and security standards are both operating reasonably mature and efficient asset management plans. Indeed, TPL is considered in the country as the leader in asset management practice and has been invited by MPE to train staff of other PEs in order to help them develop more robust asset management plans. The other PEs appears to have weaker asset management plans covering only minimal requirements compared to the IIMM benchmarks. Asset management functions that are the most developed include having an asset register and documented procedures for decision making. Least developed functions include having a documented formal asset management policy and information about the assets condition. MOH (Health) and MET (Education) which are both legally responsible for the buildings they operate, have both developed in the last 5 years an inventory of their fixed assets and their values. Both have dedicated staff to such a task. While the inventory datasheets received appears to be comprehensive, it is unclear to which extend these two ministries are moving toward exploiting the collected information to practically improve their asset management and maintenance plans. The Ministry of Public Enterprises (MPE) has in 2013/14 launched an initiative to encourage the PEs to improve their asset management capacity and required them to prepare formal asset management plans and submit them for review to the Ministry. Not all the PEs have submitted such comprehensive plans to the MPE and it is unclear if the PEs are thoroughly applying the process and procedures reflected in those plans. Future improvement of asset management practices in Tonga for Ministries and PEs managing infrastructure could be encouraged by a strengthened NIIP policy framework. An improved framework could focus the mind of infrastructure planners and operators by requiring them to have separate maintenance budget lines in their accounts and document separately and more accurately in their corporate & business plans and reports their assets management tasks and performance. This could entail more detailed data about their assets, values and depreciation tiered by assets classes, comprehensive figures of maintenance expenditures including material, staff and preventive maintenance costs and some asset management KPIs. Some KPIs could be financial such as maintenance expenditures over assets values by assets classes. Other could be technical and organizational and linked to the current state of selective maintenance operation against good practice such as the IIMM benchmarks. As part of the rehabilitation following the damage caused by the cyclone Ian in Ha’apai, the WBG helped strengthen the design of housing and building standards that are meant to be systematically applied in the future across the country. This strengthening of the building code may help lower future infrastructure maintenance costs especially for MOH and MET which are managing large numbers of standard types of buildings across the country.

6 Effectiveness of the NIIP as a Planning Process

6.1 Infrastructure planning and budgeting framework

The stocktaking exercise of the progress of the NIIP2 implementation documented in previous paragraphs, paints a mixed picture regarding the effectiveness of the NIIP process in fulfilling its potential as lead public sector investment plan to guide the development of economic infrastructure in Tonga.


35

The NIIP is the only framework available currently in Tonga to develop a Public Sector Investment Plan. It is an official document approved by GOT through the Cabinet and is mentioned as infrastructural sector plan in the TSDF II under the MOI. All DPs welcome the availability of the NIIP and are using it as main reference document to guide their choices of projects to sponsor. On the other hand, the current NIIP process suffers from some shortcomings. There is a limited awareness of the NIIP 2 priority projects lists by the sector Ministries and the PEs. A number of projects are initiated and advanced outside the NIIP. Of the twelve new projects (not included in NIIP2), three have been committed by DPs and two are already under implementation. This is a project advancement rate of 45 % in number (34 % in value) which is comparable if not superior to the advancement of projects listed in NIIP2 (37 % in number and 26 % in value) within a two-year period. Project listed as low priority proposed investment in the NIIP2 are also moving ahead toward commitment and implementation at nearly the same pace than high priority investment. This raises issues regarding the adequacy of the applied MCA prioritization methodology. Areas where improvements could be made include (i) improved robustness of the MCA through the use of quantitative project benefit data so far available and possible, (ii) stronger involvement of sectoral decision makers in the project scoring and cross-sectoral prioritization process to enhance ownership of priority projects by sector agencies and (iii) enhanced linkages of projects to sector plans and corporate plans, The coordination of the development of the projects listed in the NIIP may also not be adequately managed by the planning and budgeting divisions of the MFNP. Although MFNP has the responsibility for this task, it may not have sufficient technical expertise and may need to coordinate with competences available at MOI. The Projects and Aid Management Division (PAM) of MFNP is in charge of monitoring financially the development and disbursement of all types of projects (budget support, studies, TAs and investments) that involve ODA funding with the help of a Projects Tracking Database (PTD) that is meant to document all ODA assisted recurrent costs and receipts, However, it does not seem to track and monitor infrastructure projects development in a systematic way. . Several infrastructure projects appear not to be fully documented in the PTD, partly due its inability to track in-kind contribution of DPs. Sector Ministries have very limited planning capacity and lack (with the exception of the energy sector) recently updated master plans or road maps for the medium term planning and programming of infrastructure. Most ministerial corporate plans fail to lists and document ongoing and upcoming infrastructure development projects. Annual reports are missing hard data about infrastructure development and focus essentially on recurrent staff development and expenditures.

6.2 Projects development and processing

For most proposed projects there is no more available than the brief description included in the Appendices of the NIIP2. Often, the development of a Project Information Document (PID) for an infrastructure project is communicated to PAM for entering into the PTD database only after a DP has committed itself to the project. The procedure defined in the project cycle management manual of PAM for managing the PTD requires an entry into the PTD as soon as a project concept has been screened and vetted by the Project and Aid Coordination Committee (PACC) even if no DP is involved. Such late project documentation process may affect the ability to build the NIIP as a pipeline of proposed priority projects that can be submitted to DPs for consideration ahead of their commitment to them. Justification of projects demand is difficult to find. This could in first approximation be improved on the basis of sectoral performance indicators that allow the tracking of trends that signal emerging demand. Expected project benefits in terms of economic, social or environmental returns are not well documented either, possibly because of the current limited space available for such information in the PTD database (one single excel cell) and the PID template (brief words only). More robust benefits information tends to become available only after a feasibility study is developed mostly with support of the interested DP. At that stage, the DP is usually already committed to the project and need the feasibility study and the associated NPV analysis to clarify the least cost project technical option.


36

Finally tentative project implementation timing remains optimistic and fails to take into account the complete and lengthy project cycle steps (feasibility study, competitive bidding, etc.) to be fulfilled to take account of DP processing requirements,.

6.3 Cross-sectoral project prioritization

NIIP2 relied for the prioritization of projects across sectors on a documented multi criterion assessment methodology which ranked the projects according to their performance against a series of criteria spanning economic, social, environmental, CCA/DRM resilience as well as sustainability factors. The assessment well documented in qualitative terms seems to have been underpinned with scant quantitative data about the projects especially for the proposed projects without DP commitment. In addition the prioritization process appears to have been essentially driven by the consulting team developing the NIIP report before a presentation to the NIIP working group for review, comment and endorsement.

6.4 Additional infrastructural sectors (Education and Health)

The NIIP has a clear focus on economic infrastructure, and by design omits two sectors that comprise social infrastructure—health and education. The Ministry of Health (MOH) manages a number of hospitals and dispensaries across the country and the Ministry of Education of Training (MET) in charge of all the schools of the country. Both are considered social services, although their contribution to the productive economic vibrancy of the country is certainly significant and could even be higher than some of the economic sectors. Their social characterization may be linked to their difficulty in raising revenues for services rendered. These two sectors are supported by a number of PRIF partners, in particular JICA, EU and ADB for MOH and DFAT for MET. The paragraphs below briefly summarize the infrastructure and projects managed by these two important Ministries that the Government would like to see included in future update of the NIIP under the label NIIP+.

Ministry of Health (MOH) Table 18 lists the main facilities and buildings managed by MOH. This include the new Vaiola hospital which covers some 20 wards and units covering a number of key branches of surgery, general medicine and pharmacy necessary for a country like Tonga. It was recently completed with support of JICA.

Table 18: Infrastructure managed by MOH

Tongapatu Ha’apai

MOH Administration Building Niu'ui Hospital

Vaiola Hospital Ha'afeva Health Center Old Vaiola Hospital Nomuka Health Center

Nukunuku Health Center Lotofoa Health Center Houma Health Center Uiha Health Center Mu'a Health Center Ha'ano Health Center Vaini Health Center Hihifo,Tongoleleka Health Center Kolonga Health Center Vava’u Fua'amotu Health Center Ngu Hospital Kolovai Health Center Falevai Health Center Nuiafo’ou Tefisi Health Center

Tu'akifalelei Health Center Ta'anea Health Center Nuiatoputapu Hunga Health Center

Likamonu Health Center Longomapu Health Center

Eua

Niu'eiki Hospital

According to an internal inventory developed by MOH in the last couple of years, the asset value of the buildings alone amount to TOP 61.2 million not counting the equipment installed at the Vaiola hospitals. Infrastructure project currently developed or proposed by MOH are shown in table 19.

Table 19: List of infrastructure projects addressed by MOH


37

Project name Dev.

Partners

Estimated Cost

(TOP million) Status

New Ha'apai Hospital (Niu'ui) ADB 4.0 U

New Niuatoputapu Hospital (Likamonu) EU 2.25 U

Ha'apai Land fill/Waste Disposal Site JICA 6.0 U

Replacing of Asbestos Roofing at Vava'u Hospital (Prince Wellington Ngu) 0.37 P

Eua Hospital (Niu'eiki) Perimeter fence 0.22 P

Niuafo'ou Hospital (Tu'akifalelei) Perimeter fence 0.10 P

Ha'apai Staff Quarters (5) 2.0 P

Ministry of Education and Training (MET) Table 20 lists the main infrastructure under the oversight of MET

Table 20: Current list of infrastructure managed by MET

Classes Number of

pupils/ students

Estimated Number of Building

Primary Schools

"1-6" Pupils 17275 503 (inclusive teacher housing)

Secondary Schools

"7-10" Students 9653

456 (inclusive TVET)

Senior High schools

"10-13" Student 4773

Vocational Schools

Students 407

Under the Tonga Education Support Programme (TESP) supported by NZ-MFAT and the WBG a survey of the schools was deployed to assess the state of these buildings and the demand for investment and renovation. The main conclusion of the report highlighted a general state of disrepair in many school buildings caused by the initial poor quality of construction and more significantly the lack of maintenance after construction. The most common problems appear to be the roofs and roof structures which are the most vulnerable elements in case of bad weather and cyclone. Other structural problems highlighted by the survey included inadequate foundations and foundation bracing, cracked floors and earthquake damage to floors and walls. In terms of sanitation and water supplies the survey also identified major shortcomings. Many schools do not have a dependable water supply all the year round whether they receive their water from a town supply or from rainwater storage tanks. Large numbers of primary schools have either no toilets or insufficient numbers of functioning toilets. Several schools have flush toilets not connected to a constant water supply.

6.5 Conclusion

In conclusion it appears that the NIIP as now deployed in Tonga only moderately influences infrastructure programming in Tonga and may fall short in fulfilling its potential as lead public sector investment plan and program for economic infrastructure development. Measures that would help improve the situation could encompass: Encouraging the development or updating of sector plans and road maps focusing essentially on (i)

sector objectives, (ii) operational strategies to sustain or improve the efficiency of available assets for users and beneficiaries, and (iii) warrant CCA and DRM proofing of available infrastructure.

Promoting the systematic use of a limited number of simple while pertinent sectoral performance indicators that can be easily and consequently tracked over time to document sectoral trends and emerging demand for action (see Annex 9 for the list of recommended sectoral indicators).

Ensuring the NIIP is operated as a process which frequently (yearly) updates the pipeline of proposed priority projects available to DPs for sponsorship to stay abreast of changing conditions.

Requiring the ministries and PEs to insist on the presence of a project in the NIIP project pipeline database as a condition “sine qua non” for sponsorship.


38

Deepening the documentation of proposed project with quantitative data to better raise the interest of DPs and allow an objective scoring and ranking of project across sectors (see Annex 10).

Refining the MCA project prioritization methodology to allow an assessment dovetailing into the objectives and targeted outcomes of the current TSDF II (see Annexes 11 and 12).

Involving more actively the NIIP working group and the Project and Aid Coordination Committee (PACC) in the prioritization and scoring of priority projects offered to DP sponsorship. The PACC which select every type of ODA assisted project is chaired by the Minister of Finance and National Planning and members are CEOs from key ministries. These are overlapping somehow with the NIIP working group which focus on infrastructure only.

Promoting the yearly publication of a brief NIIP implementation monitoring report to track infrastructure project implementation progress and strengthen the coordination of the DPs interest under the leadership of the Government (see Annex 13).

7 The Way Forward for Infrastructure Planning

7.1 NIIP process strengthening

A number of gaps of the current application of the NIIP in Tonga were already identified in the findings of the May 2013 PRIF report “Review and Assessment of National Infrastructure Investment Plans Prepared for Pacific Island Countries”. Table 21 lists operational gaps identified during this review together with recommended measures to strengthen the NIIP and maximize its potential as infrastructure planning framework.

Table 21: Gaps of the NIIP application and recommended improvement measures

Issues Identified Gaps Recommended Measures

Planning and Budgeting Framework

Rules, regulation and manuals

Project management cycle manual and rules existing that mix together all types of ODA supported projects (budget support, TAs, studies, grants, investments, etc.).

Reinforce the NIIP as the national public sector investment program policy framework dedicated to capital public investment and their sustainable operation and maintenance.

Planning and budgeting instruments

TSDF as overarching policy document defines sectoral organizational outcomes without specific projects, timeframes, priorities or links to expenditure. Project planning and programming is left to sector ministries in corporate plans and to PEs in business plans for integration into the MTEF template before consolidation into the yearly budgeting process

Strengthen NIIP specific tools dedicated to infrastructure project planning, programming and budgeting. (Infrastructure project document template; Multi annual infrastructure budgeting tool within the MTEF, sustainable maintenance planning and budgeting for infrastructure, etc.).

Role and contribution of the NIIP

NIIP as only framework for public investment planning framework is limited to utilities and transportation only. Currently applied as an externally (consultant) driven process reviewed and approved by Tongan decision makers.

Embed the NIIP in the national policy framework for public infrastructure development. Add Health and Education as “Infrastructure -Heavy sectors into the NIIP as NIIP+.

Project Development Process

Project initiator and driver

Officially the sector ministries and PEs are the drivers of projects, often after initial discussion with and encouragement by DPs.

Prescribe infrastructure planning and programming chapters with guiding templates in corporate/ business plans and annual reports.

Demand and need assessment

Frequent absence of up-to-date sector plans and road maps to guide sector objectives and strategies for sustainable and efficient operation. Absence of tracked sectoral performance indicators to underpin sectoral gaps, needs and demands.

Encouraging the periodic development /update of sectoral plans and road maps while spreading the cost among different DPs (given the small size of the country and the multiplicity of DPs involved costs per sector would become marginal); Encouraging the systematic and annual tracking, monitoring and reporting of simple and salient sectoral performance indicators.

Project documentation Current Project Information Document (PID) applied by PAM is incomplete and insufficiently quantitative for infrastructure projects profiling.

Develop enhanced infrastructure specific project dataset (PPD) to complement the PID. PPD to include quantitative information about project demand, preparedness, timing, costs, funding and benefits.

Project benefits Absence of any quantitative information about project benefits

Include in the proposed PPD quantitative information about expected economic (employment, local procurement) benefits and environmental and social impacts.

Project submission and approval

Existing procedure for all types of ODA supported projects involves the submission to PAM of a PID, a screening by PAM, iterative submission to PACC for screening and prioritization and to CEDC for final approval

Upgrade and streamline approval procedures for infrastructure projects taking into account the PACC, the NIIP working group and CEDC to minimize redundancy of procedures and avoid duplication.

NIIP cross sectoral project prioritization and selection

Responsible agency for coordination

Currently coordinated by PAM under the Aid Management Database or Project Tracking Database (PTD) for all types of ODA supported projects

Consider enhancing the PID for infrastructure to take into account the PPD dataset. Include PPD data into the PTD or as an option create a separate Infrastructure Projects Database (IPD) modelled along the PTD template while adapted to infrastructure projects to be managed by PAM.

Prioritization methodology

Cross sectoral prioritization based on an MCA methodology taking into account semi-qualitatively economic, environmental, social and CCA & DRM resilience aspects of projects. Consultant driven process reviewed and endorsed by the NIIP working group

Keep projects prioritization within a sector by line ministry. Strengthen projects prioritization across sectors with the help of a semi-quantitative MCA methodology based on quantitative projects data contained in the PDD; Internalize the project prioritization process with simplified tools and procedures under the oversight of the NIIP working group and the PACC.

Priority list updating Project priority updating limited to periodic formal NIIP updating process by external consultants.

Develop an annual project prioritization process embedded in the national public sector investment policy framework;


39

Issues Identified Gaps Recommended Measures Review annually the proposed project priority list using the strengthened MCA prioritization methodology based on updated PPDs to be received from sector ministries taking into account changed circumstances and context;

Periodic NIIP Monitoring Reporting

Periodic NIIP progress monitoring and reporting

No periodic NIIP progress monitoring besides the formal NIIP updating process by external consultants.

Develop an annual NIIP monitoring report requirement embedded in the national public sector investment policy framework; Require Ministries and PEs to publish Infrastructure chapters in their CPs, BPs and annual reports based on established templates; Compile an annual NIIP progress monitoring report edited by PAM based on infrastructure chapters contained in sectoral annual reports.

7.2 Opportunity for NIIP impact enhancement

As a well-known instrument concerned with prioritizing infrastructure investment, the NIIP is well placed to lead the economic infrastructure planning framework for Tonga. Public sector infrastructure needs a different planning, programming and development regime compared to other DPs supported assistance (budget support or capacity development TAs). Infrastructure projects require substantial time to prepare, develop and construct. Identifying optimal solution requires extensive feasibility studies which in Tonga need to balance the development of new capacity versus renovation of existing capacity. They need large amounts of capital to be mobilized in a multi annual framework coming from a mix of public, DPs and private sector resources including loans that span longer period of time to repay. And they need resources for sustained maintenance. At the same time, the existing current project management framework operated by PAM exemplified by the Project Tracking Database (PTD) that combines all types of ODA supported projects and focus essentially on recurrent funding, receipts and expenditures is insufficient for infrastructure planning, programming and monitoring. Several other Pacific Islands countries like Fiji or Samoa already have instituted separate Public Sector Infrastructure Planning framework to optimize the programming of their public infrastructure development. The Pillar 4 of the new TSDF II can enable the strengthening of the public infrastructure planning and budgeting framework. It specifies the need to consider infrastructure as critical input for targeted organizational outcomes toward “More safe, reliable and affordable transport, energy and ICT services”. This opens the door for reinforcing the NIIP as the framework for national public sector infrastructure planning. The first dimension of the reinforced NIIP would remain the strategic plan and program to guide the development of important economically relevant infrastructures. The NIIP infrastructure priority projects list would be updated yearly, and be reviewed more thoroughly every 5 years. The yearly update of the NIIP priority list of proposed projects would take into account evolving socio-economic and political context and new development and important events. The yearly updated list of highest priority projects would serve as input to the annual budget seeking financial sponsorship from DPs. As in the NIIP2, the NIIP updating process would present the updated rolling list of prioritized capital investments. It would be accompanied by a review of the needs and demand for project in each sector, preferably supported by hard numbers and a financing strategy confirming the affordability of these investments and their compatibility with the investment absorptive capacity of the country. It would also include an infrastructure asset maintenance financing strategy taking into account the numbers extracted from the national MTEF dataset. Finally it would cover more thoroughly cross cutting issues such as the advancement of the mainstreaming of the CCA and DRM aspects in public infrastructure planning and development. The second dimension of the NIIP to be reinforced would be budgeting. The NIIP priority list of projects would be embedded each year into the 3-year MTEF budgeting framework as a rolling infrastructure development program component containing all priority capital investment projects proposed, committed or underway in all sectors (economic, social and environmental) funded under domestic capital budgeting as well as projects financed through external aid by DPs. The yearly updating of the NIIP could be documented in a brief NIIP annual monitoring report with data and tables mostly extracted from sectoral annual reports from Ministries and PEs which could be themselves also enhanced to cover infrastructure planning and programming. Information to be covered in


40

the NIIP annual monitoring report and in sectoral annual reports would be limited to essential information structured as much as possible as tables and block text from standardized templates. Information covered would include (i) lists of projects that have been completed, committed or are seeking DPs sponsorships, (ii) advancement and demand for complementary measures, (iii) delays and issues having appeared and their mitigation measures, (iv) performance indicators of sectors hinting at emerging demand for project, (v) and MTEF and yearly budget and expenditure figures. Annex 13 provides a draft table of content of a NIIP annual monitoring report. To allow a better documentation of projects benefits in the absence of advanced financial and economic studies providing NPV figures, a simple excel datasheet can be developed to document with the help of drop-down menus alternative types and range of estimated benefits such as number of beneficiaries by categories, local employment and procurement during construction or expected new employment after project completion. To enable a semi quantitative scoring and ranking of proposed projects across sector, data can be added to inform about project feasibility prospect such as land availability, contribution to resilience to CCA and DRM, contribution to environmental improvement, alignment with current governmental and ministerial policies, contribution to compliance to regulation and a few others. The envisioned datasheet would form a new set of semi-quantitative data captured as project profile dataset (PPD - Annex 10) that could be embedded into the existing PID framework and be managed by PAM with the help of the PTD tools and procedures. As an option the PPD data can be directed to a separate sub-database (Infrastructure Project Database (IPD)) that relies on the same IT tools and procedures as the PTD. Quantities extracted from the PPD can be used to score and rank projects across sectors with an enhanced while simple MCA methodology that could be applied by PAM and the NIIP working group by themselves. The methodology could consider groups of criteria to be agreed with the government. Meaningful groups of criteria in the perspective of a Pacific Islands country like Tonga could be (i) project scale and status with the affected community, (ii) operational sustainability, (iii) policy framework and, (iv) financial and economic impacts. Annex 11 provides a set of criteria that could be considered for inclusion in each group. Along the years the set of criteria in each group could be adapted and groups of criteria could themselves be weighted differently by the NIIP working group to accommodate changing circumstances. The staffs of the PAM division which manages the PTD database for all ODA projects is well conversant and has routine experience with the processing of project data especially those framed in excel format that can dovetail easily into “access” database application. The proposed new PPD and related project scoring MCA methodology would build on this strength to lessen the need for capacity development and minimize government staff routine input to produce the NIIP annual monitoring report. The current effort of an ADB TA to establish with MFNP an online “One Process” planning and budgeting framework already attempts to maximize the use of internet tools and templates in excel format and access database application for yearly budgeting. The proposed reinforcement of the NIIP and the tools proposed to be trained in the upcoming capacity development mission could dovetail well into this process.

8 High Level Road Map for NIIP Enhancement

8.1 Road map to transition NIIP as reinforced process

This chapter sets out the high level steps considered necessary to enhance the effectiveness of the NIIP as the national economic infrastructure programming framework in the country.

1. Strengthening the national policy context for public sector infrastructure programming

On the basis of the pillar 4 of the TSDF II, a reinforced NIIP framework for public sector infrastructure programming will need to be drafted, and approval sought form the Cabinet.. This would make the NIIP the official strategic economic infrastructure planning and programming instrument whose


41

recommendations would be reflected in the 3-year rolling budgeting framework (MTEF) and the annual public budgeting process. The enhanced policy framework would define requirements, policies, templates and procedures for sector ministries and the MFNP with regard to (i) the documentation of infrastructure projects data into PPDs, (ii) the periodic submission of PPDs to the MFNP to be embedded into an upgraded PTD, (iii) the tracking and reporting of infrastructure performance indicators, (iv) the sectoral and cross-sectoral scoring of registered projects into a formal pipeline of prioritized proposed projects seeking sponsorships and (v) the systematic transitioning of highest priority projects of the NIIP into the 3-year MTEF and the annual budgeting process, and (vi) the periodic (annual) monitoring and updating of the infrastructure projects contained in the project pipeline.

2. Unifying the templates for infrastructure project documentation The objective would be streamlining the information needed under the NIIP to document and process project proposals so that they are reasonably documented propositions for prioritization and sponsorship by DPs. The project profile document (PPD) proposed to be established should not be a static document, but rather a living document that is perfected over time as new thoughts or deeper studies are developed to advance the project. The PPD data would be inputted into an upgraded PTD or optionally into a separate IPD also managed by PAM using existing procedures already applied for ODA sponsored projects. A PPD input into the PTD (or optionally in a separate IPD database) would occur as soon as a Ministry has an internally approved written conceptual document about a project. With deepening studies or more information about the project becoming available, the PPD dataset would be enhanced allowing the project to reach higher score in the periodic ranking of the projects pipeline.

3. Strengthening the use of sectoral performance indicators Sectoral Ministry staff would be required to systematically collect and document the data needed to underpin the calculation of key sectoral performance indicators. Several sectoral performance indicators that are already available in sectoral agencies and can be tracked to identify sectoral gaps against good practices or atypical development trends that can justify project needs were set out in Chapter 5.. The values of these indicators and trends over time would help identify gaps in performance and thus help define the parameters and objectives of infrastructure investments. Performance indicator targets and achievement should be systematically reported in annual reports.

4. Developing a dedicated infrastructure projects pipeline

A NIIP infrastructure project pipeline would be extracted from the upgraded PTD or optionally the IPD. The project pipeline is a periodically updated NIIP list of projects. Highest priority projects would feed the 3-year MTEF and annual budgeting process. DPs would be encouraged to only pursue projects registered in the PTD/ IPD and reflected in the NIIP projects pipeline. The Government would need to ensure that a project should be first registered in the NIIP projects pipeline to become eligible for DP sponsorship.

5. Strengthening the cross sectoral coordination of the project pipeline Like the PPD, the NIIP project pipeline should be a living document that PAM staff should update periodically (six-monthly) by requesting sector ministries to update their PPD and submit them for filing. Re-prioritization of infrastructure projects in the pipeline can follow the same frequency that is currently already applied for the projects listed in the PTD that are submitted to the PACC.

6. Embedding asset management and maintenance aspects in the project programming and budgeting process

According to the national planning procedures, ministerial budget are allocated based on a three-year rolling MTEF that underpin each year the preparation of the national budget. Under this task dedicated infrastructure maintenance budget line should be added or clarified in the MTEF so that adequate funding for the sustainable maintenance of infrastructural assets in infrastructure sectors are allocated during the budgeting process. Ministries should be required to systematically report in their corporate plans and their annual reports the value of their assets and the resources mobilized and used to maintain them. Master plan and feasibility studies of projects should systematically consider as possible option to be costed, the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure versus the new development of capacity taking into account the differentiated maintenance costs of these options. Specific KPIs linked to the maturity and operational performance of asset management plans of operators of infrastructure should be the subject of targets in corporate and business plans and achievement should be reported in annual reports.

7. Involving the NIIP WG in the project prioritization and selection process


42

Under the current project planning procedures for project involving ODA sponsorship, projects are periodically screened by PAM and submitted to the Project and Aid Coordination Committee (PACC made of selective CEOs of ministries coordinated by MFNP) for iterative endorsement and pre-approval before final approval by the Cabinet Economic Development Committee (CEDC). The same procedure can be applied for infrastructure projects screening and approval through an alignment of the PACC members responsible for infrastructure projects screening with the appointees of the NIIP WG. In an upgraded cross-sectoral project prioritization procedure dedicated for infrastructure, the PAM would screen, score and rank the projects listed in the latest current NIIP projects pipeline using the latest received PPD data and submit the prioritized list to the PACC/ NIIP WG for review, comment and endorsement as appropriate.

8. Linking more deeply project planning and budgeting framework by MFNP Planning and budgeting is currently handled by three different divisions of MFNP: NPED for TSDF planning and monitoring, BCP for corporate planning, budgeting and monitoring and PAM for ODA supported project programming and monitoring. Current ministerial corporate plans (2014-2016) are meant to emphasize targeted organizational outcomes and outputs aligned with the TSDF objectives. Practically CPs have extensive sections on recurrent manpower matters and costs but often fail to document multi-annual capital investment costs. It is recommended that under the reinforced NIIP framework, ministries overseeing public infrastructure are required to document in a separate NIIP infrastructure chapter of their CPs (i) their planned infrastructure projects inputs (costs and funding) and outputs (developed infrastructure) considering the priority list of projects extracted from the latest version of the NIIP projects pipeline, (ii) targets for various kind of sectoral KPIs (access, efficiency, operation, etc.) and (iii) a rolling 3 years planned infrastructure capital and recurrent expenditure plan in line with the existing MTEF guidance. The expenditure plan of highest priority projects can then dovetail into the yearly national budgeting process. The infrastructure chapter and expenditure plan reflected in the CP should also include information about the status and value of the infrastructure asset being managed and the budget and expenditures mobilized for their maintenance. The development of a NIIP infrastructure chapter in corporate plans would concerns essentially the following ministries, MOI, MPE, MEIDECC, MOH and MET. For infrastructure managed by PEs, MPE which oversees the PEs operation would be responsible for aggregating the salient sectoral infrastructure data with the support of staff and data provided by the respective PEs.

9. Introducing an annual NIIP implementation progress monitoring report Under the reinforced NIIP framework, the ministries should then be required to report annually on the progress, status, gaps and mitigation measures in advancing the infrastructure listed in their corporate plans. Ideally such reports would use similar reporting templates as in the CPs to simplify compliance. The task of generating a NIIP annual monitoring report can then become a simple aggregation by PAM of data delivered by line ministries in their corporate plans and annual reports in cooperation with the other relevant divisions of MFNP in particular the BCP for the development of the annual NIIP related budget. The NIIP annual monitoring report would be a brief report of no more than 10 pages that maximize the use of unified reporting templates applied by all ministries to lower the man-power input required for compliance. The draft annual would be circulated to the DPs for comments. The report would serve as discussion basis for a coordination meeting with the DPs led by the MFNP to orient DPs interest for the upcoming budget year. The yearly timing of the drafting of the NIIP annual report would preferably be chosen so that its output and in particular the rolling 3-year MTEF dataset and budgets would dovetail into the yearly national budgeting process.

10. NIIP five-year updating and re-edition

Due to fluctuating political condition at political election and evolving macro-economic context of the country, it is desirable to orchestrate major re-edition of the NIIP report at certain time horizon, possibly linked to political election terms (every 4 or 5 years). Should NIIP implementation monitoring reports have been published annually as suggested in the preceding tasks of the road map, it can be assumed that the ministries will be equipped to provide swiftly the documentation required for a major re-edition of the NIIP


43

report. Routine data about projects progress, their status, their expected benefits and sectoral performance indicators would be readily available from the NIIP annual monitoring reports. The NIIP re-edition effort would be then able to devote more time to strategic infrastructure planning issues. Particular aspects to be addressed in a major re-edition of the NIIP could entail: (i) change in the priorities of the TSDF and sectoral policies regarding public infrastructure development and management including maintenance, (ii) re-assessment of the demand for projects based on available infrastructure KPIs and other recent sectoral information, (iii) feed-back survey of the impact of completed infrastructure projects on beneficiary communities and their priority interests for further investment, (iv) progress in resources mobilization toward sustainable asset management and improved maintenance of existing systems, (v) evolving pricing of services and affordability for various tranches of the population to identify gaps or distortion to be addressed, (vi) practical opportunity to increase private sector participation in public infrastructure development and management and (vii) advancement and issues linked to cross cutting infrastructure aspects such as the advancement of the mainstreaming of the CCA and DRM aspects in public infrastructure planning and development or the advancement of multi-sectoral projects. The re-edited NIIP report would include as in past NIIP reports (vii) the commented review of the status of the most recent priority projects list in the NIIP pipeline and (vii) a financing strategy preferably extrapolated from the most recent 3-year rolling MTEF and NIIP annual budgeting documentation. A major re-edition of the NIIP may also be the occasion to refine and deepen the content of the template of the PPD, the KPIs to be used to track sector progress as well as the inter-sectoral MCA projects prioritization methodology to take into account changing socio-economic context and national policies and the progressing maturity and experience of ministries and PEs managing public infrastructure. Tables 22 to 26 summarize the enhanced processes with output, lead agency, actors and linkages of a reinforced NIIP framework on the basis of a 5-year NIIP cycle.

Table 22: Process to include a new project in the NIIP

Task/ Output Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 New project insertion into NIIP projects pipeline

New project concept approved by Ministry decision makers

New / updated PPD submitted to MFNP for the PTD/ IPD

Updating of the PPDs in the PTD/IPD by PAM

Scoring of new projects in the PTD/IPD by PAM

Submission of new projects to PACC NIIP-WG for project acceptance into NIIP

(Re)-edition of NIIP projects pipeline list by PAM


Table 23: Projects prioritization process in the NIIP

Task Year 1 Year 2 NIIP Projects Prioritization Process

six-monthly project re-prioritization within sectors

Updating of projects priority ranking in PPDs

Submission of revised PPDs to MFNP

Scoring of projects in the PTD/IPD by PAM

Submission of NIIP projects to PACC NIIP-WG for ranking approval

(Re)-edition of NIIP prioritized projects pipeline list


Revised PPD of low ranked projects

Re-prioritization within sector due to changed

circumstances

Rejected Projects

Upgraded Concept

Upgraded PPD

Approved Projects


44

Table 24: NIIP annual monitoring reporting process

Task Year 1 Year 2

NIIP Annual Monitoring Reporting Annual reporting on sector infrastructure by Ministries and PEs

Submission of sectoral infrastructure chapter of annual report to PAM

Compilation of sectoral data into a NIIP annual reporting report

Integration of (re)-edited NIIP prioritized projects pipeline list into NIIP annual report

Submission of report to DP for comments

Meetings with DPs to clarify projects to be supported

Joint meeting with DPs under MFNP coordination leadership

Finalization of NIIP annual monitoring report with re-edited NIIP project pipeline

Publish NIIP annual report online for open dissemination

Sector Ministries or Agencies PAM and MFNP Ministries and DPs

Table 25: Infrastructure project budgeting

Task Year 1 Year 2

Infrastructure Projects Budgeting Cost review of NIIP Priority Projects seeking DP sponsorship by Ministries

Discussion with DP about sponsorship

Insertion of cost data of projects retained by DPs and Ministries into MTEF

Estimation by Ministries of infrastr. maintenance budget based on asset status

Insertion of recurrent maintenance cost data of infrastructure into MTEF

Estimation of sector infrastr. annual budget data between Ministries and MFNP

Insertion of yearly infrastr. maintenance budgets into the annual budget

Sector Ministry or Agency PAM and MFNP Cooperation Ministries and PAM/ MFNP


45

Table 26: Five-year NIIP updating and reporting

Task Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 NIIP report Re-edition Sector plans update Review of NIIP projects pipeline advancement and related emerging issues

Review of project demand based on current TSDF, sector plans, KPIs and new developments

Dialogue with stakeholders by Ministries and PEs to identify needs and issues

Review of sectoral asset management and maintenance strategies

Review of mainstreaming strategies for CCA & DRM

Review opportunities for enhanced private sector participation

Review price of infrastructure services and affordability for population

Review MTEF data for infrastructure projects

Revise NIIP projects pipeline and priority lists of projects

Revise financing strategy considering capital and recurrent maintenance investment costs

Provide recommendation for updating KPIs, PPDs, cross sectoral prioritization methodology and others

re-edit NIIP report and disseminate to DPs and stakeholders

Sector ministry or agency Cooperation ministries and PAM/ MFNP

8.2 Resources and capacity implication

To advance the envisioned NIIP as a reinforced process, a training mission is planned to test and refine the tools and procedures outlined earlier. The mission will practically support the infrastructure planning staff of the relevant ministries and PEs in improving the NIIP operational templates and procedures especially with regard to (i) the infrastructure project documentation, (ii) the periodic prioritization of projects across sectors and (iii) the development of an annual NIIP monitoring reporting framework. Training sessions will enhance the capacity of the Government staff to take stronger ownership of the NIIP process to guide the national economic infrastructure planning tasks in future years. The effort may help senior ministerial staff and decision makers to consider strengthening the policy framework of the NIIP process so that it can become the official policy framework of the national infrastructure planning process. Table 27 summarizes the road map tasks outlined earlier, the responsible agencies, the frequency of action, the estimated needs for capacity development and to which extend those needs will be covered during the planned training mission.

Table 27: Road map processes, roles, frequency and capacity development needs

Road Map Tasks 1)

Responsible

Agency Frequency of

action

Capacity Development

Needs

Coverage in Training Mission

1.Strengthening the NIIP national policy framework

MFNP, Cabinet, ADB TA 7959 TON, PCO

1 time enabled by TSDF II Pillar 4

Policy expert support needed

Not planned

2. Unifying templates for infrastructure project documentation (PPD)

NIIP Review Consultant, NIIP WG

1 time development, review and adaptation every 5 years

Training on the use of the PPD template

PPD template to be developed & tested


46

Road Map Tasks 1)

Responsible

Agency Frequency of

action

Capacity Development

Needs

Coverage in Training Mission

3.Strengthening the use of sectoral performance indicators

MOI, MPE (PEs), MEIDECC, MOH, MET

Systematically used and reported in CPs, BPs and annually in progress reports in particular regarding (i) asset management and maintenance and (ii) resilience of assets to CCA and DRM.

Training on getting information, use and usefulness of KPIs

List extracted from NIIP review to be included in model annual report

4. Developing the NIIP project pipeline and infrastructure database under PTD/ IPD

MFNP, PAM, ADB TA 7959 TON

NIIP pipeline to be updated quarterly by PAM based on PPD

Training on inputting PPD and extracting NIIP pipeline list

Two options: 1. Upgrade of PTD 2. Adding an IPD to the PTD on the MFNP server

5. Strengthening the cross sectoral coordination of the project pipeline

MFNP (NPED, PAM, BCP) with NIIP WG/

PACC

NIIP priority projects to be updated annually

as input to NIIP annual monitoring reporting

Training cross sectoral projects prioritization

Cross sectoral prioritization to be tested and applied with NIIP WG

6. Embedding maintenance aspects in the projects programming process

MOI, MPE (PEs), MEIDECC, MOH, MET

with MFNP

Maintenance costs to be updated annually in MTEF as input to NIIP and reported in CPs,

BPs and annual reports

Training on use of MTEF and NIIP templates on

maintenance costs

Maintenance costs data to be reported in model annual report

7. Involving the NIIP WG in the project prioritization and selection process

NIIP Review Consultant, NIIP WG

Re-prioritization of projects to follow PACC meetings frequency

Training on the enhanced MCA prioritization methodology and results presentation

Prioritization methodology and its application by NIIP WG to be developed and tested

8. Linking more deeply the project planning and budgeting framework

MFNP, Cabinet, ADB TA 7959 TON, PCO

Infrastructure projects data to be updated annually in MTEF as

input to NIIP annual report

Training on use of

NIIP data in the MTEF and budgeting process

Not planned

9. Introducing the annual NIIP implementation monitoring report

PAM, NIIP Review Consultant, NIIP WG,

Ministries

To be compiled annually by PAM based on contribution of Ministries

Training on compilation of NIIP implementation & monitoring report

Training on drafting of model annual report based on NIIP review data and other training sessions outcomes

10. NIIP five-year updating edition

MOI, MPE (PEs), MEIDECC, MOH, MET with MFNP PAM and

NIIP WG

To be re-edited every 5 years using templates and guidance to be developed

Training on re-edition of NIIP main report based on templates and guidance to be developed

Not planned

1) Colour shading highlights which tasks will be covered during the training mission as detailed further in Annex 15:

Green shaded tasks will be trained in on-the-job exercises during the planned training mission. Grey shaded tasks will not be addressed during the training mission.


47

Annexes


48

Annex 1: TORs

Scope of Work The scope will include: i) Assessment of the progress in implementing the NIIP 2 by collecting information on capital investments in economic infrastructure and related complementary measures and by reviewing how these activities have been financed and what arrangements have been put in place for operation and maintenance. This will be accompanied by consideration of the implementation challenges, capacity and capability. Additionally, this assessment will include an analysis on whether the NIIP2 is being utilized to its full potential as identified in the “PRIF - Review and Assessment of National Infrastructure Investment Plans Prepared for Pacific Island Countries, May 2013. ii) Suggest a process to keep the NIIP 2 relevant and up to date and to improve its continued use as a strategic planning document by the Government, national stakeholders and development partners. iii) Assessment of the participation of the private sector and identify opportunities and means by which the private sector can have a greater involvement in infrastructure investment. This will include identifying opportunities for Public Private Partnerships and other private sector modalities with a focus on promoting the use of government systems in place and consulting stakeholders. iv) Review of overall progress in the infrastructure sector from currently available reports (e.g. Water and Energy Benchmarking, PIPIs. Reports on the NSDS) as compared to baseline performance data that was included in the NIIP 2 report. v) Identification of linkages with stakeholders and other government systems/ committees and National policies in terms of developing sectoral and cross-sectoral prioritization processes for national projects and promoting it to National Government, development partners, private sector and international investors. vi) Review of the current situation in terms of proactive and systematic asset management at a high level and identify key areas for future attention in improving asset management planning and funding, and how asset management can be better embedded into the infrastructure and investment planning process. vii) Identification of a preferred direction for NIIPs in the future, in conjunction with Government, for future monitoring, review and updating, including identifying roles and responsibilities. This will also include consideration of the scope of future NIIPs, in particular the effectiveness of the focus on economic infrastructure in facilitating the budgeting process, and the potential for more closely aligned processes for so-called NIIP+ documents covering social and administration-related infrastructure. viii) Establishing the format for future progress reports and training selected government staff in preparing such reports. These reports will facilitate budgeting, reprioritization, consultation and co-ordination within government and across stakeholders, and also provide a basis for consultation with development partners

The NIIP 2 implementation review will be carried out in two phases: Phase 1 (Mission 1) focused on the assessment and recommendations of the implementation of NIIP2 and for future direction of NIIPs, including clarifying training needs for prioritization process and monitoring; and, Phase 2 (Mission 2) focused on carrying out two training sessions on (i) using the prioritization process to revise the short list of priority projects, and (ii) on monitoring and reporting on NIIP progress regularly (e.g. annually). The phased approach is proposed in order to provide an initial focus on the review of implementation and future direction, and obtaining agreement by the Working Group and key stakeholders on this direction. Once the future direction is agreed (in principle), the later focus will be on training in prioritization and future monitoring, which will ensure training is consistent with the agreed direction. The Consultant will carry out the following main tasks: Phase 1 (Mission 1) – Implementation Review and Development of Road Map i) Review the NIIP 2 and familiarize him/her with the content and approach.


49

ii) Prepare a work plan and interview / meeting schedule, and consult with and collect data from government, service providers and development partners. iii) Review the current state of infrastructure and related service delivery and prepare an update of key infrastructure performance indicators in the different (sub) sectors. (The consultant will make use of relevant national performance indicators and (as a minimum) the Pacific Infrastructure Performance Indicators that can be obtained from the PRIF Coordination Office) iv) Collect data on investments in economic infrastructure since 2013 and compare and analyze progress against the priority investments proposed in the NIIP2. In collecting the data a distinction will be made between investments in additional capacity and investments aimed at replacing existing capacity. v) Collect data on complementary measures (such as technical assistance, capacity building, institutional and regulatory developments) that have been (or are being) implemented since publishing of the NIIP 2, and compare and analyze progress against the background of priority measures proposed in the NIIP2. vi) Collect data on funding and delivery of capital investments in infrastructure and compare and analyze progress against the proposed funding strategy in the NIIP 2. vii) Assess the challenges to implementation of the NIIP 2, in terms of capacity, process, and co-ordination issues. Recommendations for improved implementation processes of future NIIPs to be included in the Draft Final Implementation Review. viii) Collect data on the level of operation and maintenance costs related to the newly acquired infrastructure assets and review if corresponding incremental maintenance funds have been budgeted. The Consultant shall also compare the observed investment in maintenance to the estimated maintenance cost and allocations for priority projects included the NIIP 2. ix) Identify the sources of operations and maintenance funds for each sector, such as user charges, subsidy and community service obligations and identify the challenges in collecting information on operations and maintenance by ministry, department and/or utility. x) Review and report on new developments that have taken place since the publishing of the NIIP 2 that might affect the demand, financing or management of infrastructure (eg, developments related to climate change, natural disasters, institutional reform, urban planning etc.) and which have an impact on future planning and management of infrastructure. This should include considering how new developments such as these can be incorporated into the priority list of projects from time to time, in between updates to the NIIP. This will be particularly important for the budgeting and development partner co-ordination process. xi) Undertake a high level assessment of asset management maturity to provide future guidance to consider asset management in the overall investment process, covering the range of asset management policy, asset and condition data, operations and maintenance strategies, systems and human resources to determine critical constraints to improved management of assets. The proposed structure of the asset management maturity assessment is presented in Attachment B, consistent with the International Infrastructure Management Manual (New Zealand National Asset Management Steering Group (NAMS) and the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA), International Infrastructure Management Manual, Version 4.0, 2011). ‘xii) In collaboration with key government stakeholders, review the current use of the NIIP 2, its place in the national and sectoral planning and budgeting process, and the future role that Government stakeholders want the NIIPs to play. This will include: how the NIIP 2 has been used by the Government, national stakeholders and development partners in the programming and planning of new infrastructure investments to date; the use of the prioritization ‘process’ rather than the use of the ‘static’ NIIP; the future role of government in the monitoring, review and update of the NIIP; and, the role that the government wants the NIIP2 to play in infrastructure planning, funding and budget development. This review would ideally be informed through a workshop involving key stakeholders. xiii) Consider the current capacity within Government to implement, monitor, evaluate, review and update the NIIP 2, so as to inform the development of a road map for future NIIP direction and identify resourcing and capacity building requirements. This will ideally involve working closely with various units within


50

Government to align with its current capacity development plans, and identifying areas where capacity development and expansion is required. xiv) Undertake a high-level review of the suitability of the scope (for example the inclusion of social infrastructure) and prioritization criteria, and alignment with the TSDF. It should be highlighted that this task only involves a review to inform future updates, and is not intended to include an update to the NIIP 2 to expand the scope or modify the criteria. Confirm the content of further training proposed in Phase 2 of the TA (i.e. which stakeholders and required content) in using the prioritization process to evaluate infrastructure projects or programs. xv) Prepare a comprehensive but concise Implementation Review Report that presents the results of the above analysis along with findings and recommendations. Phase 2 (Mission 2) – Training on project prioritization, monitoring and evaluation xvi) Prepare a short manual with guidelines and templates on preparing future monitoring reports. xvii) Conduct training workshops for selected government staff in a. selection of criteria, alignment with national strategy, and use of prioritization process to update the short list of priority projects, and b. monitoring and evaluation of NIIP 2 progress. Output/Reporting Requirements: i. An Inception Report (<10 pages) at the end of the first week of the in-country mission (approximately 3 weeks from commissioning of the consultant), including a detailed approach and methodology, a Work Plan for the remainder of the project, and in particular highlighting any potential challenges and reasons for any divergence from the original Terms of Reference. ii. A start-up workshop in-country with the Working Group and other stakeholders determined by the Working Group to agree on the review and training approach, required information and required consultations. iii. A workshop to discuss stakeholder preferences for future NIIP direction, content and the role within the overall planning and budgeting process. iv. A close-out workshop in-country, to provide the opportunity to present preliminary findings, outstanding issues requiring attention,and preliminary recommendations, prior to drafting the report. v. A Draft Final Implementation Review Report (<30 pages, with any data and supporting information included in appendices) within 2 months from the start of the assignment, presenting the results of the assessment along with findings and recommendations. The Draft should be approved / accepted by the Working Group prior to undertaking training session 2 in item (vii) below, to ensure that the training is consistent with the proposed Government’s direction. vi. A short manual/ guideline and accompanying templates (<5 pages) for use by the Government (eg, led by the Ministry of Finance and National Planning - MoFNP) on preparing future monitoring reports. The Draft should be approved / accepted by the Working Group prior to undertaking training session 1 in item (vii) below to ensure that the training is consistent with the agreed direction. vii. Delivery of two training sessions, one on each of two key topics for future sustainability of the NIIP process, with selected Government stakeholders (attendees to be determined by the Working Group). The training will cover the following two key topics: a. Training session 1 – Criteria and prioritisation process. The workshop will cover: reviewing criteria, aligning with TSDF and using the prioritisation process to update the priority projects. b. Training session 2 – Monitoring and evaluation. The workshop will cover the agreed draft monitoring process, monitoring roles anresponsibilities, the use of the monitoring templates, and the evaluation of performance against the NIIP 2.


51

viii. A Final Report, including final versions of deliverables (v) and (vi), incorporating comments and suggestions from stakeholders within 2 weeks from receiving final collated comments from PCO. The Final Report will include the training session presentations and notes, and be accompanied by all electronic working documents. ix. A Project Completion Report for the PCO (<5 pages) outlining lessons learned which can inform future NIIP reviews and future assistance to the Government. The Draft Final Implementation Review Report will be submitted for comments to the Working Group and PCO initially. Upon acceptance of the Draft by the Working Group and PCO, the Draft Report will be distributed among government departments and other national stakeholders and among development partners.


52

Annex 2: Summary of NIIP2 projects and complementary measures

Summary of the projects and complementary measures of the NIIP 2 and their links to the underlying targeted outcomes of the TSDF 2011-2014 approved by the Government in 2011.

Table 1: TSDF Strategic Theme with Identified Projects and Complementary Measures in the NIIP 2

Targeted TSDF Strategic Outcome

Sector Underway or Committed Projects New Proposed Investment Projects Complementary Measures

Connecting Tonga

Telecom

T1,2 TCC Fixed line and Mobile Upgrade Program (T$ 28.20) T4 Outreach – Expanding Services to small islands (T$2m) T6 International Fibre-Optic Cable to Fiji ($53m) T7 Local Reticulation of High Speed Internet (T$8m)

T9: Undersea fibre-optic cable linking Ha’apai and Vava’u with international networks (T$30m) T10: Communications for Early Warning and Disaster Recovery (T$6.0m)

Update the access/regulatory regime for telecoms sector

Private sector and Government initiatives (e-Government) that take advantage of opportunities emerging from improved internet access

Road

R2 Integrated Urban Development Sector Program (T$12m) R3 Transport Sector Consolidation Project (Roads) (T$12m) R4 Vaipua Bridge (Vava’u) (T$8m)

R10 : Outer Islands Roads Upgrading Program (T$10m)

Develop private sector capacity for road maintenance (TSCP)

Ports

P6 Replace Fender at QSW International Wharf (T$1m) P3 Reseal Queen Salote Wharf (Int. and Dom.) (T$11)

See Sustainability, Safety and Resilience theme

Implement new institutional/financial arrangements for sustainable management and maintenance of XXXXXXXXX ports.

Post-harvest facilities for fishing and agricultural produce (handling, storage, processing) (initial support provided EU and Australian Aid)

Airport

A6 Upgrade International Arrivals (Fua’amotu) (T$2m) A8 Resurface Fua’amotu runway, apron, taxiway (T$38m) A10 Resurface Vava’u runway, apron, taxiway (T$11m)

A11: Resurface the runway at Salote Pilolevu airport (Ha’apai) (T$9m) A12: New Control Tower for Fua’amotu Airport (T$7m)

Update the policy environment for XXXXXXXXX aviation

Post-harvest facilities (initial support under EU program)

Targeted TSDF

Strategic Outcome Sector Underway or Committed Projects New Proposed Investment Projects Complementary Measures

Infrastructure for Communities

Water & Sanitation

W2 Rehabilitate the Nuku’alofa water system (T$7m)

W3: Outer islands water supply system improvements (Vava’u, Ha’apai, ‘Eua) (T$15.0m) W4: Expand Nuku’alofa system to new growth areas. T$11.4m)

Prepare a roadmap for the Water Sector that examines the full water cycle, including sanitation and drainage.

Solid Waste

S5 Sustainable Solid Waste Services in Nuku’alofa (T$2.8m)

S6: Improved Solid Waste disposal arrangements for Ha’apai (T$4m)

Prepare a sector roadmap that addresses the institutional, financial and operational model for the sector and provides a five to 10-year investment plan

Targeted TSDF

Strategic Outcome Sector Underway or Committed Projects New Proposed Investment Projects Complementary Measures

Reliable and Affordable Energy

Energy

E1 TPL Distribution Network Upgrade Program (T$5) E2-5 TPL Diesel Generators Upgrade Program (T$30) E6 Village Networks (electricity pole replacement) (T$14) E7 Outer-island Off-Grid power (solar) (T$5) E14 Solar Generation (Vava'u) (T$10)

Additional on-grid solar electricity generation E11: 1-2 MW on Tongatapu (T$24m) E16: Outer islands (Vava’u Ha’apai, ‘Eua) ( T$9m)

Non-Infrastructure aspects of the Energy Roadmap

Policy, legal, regulatory reform supporting the Energy Road

Research and feasibility studies of alternative energy sources (wind, wave, coconut oil, etc)

Improved fuel supply chain logistics

Other non-infrastructure aspects of the Energy Roadmap (DSM, etc)

Targeted TSDF

Strategic Outcome

Sector Underway or Committed Projects New Proposed Investment Projects Complementary Measures

Sustainability, Safety and Resilience

Sustainability

Institutional reform to clarify/simplify responsibilities across all sectors

Develop and implement a national policy and strategy for strategic asset management

Implement new arrangements for sustainable road maintenance funding and delivery (TSCP)

Update arrangements for managing and maintaining ports for inter-island shipping

Strengthen EIA system and capacity, and environmental monitoring

Safety Maritime Sector Safety and Resilience project (preliminary estimate of T$20m but specific investments can be split out)

Upgrading and capacity development in maritime safety and pollution response

Update/upgrade maritime safety and pollution facilities; hydrographical charts, etc

Resilience

M2: Coastal Protection – Eastern Tongatapu (T$3.0m) M4: Disaster Response and Evacuation Infrastructure (T$12.0m)

Mainstream CCA/DRM into infrastructure planning, design, standards and management

Upgrade Meteorological services and capability


53

Improved arrangements for coordination of major projects with multi-sector implications


54

Annex 3: Comparison TSDF I and TSDF II

Tables 1 and 2 below provides an overview of the targeted outcomes of the two TSDF (2011-2014) versus the new TSDF (2015-2025)

Table 1: Targeted outcomes under the TSDF I and TSDF II

TSDF I (2011 - 2014) TSDF II (2015 - 2025) 1 national vision 1 targeted national Impact

“To develop and promote a just, equitable and progressive society in which the people of Tonga enjoy good health, peace, harmony and prosperity, in meeting their aspirations in life”.

“A progressive Tonga supporting higher quality of life for all the people"

9 targeted national outcomes 7 targeted national outcomes 1. Strong inclusive communities. A. More inclusive, sustainable and dynamic, knowledge based economy

2. Dynamic public and private sector partnership as the engine of growth B. More inclusive, sustainable and balanced urban & rural development

across island groups

3. Appropriate, well planned and maintained infrastructure that improves the everyday lives of the people and lowers the cost of business,

C. More inclusive, sustainable and empowering human development with gender equality

4. Sound education standards D. More inclusive, sustainable and responsive good-governance

5. Appropriately skilled workforce to meet the available opportunities in Tonga and overseas,

E. More inclusive, sustainable and successful provision and maintenance of infrastructure

6. Improved health of the people, F. More inclusive, sustainable and effective land & environment

management and resilience to climate & risk

7. Cultural awareness, environmental sustainability, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation, integrated into all planning and implementation of programmes,

G. More inclusive, sustainable and certain sovereignty, security and advancement of our external interests

8. Better governance,

9. Safe, secure and stable society,

4 enabling themes 5 pillars of organizational outcomes 1. Continuing progress to a more efficient and effective government by focussing on its core functions; improving coordination, service delivery and optimising use of resources.

Institutional Pillar 1: Economic Institutions

2. Improving the macroeconomic environment and fiscal management, including effective revenue services to ensure a level playing field and those services to the people can be appropriately funded.

Institutional Pillar 2: Social Institutions

3. Ensuring Public Enterprises are sustainable and accountable, and where appropriate moved into the private sector.

Institutional Pillar 3: Political Institutions

4. Ensuring a more coordinated whole of government approach in Tonga’s partnership with Development partners.

Input Pillar 4: Infrastructure and Technology Inputs

Input Pillar 5: Natural Resource and Environment Inputs

42 strategies covering above outcomes and enabling themes

29 organizational outcomes

Table 2: Comparison of policy framework for infrastructure under TSDF I and TSDF II

TSDF I (2011 - 2014) TSDF II (2015 - 2025) Policy Framework

Enabling theme D: Ensuring a more coordinated whole of government approach in Tonga’s partnership with development partners.

Pillar 3: Political Institutions Outcome 3.6: Improved collaboration with Development Partners

Strategy 41: Maintaining good relations with development partners, for mutual partnership, aid effectiveness and donor harmonisation. Strategy 42: Remaining a reliable and responsible member of the international community supporting the development of the Pacific region.

Supporting Strategies a) Actively engage in initiatives to improve the effectiveness of aid and

development assistance to small island states b) continue to maintain good relations with development partners, for mutual

partnership, aid effectiveness and donor harmonisation c) continue to build administrative systems to better manage this support while

always seeking to use government systems as much as possible d) improve coordination within government on the management of relations and

assistance from our various development partners.

Infrastructure Planning and Maintaining

National outcome 3: Appropriate, well planned and maintained infrastructure that improves the everyday lives of the people and lowers the cost of business,

National outcome E: More inclusive, sustainable and successful provision and maintenance of infrastructure Input Pillar 4: Infrastructure and Technology Inputs

Strategy 7: Ensuring safe and reliable transport infrastructure (roads, ports, airports), with the necessary institutional arrangements in place to manage and fund effective development and maintenance of these facilities throughout the Kingdom.

4.2 More safe, reliable and affordable transport services

Strategy 8: Increasing competition, with responsible supervision, to increase the quality of air and sea transport services both XXXXXXXXXally and between the Kingdom and overseas.

Strategy 9: Strengthening regulatory compliance and safety oversight of transport sector to ensure compliance with international safety standards.

Strategy 10: Improving the performance of the information and communications sector, with quality service delivery, free and fair availability of information, geographical coverage, service affordability and access to new service applications.

4.3 More safe, reliable and affordable information & communication technology (ICT) used in more innovative ways

Strategy 11: Maintaining and where possible expanding the provision of reliable and cost efficient power supplies, using traditional and renewable options, to all communities.

4.1 More safe, reliable and affordable energy services

Strategy 12: Improving and where possible expanding the safe collection, disposal and recycling of solid and liquid waste to protect people’s health and the environment

Strategy 13: Maintaining and expanding access to safe water and sanitation for all communities.

Strategy 14: Taking a sector wide approach to the provision and maintenance of infrastructure, seeking alternative options for provision and cost recovery, and implement the proposed priority projects outlined in the NIIP (including: energy,


55

telecoms, water, solid waste, roads, ports, airports)

4.4 More safe, reliable and affordable buildings and other structures

4.5 Improved use of research & development focusing on priority needs

Environmental Protection, Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risks management

National outcome 7: Cultural awareness, environmental sustainability, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation, integrated into all planning and implementation of programmes,

Pillar 5: Natural Resources & Environment Inputs

5.3 Cleaner less polluted environment

Strategy 22: Ensuring sustainable use of the environment, by enforcing Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), and strengthen the national capability for environmental management to create incentives for limiting the use of resources and production of waste.

Supporting strategy: c)increase private sector participation in the provision of services for pollution control and waste management, and where this is lacking complement it with appropriate levels of services provide by government through public enterprises

5.4 Improved resilience to natural disasters and impact of climate change

Strategy 23: Implementing the JNAP-CCADRM to reduce vulnerability & risks; and to enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change & natural hazards

Supporting Strategies: b) ensure appropriate enabling policy and guidelines to ensure the incorporation of relevant climate change and disaster risk management considerations into the design and implementation of all relevant policies, plans, projects and budgets giving particular attention to the needs of special groups (women, disabled, isolated, elderly etc) c) improve protocols for disaster preparedness, response and recovery of communities after natural disaster, build on a more integrated and coordinated approach between all relevant parts of government, CSOs, private sector and the wider community i) improve disaster management infrastructures through better support emergency management.

Public Enterprises and Private Sector Participation

Enabling theme 3: Ensuring Public Enterprises are sustainable and accountable, and where appropriate moved into the private sector.

Pillar 1: Economic institutions 1.4 Improved public enterprise performance

Strategy 38: Improving profitability, accountability, and return on equity of public enterprises. Strategy 39: Continuing to implement public enterprise reform. Strategy 40: Privatising public enterprises where appropriate.

Supporting Strategies: a) strengthen the appropriate supervisory conditions and criteria that

encouraged improved management and performance of PEs taking account of the various demands on them

b) consider, as appropriate, various options for the management and ownership of PEs to improve performance in terms of profitability, accountability, and return on equity

c) ensure social delivery requirements from PE are clearly costed and there are no hidden subsidies undermining the viability of its operations

d) ensure all Public Enterprises have effective consultative mechanism for listening to the needs of consumers

e) disaster risk management to be integrated into all PE plans and investments to mitigate effects of disasters.

Relevant Sector Plans: National Infrastructure Investment Plan (NIIP), MDG 1 Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger and MDG 7 Ensure Environmental Sustainability

Relevant sector plans: Tonga Energy Road Map (TERM) map, NIIP, National Transport Plan?, PE plans

Responsible Ministries: MOT, MOW, MoTourism, MIC, MOH, MLSNR, MPE, MECC, MLCI

Supporting Ministries: MEIDECC (incorporating Energy sector, MCI, & MECC), MOI (incorporating MOT and MOW) and MPE


56

Annex 4: List of persons met and meetings held

Date Agency People Met Position E-Mail Contacts

19th of February, 2015;

10:30 Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MFNP)

Lesieli Tufui Faletau Deputy secretary [email protected]

Maa’imoa Mafile’o Senior Economist [email protected]

Ma’ata Mafi Economist [email protected]


14:00

Ministry of Meteorology, Energy, Information, Disaster Management, Environment, Climate Change and Communications (MEIDECC)

Paula Ma’u Chief Executive Officer [email protected]

Leveni ‘Aho Director – NEMO [email protected]

Tevita Tukunga Director - Energy [email protected]

23rd

of February, 2015; 9:30

Port Authority Tonga (PAT) Mosese Lavemai General Manager [email protected]

‘Alo Maileseni Chief Financial Manager [email protected]

23rd


Tonga Airports Limited (TAL) Viliami Ma’ake Chief Executive Officer [email protected]

23rd


Ministry of Public Enterprises (MPE)

Sione ‘Akau’ola Acting Chief Executive Officer [email protected]

Finau Moa Principal Financial Analyst [email protected]


10:00 Tonga Power Limited (TPL)

John Brink Chief Executive Officer [email protected]

Steven ‘Esau Finance Manager [email protected]


12:00 Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI) Ringo Fa’oliu Chief Executive Officer [email protected]

25th of February. 2015;

9:30 Ministry of Education and Training (MET)

Emily Pouvalu Chief Executive Officer [email protected]


14:00 Ministry of Health (MOH) Sione Hufanga

Principal Health Planning Officer

[email protected]


10:00 Ministry of Education and Training (MET)

Claude Tupou Deputy Secretary [email protected]

3rd

of March, 2015; 9:30

DFAT

Kathleen Bombell

Second Secretary [email protected]

Sally Perry

Program Manager [email protected]

3rd

of March, 2015; 11:00

Ministry of Public Enterprises (MPE)

Sione ‘Akau’ola CEO, MPE [email protected]

3rd

of March, 2015; 14:00

Tonga Power Limited (TPL)

John Brink Chief Executive Officer [email protected]

Steven ‘Esau Finance Manager [email protected]

Johnny Lillis Project Delivery Manager [email protected]

Viliami Ongosia Project Manager [email protected]

4th of March, 2015; 9:00

Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI) Road and Maritime

Ringo Fa’oliu Chief Executive Officer [email protected]

Kelela Tonga Head, Marine and Ports Division

[email protected]

Mandie Finau Director, Policy and Planning [email protected]

Tevita Lavemai Director, Land and Transport Division

[email protected]

Roderick Bevan Transport Sector Consolidation Project

[email protected]

‘Esau Tupou [email protected]

4th of March, 2015;

11:30 Ministry of Health (MOH)

Sione Hufanga Principal Health Planning Officer

[email protected]

Walter Hurrell Health Project Officer [email protected]

4th of March, 2015;

14:00 MEIDECC - Energy

Tevita Tukunga Director for Energy [email protected]

‘Ofa Sefana Energy Planner [email protected]

5th of March, 2015; 9:00 JICA

Shoichi Iwata Assistant Representative [email protected]

Hiroshi Kikawa Project Officer [email protected]

5th of March,

2015; 10:00 Ports Authority Tonga (PAT)

Mosese Lavemai General Manager [email protected]

‘Alo Maileseni Chief Financial Manager [email protected]

Halloween Kisina [email protected]

Stephen Edwards Chairman [email protected]

5th of March, 2015;

14:00 Tonga Airports Limited (TAL)

Viliami Ma’ake Chief Executive Office [email protected]

Ardroy Pakofe Engineer [email protected]

6th of March, 2015; 9:00

Ministry of Land, Survey and Natural Resources (MLSNR)

‘Asipeli Palaki Chief Executive Office [email protected]

6th of March, 2015 ;

10:00 MEIDECC – Communications Stan ‘Ahio Manager [email protected]

6th of March, 2015;

11:30 Tonga Water Board (TWB) Kolopeaua Finance Manager [email protected]

6th of March, 2015;

13:00 MOI (Maritime)

Kelela Tonga Head, Marine and Ports Division

[email protected]

Fiona Cleland Consultant [email protected]

6th of March, 2015;

15:15 TCC and TCL

Timote Katoanga (TCL) Chief Operating Officer [email protected]

Rizvi Jurangpathy (TCC) Acting CEO [email protected]

Robert S.Bolouri (TCC)

CEO [email protected]

6th of March, 2015;

14:30 MFAT Adele Plummer Program Manager

9th of March, 2015;

15:30 ADB/WB Saia Faletau ADB/ WB representative [email protected]

9th of March, 2015;

11:30 Tonga Water Board

Saimone Helu CEO [email protected]

Quddus Fielea Managing Engineer [email protected]

11th of March, 2015;

10:00 MEIDECC – Environment and Climate Change

Luisa Tu’I’afitu Matoto Deputy CEO [email protected]

Mafileo Masi Senior Environmentalist [email protected]

11th of March, MOI – Road Division

Tevita Lavemaai Director [email protected]

Andrea Talia'uli EHS Engineer [email protected]

Andrea


14:00 Waste Authority Limited (WAL)

Mafileo Masi Senior E

Malakai Sika Finance [email protected]

Sonia Chirgwin [email protected]


10:30 UNDP

Kevin Petrini [email protected]

Milika Tuita [email protected]































































57

List of Persons met from the Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MFNP)

Agency Division People Met Position E-Mail Contacts

Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MFNP)

National Planning and Economic Development Division (NPED)

Lesieli Tufui Faletau

Deputy secretary [email protected]

Ma’u ‘Alipate Principal Economist [email protected]

Maa’imoa Mafile’o

Senior Economist [email protected]

Ma’ata Mafi

Economist [email protected]

‘Ilaisaane Vea Senior Economist [email protected]

Vasi Feke Economist [email protected]

Aid and Project Management Division (APMD)

‘Aholotu Palu Deputy Secretary [email protected]

Palu Falepapalangi Economist [email protected]

‘Anaseini Tufui Assistant Economist [email protected]

Corporate Service Division (CSD) Natalia Latu Deputy Secretariat [email protected]

Budget and Corporate Plan Division (BCPD)

Siulieti Sika Chief Internal Auditor [email protected]

Kasanita ‘Ofa Senior Accountant [email protected]

Vika Soakai Senior Economist [email protected]

‘Epoki Afemui Senior Economist [email protected]

Vika Fe’iloakitau Principal Economist [email protected]

Technical Adviser Peter Poulsen Economist [email protected]


















58

Annex 5: NIIP2 review datasheet

NIIP Review 2015

Data Sheet

(to be completed by responsible agency for the sector/ sub-sector concerned in cooperation with the PCO Consultant)

Name of Ministry / Agency: ……………………………………………………………

Contact Person for Question

Name: ……………………………………………………..

Designation: ……………………………………………..

Email address: …………………………………………..

Mobile number: ………………………………………….


59

1) Policy changes since the NIIP 2 (2013) Indicate new national or sectoral infrastructure relevant policy changes since the NIIP 2 completion in 2013

…………………………………………………….………….…………………………………………………. 2) Major new development since the NIIP 2 (2013) Document briefly new development since NIIP 2013 such as international convention signed, disaster having struck the country, new sector or corporate plan, etc.

………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………….

3) Progress of NIIP implementation

3.1 Update the status of the list of projects mentioned in the NIIP 2 (2013)

Infrastructure Underway (U)

Project

Nr.

Sector Project Current Status

Estimated Investment

Value

Implementation Period

New versus

Renovation Source of Funds (%)

Name of Project (U) underway (C) committed (P) proposed

TOP million

years [N] New

[R] Renovation

GOT/ PE

funding

Donor funding

Private Funding

Multi-sector

M2 Coastal protection - Eastern Tongatapu

M3 Climate Resilience Sector Project

M4 Disaster response & evacuation infrastructure

M5 Ha'apai community resilience project

M3 Western Tongatapu resilience project

M6 Government ministerial complex

M7 Pacific Games 2019

Energy

E1 Distribution network improvements (multi-year)

E2 Additional/ replacement generators (Tongatapu)

E3 Additional/ replacement generators (Vava'u)

E4 Additional/replacement generators (Ha'apai)

E5 Additional/ replacement generators ('Eua)

E6 Village networks (electricity pole replacement)

E7 Outer-island Off-Grid power (Solar)

E8 Improved street lighting

E9 Upgrade bulk fuel logistics (tank farm, Bunkering)

E10 Solar generation (Tongatapu – Meridian Energy) Maama Mai

E11 Solar generation (Tongatapu - Additional 1 MW) Vaini

E12 Renewable energy pilots (Coconut Oil/land fill gas)

E13 Energy Roadmap TGIF Projects

E14 Solar Generation (Vava'u) 420 KW La'aa Lahi

E15 Biomass Generation ('Eua)

E16 Outer Islands On-Grid Renewable Energy Project


E18 Relocate Critical Power Lines Underground

E19 Upgrade of Nuku’alofa Electricity Network

Telecom

T1 Upgrade TCC Fixed line services and cabling (Tongatapu)

T2 TCC Mobile Phone Next Generation Network

T3 Relocation of TCC Transmission Tower (Nuku‟alofa)

T4 Outreach – Expanding Services to Small Islands

T5 Upgrading of TBC AM Radio Towers

T6 International Fibre-Optic Cable

T7 Local Reticulation of High Speed Internet

T8 E-Government

T9 Fibre-Optic Cable to Ha‟apai, Vava‟u etc

T10 Communications for Early Warning and Disaster Recovery

Water & Sanitation

W1 Upgrade 10 villages water supplies


W3 Upgrade Neiafu Island mamao water supply (wells, distribution)

W4 Expand Nuku'alofa system to growth areas


60


W6 Water Softening for Nuku’alofa System

W7 New well field for Neiafu, Vava’u

Solid Waste

S1 Additional capacity for septage treatment

S2 Equipment Renewal Program

S3 Vava'u Semi-Aerobic Landfill Facility

S5 Sustainable Solid Waste Services in Nuku’alofa

S6 New Landfill or Transfer Station on Ha’apai

Transport Road

R1 National Roads Improvement Project

R2 Integrated Urban Development Sector Program

R3 Transport Sector Consolidation Project

R4 Vaipua Bridge (Vava‟u)

R5 Foa Causeway (Ha‟apai)

R6 Agricultural Road Program

R7 Upgrading of Toula Causeway (Vava‟u)

R8 New road link to southern side of Fanga‟uta Lagoon

R9 Overlay of AC Road in Tongatapu

R10 Outer Islands Roads Upgrading Program

R11 Tongatapu Trunk Roads Program

Transport Maritime

P1 Replacement inter-island ferry

P2 Reconfigure Inter-island wharves for new ferry

P3 Reseal Queen Salote Wharf (QSW Int. and Dom.)

P4 Refurbish Slipway at QSW

P5 Upgrade Container Handling (Forklift) for QSW

P6 Replace Fender at QSW International Wharf

P7 Vuna Wharf (Stage 1 Cruise ship wharf)

P8 New Pilot Boat for QSW

P9 Inter-island port and terminal CC Resilience upgrades

P10 Vuna Wharf (Stage 2 Marina)

P11 Upgrade of the Queen Salote XXXXXXXXX Wharf

P12 Yellow Pier Upgrade

P13 Slipway for Ferries at Sopu

P14 Barge for Deep Water Dredging

P15 Upgrade of Vava'u port (terminal, storage, forklift etc.)

P16 Nafanua ('Eua) Port Upgrade

P17 Multi-purpose Barge (Niuas)

Transport Aviation

A1 Additional Fire Tender (Fua‟amotu) (TSCP Aviation)

A2 Upgrade Navigations Aids (Fua‟amotu DVOR)

A3 Upgrade „Eua runway




A7 Additional Fire Tender (Vava‟u)


A9 Expand apron area at Fua‟amotu


A11 Resurfacing Ha‟apai runway, apron, taxiway

A12 Control Tower for Fua'amotu

A13 New Aircraft Hangar at Fua'amotu

3.2 List of new Proposed Projects in the Sector not mentioned in the NIIP 2 (2013)

Type and Name of Project Estimated Cost

Proposed Implementation period

TOP million years Infrastructure

Complementary Measures (TA)


61

4) Infrastructure expenditures and funding since NIIP 2 Provide infrastructure expenditures data for priority projects that are / were under implementation (U) during the financial years 2012/13 and 2014/15

Name of Project Yearly disbursement schedule (m TOP)

Infrastructure underway Before 2013/14

Year 13/14 Year 14/15 Year 15/16 After 2015/16

Multi-sector

Energy

Telecom

Water & Sanitation

Solid Waste

Transport Road

Transport Maritime

Transport Aviation

5) Maintenance budget

Document Yearly Infrastructure Maintenance budget and disbursement in your sector (Ministry and/ or PE

Sector/ Actor (Ministry,

Agency, PE)

Year 2013/2014 Year 2014/2015 Year 2015/2016

Maintenance Budget

Disbursement on Maintenance

Maintenance Budget

Disbursement on Maintenance

Targeted Maintenance

Budget

TOP million TOP million TOP million TOP million TOP million Multi-sector

Energy

Telecom

Water and Sanitation

Solid Waste

Transport (Road)

Transport (Maritime)

Transport (Aviation)


62

Annex 6: NIIP2 completed projects and new projects

Table 1 gives the list of the 29 completed projects. 11 projects (T5, W1, R1, R4, P1, P2, P7, A1, A2 & A3) that were completed before the year 2013 and therefore could have been retired from the NIIP2 project list. 12 of the 29 projects were new infrastructure (TOP 148 million in value) and 17 others (60 % in number and TOP 229 million in value) encompassed essentially renovation works in various degrees.

Table 1: NIIP 2 projects completed Nr.

Priority NIIP 2


million

Operating

Agency

Renewal [R]

versus New [N]

Dev. Partner

Project

Start Year

Project End Year

Multisectoral 1.10

M2 Coastal protection - Eastern Tongatapu 1.10 MEIDECC N EU 2011 2015

Energy 91.16

E2 Additional/ replacement generators (Tongatapu) 28.60 TPL R TPL Debt 2013 2014

E7 Outer-island Off-Grid power (Solar) 11.86 MEIDECC N JICA 2012 2013

E10 Solar generation (Tongatapu – Meridian Energy) Maama Mai 14.00 TPL N NZ-MFAT 2010 2013

E11 Solar generation (Tongatapu - Additional 1 MW) Vaini 30.00 TPL N JICA 2012 2015

E14 Solar Generation (Vava'u) 420 KW La'aa Lahi 6.70 TPL N UAE 2011 2013

Telecom 82.40

T1 Upgrade TCC Fixed line services and cabling (tongatapu) in T2 TCC R & N in T2 in T2 in T2

T2 TCC Mobile Phone Next Generation Network (include T1,T2, T3 and T7)

28.00 TCC N TCC Funding 2013 2014

T3 Relocation of TCC Transmission Tower (Nuku‟alofa) in T2 TCC N in T2 in T2 in T2

T5 Upgrading of TBC AM Radio Towers 1.40 TBC N Korea Funding 2011 2011

T6 International Fibre-Optic Cable 53.00 TCL N WB & ADB 2012 Jun-13

Water Supply and Sanitation 5.00

W1 Upgrade 10 villages water supplies 5.00 TWB R & N DFAT- EU 2007 2012

Solid Waste 5.00

S2 Equipment Renewal Program (NUDSP) 1.00 WAL R ADB-DFAT 2013 2015

S3 Vava'u Semi-Aerobic Landfill Facility 4.00 MOH R JICA 2012 2013

S5 Sustainable Solid Waste Services in Nuku’alofa (NUDSP) in S2 WAL N ADB-DFAT 2013 2015

Transportation Road 142.95

R1 National Roads Improvement Project 80.00 MOI R China Exim Loan 2008 2011

R2 Integrated Urban Development Sector Program (IUDSP) 34.45 MOI R & N ADB 2009 2014

R4 Vaipua Bridge (Vava‟u) 7.80 MOI R China Aid 2011 2012

R5 Foa Causeway (Ha‟apai) (OIRDP) 4.70 MOI R Germany (debt swap) 2012 2013

R11 Tongatapu Trunk Roads Program 16.00 MOI R & N China Aid 2006 2008

Transportation Maritime 58.89

P1 Replacement inter-island ferry 25.00 MOI R JICA 2008 2010

P2 Reconfigure Inter-island wharves for new ferry 2.10 MOI R GOT 2009 2010

P4 Refurbish Slipway at QSW 0.50 PAT R PAT Funding 2013 2014

P6 Replace Fender at QSW International Wharf 1.00 PAT R PAT Funding 2014 2014

P7 Vuna Wharf (Stage 1 Cruise ship wharf) 30.00 PAT R & N Loan China 2010 2012

P17 Multi-purpose Barge (Niuas) 0.29 MOI N WB (TSCP) 2014 2014

Transportation Aviation 6.80

A1 Additional Fire Tender (Fua‟amotu) (TSCP Aviation) 1.80 TAL N WB TSCP ? 2009

A2 Upgrade Navigations Aids (Fua‟amotu DVOR) 2.00 TAL R & N TAL Loan ? 2011

A3 Upgrade ,Eua runway 3.00 TAL R & N NZ-MAFT ? 2011

Total 393.3

Table 2 lists the 12 new projects reported during the interviews. These new projects tend to move faster into commitment with DPs and implementation than a number of high priority projects listed in the NIIP2. 58 % of these projects (TOP 76.9 million) are for new additional capacity.

Table 2: New Projects since the completion of the NIIP 2 list Nr.

Priority NIIP 2


million Status

Operating Agency

Renewal [R]

versus New [N]

Dev. Partner

Project Start Year

Project End Year

Multisectoral

M-2015-1 Outer Islands resilience (Vavau, Eua and the Niuas) tbd P MEIDECC N ?? ?? ??

Energy

E-2015-1 Smart Metering and Prepayment Procedures 8.00 P TPL R & N TPL Debt ?? ??

E-2015-2 Tongatapu Wind (2+2 MW) 43.00 P TPL N JICA+NZ-MFAT 2016 2018


E-2015-4 Outer Islands On-Grid Energy Efficiency Project (OIEEP) 1)

10.00 P TPL R ADB - EU ? ?? ??

Telecom



Water Supply and Sanitation


Solid Waste

None

Transport Road

R-2015-1 Backlog Road Maintenance Program (TSCP 2) 1)

20.00 P MOI R WB/DFAT/ GOT 2015 2019

Transportation Maritime

P-2015-1 TSCP2 (Nav Aids, Vessels, Ports Repairs) Niuas, Eu'a & Ha'apai 4.00 P MOI R & N WB ? 2016 2018

P-2015-2 Complementary ports repairs and upgrade incl. dredging 9.00 P MOI R & N ?? 2016 2018

P-2015-3 New XXXXXXXXX Wharf 33.00 C MOI N JICA 2015 2018

Transportation Aviation

None

Total (TOP million )

128.5

1) These projects will both include a mix of loan and grant in line with the new policies of WBG and ADB


63


64

Annex 7: NIIP2 Infrastructure projects disbursement 2013- 2016

Proj. Nr.

NIIP

2

Project

Name

Total

TOP million

Operating Dev. Spread of Costs Expenditure Expenditure Planned Expenditure Planned Expenditure thereafter

Proj.

Start Year

Proj.

End Year

Status


Agency Partner

m TOP

m TOP

m TOP

m TOP

2012/13 2012/13 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15

Multisectoral

M2 Coastal protection - Eastern Tongatapu 1.10 completed MEIDECC EU 0.03

1.07

0.01

0.21

0.01

0.21

0.01

0.21

0.01

0.21

2011 2015

M3 Climate Resilience Sector Project (CRSP)

20.00 C MEIDECC ADB 0.60

19.40

0.60

19.40

2015 2019

M4

Disaster response & evacuation infrastructure (part of CRSP)

in M3 C MEIDECC in M3 in M3

in M3

in M3

in M3

in M3

in M3

in M3

in M3

in M3

in M3

2015 2019

Energy


45.00 U TPL NZ-MFAT 1.35 0.00 43.65 0.00 0.17

5.46

0.17

5.46

0.17

5.46

0.68

21.83

2011 2018

E2

Additional/ replacement generators (Tongatapu)

28.60 Completed TPL TPL Debt 0.00 28.60 0.00 0.00

14.30

14.30

2013 2014

E6

Village networks (electricity pole replacement) (part of E1)

In E1 U TPL in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 in E1 2011 2018

E7 Outer-island Off-Grid power (Solar) 11.86 Completed MEIDECC JICA 0.36

11.50

0.18

5.75

0.18

5.75

2012 2013

E8 Improved street lighting

0.80 U TPL GOT/ TPL

0.80

0.00 0.27 0.00

0.27 0.00

0.00 0.27 0.00

2013 2015

E10

Solar generation (Tongatapu – Meridian Energy) Maama Mai

14.00 Completed TPL NZ-MFAT 0.42

13.58

0.11

3.40

0.11

3.40

2010 2013

E11

Solar generation (Tongatapu - Additional 1 MW) Vaini

30.00 Completed TPL JICA 0.90

29.10

0.23

7.28

0.23

7.28

0.23

7.28

0.23

7.28

2012 2015

E14 Solar Generation (Vava'u) 420 KW La'aa Lahi

6.70 Completed TPL UAE 0.20

6.50

0.07

2.17

0.07

2.17

2011 2013

E16

Outer Islands On-Grid Renewable Energy Project (OIREP)

10.00 P TPL ADB/ DFAT

0.30

9.70

0.30

9.70

2015 2016

E-2015-

2

Tongatapu Wind (2+2 MW)

43.00 P TPL JICA +

NZ-MFAT 1.29

41.71

1.29

41.71

2016 2018

E-2015-

3

Ha'apai Micro-Wind Project (11KW)

0.30 U TPL TPL

Funding 0.01

0.29

0.01

0.29

2015 2015

E-2015-

4

Outer Islands On-Grid Energy Efficinecy Project (OIEEP)

10.00 P TPL ADB - EU

? 0.30

6.70

0.30

6.70 3.00 2016 2018

Telecom

T1

Upgrade TCC Fixed line services and cabling (tongatapu)

in T2 Completed TCC in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2 in T2

T2

TCC Mobile Phone Next Generation Network (include T1,T2, T3 and T7)

28.00 Completed TCC TCC

Funding 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00

14.00

14.00

2013 2014

T3 Relocation of TCC Transmission Tower (Nuku‟alofa)

in T2 Completed TCC in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2 in T2

in T2 in T2

T6 International Fibre-Optic Cable 53.00 Completed TCL

WB & ADB

5.30

47.70

2.65

23.85

2.65

23.85

2012 2013

T7 Local Reticulation of High Speed Internet

in T2 C TCC in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2

in T2 in T2

in T2 in T2

T9 Fibre-Optic Cable to Ha‟apai, Vava‟u etc

30.00 P TCL WB & ADB ?

0.90

29.10

0.90

29.10

2015 2016

T10

Communications for Early Warning and Disaster Recovery

6.00 P MEIDECC JICA ? 0.18

5.82

0.18

5.82

2015 2016


65

Proj. Nr.

NIIP

2

Project

Name

Total

TOP million


Proj.

Start Year

Proj.

End Year

Status


Agency Partner

m TOP

m TOP

m TOP

m TOP

2012/13 2012/13 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15

T-2015-

1

Mobile Health 0.30 C MOH ADB ? 0.01

0.29

0.01

0.29

2015 2016

T-2015-

2

Tele Centra (Internet Rural Areas)

0.30 C MEIDECC ITU ? 0.01

0.29

0.01

0.29

2015 2016

Water Supply

and Sanitation

W2

Rehabilitate the Nuku‟alofa

water system (NUDSP)

11.91 U TWB ADB-DFAT

0.36

11.55

0.09

2.89

0.09

2.89

0.18

5.78

2013 2016

W5

Development of a new

Tongatapu well field (NUDSP)

in W2 U TWB ADB-DFAT

in W2

in W2

in W2

in W2

in W2

in W2

2013 2016

W-2015-

1

Water Treatment

Upgrading in Eu'a

0.60 U TWB fund TWB Loan

0.60

0.60

2015 2015

Solid Waste

S1 Additional capacity for septage treatment NUDSP)

3.00 U WAL ADB-DFAT

0.09

2.91

0.02

0.73

0.07

2.18

2014 2017

S2 Equipment Renewal Program (NUDSP)

1.00 Completed WAL ADB-DFAT

0.03

0.97

0.01

0.32

0.01

0.32

0.01

0.32

2013 2015

S3 Vava'u Semi-Aerobic Landfill Facility

4.00 Completed MOH JICA 0.12

3.88

0.06

1.94

0.06

1.94

2012 2013

S5

Sustainable Solid Waste Services in Nuku’alofa (NUDSP)

in S1 Completed WAL ADB-DFAT

in S1

in S1

in S1

in S1

in S1 in S1

in S1 in S1

in S1 in S1 in S1

2014 2017

Transportation

Road

R2

Integrated Urban Development Sector Program (IUDSP)

34.45 completed MOI ADB 5.86

28.59

0.98

4.77

0.98

4.77

0.98

4.77

2009 2014

R3

Transport Sector Consolidation Project (TSCP Roads)

11.60 U MOI WB/DFAT 0.35

11.25

0.05

1.61

0.05

1.61

0.05

1.61

0.05

1.61

2009 2015

R5 Foa Causeway (Ha‟apai) (OIRDP) 4.70 completed MOI

Germany (debt swap)

0.14

4.56

0.07

2.28

0.07

2.28

2012 2013

R-2015-

1

Backlog Road Maintenance Program (TSCP 2)

20.00 P MOI WB/

DFAT/ GOT

5.00

10.00 5.00

5.00

10.00 5.00 2016 2019

Transportation

Maritime


11.30 U PAT PAT

Funding 11.30

2.26

2.26

2.26

4.52

2012 2016

P4 Refurbish Slipway at QSW 0.50 Completed PAT

PAT Funding

0.50

0.25

0.25

2013 2014

P5

Upgrade Container Handling (Forklift) for QSW (30% before 12/13)

6.00 U PAT PAT

Funding 6.00

0.75

0.75

0.75

1.50

2009 2016

P6 Replace Fender at QSW International Wharf

1.00 Completed PAT PAT

Funding 1.00

1.00

2014 2014

P8 New Pilot Boat for QSW 1.50 U PAT

PAT Funding

1.50

0.75

0.75

2013 2014

P11

Upgrade of the Queen Salote XXXXXXXXX Wharf

30.00 C PAT JICA 0.90

29.10

0.30

9.70

0.30

9.70

0.30

9.70

2013 2015

P17 Multi-purpose Barge (Niuas)

0.29 Completed MOI WB

(TSCP) 0.01

0.28

0.01

0.28

2014 2014

P-2015-

1

TSCP2 (Nav Aids, Vessels, Ports Repairs) Niuas, Eu'a & Ha'apai

4.00 P MOI WB ? 0.12

3.88

0.12

3.88

2016 2018


66

Proj. Nr.

NIIP

2

Project

Name

Total

TOP million


Proj.

Start Year

Proj.

End Year

Status


Agency Partner

m TOP

m TOP

m TOP

m TOP

2012/13 2012/13 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15

P-2015-

3

New XXXXXXXXX Wharf

33.00 C MOI JICA 0.99

32.01

0.99

32.01

2015 2018

Transportation

Aviation

A4

Upgraded Departure area (Fua‟amotu); (TSCP Aviation)

1.00 U TAL WB

TSCP 0.03

0.97

0.01

0.24

0.01

0.24

0.01

0.24

2011 2014


1.20 U TAL WB

TSCP 0.04

1.16

0.01

0.23

0.01

0.23

0.01

0.23

0.01

0.23

2011 2015


2.00 C TAL WB

TSCP 0.06

1.94

0.06

1.94

2015 2016

Total 400.10

26.24 78.30 409.47 5.00 4.57 3.01 59.18 0.00 4.97 32.58 72.09 0.00 1.87 33.58 33.71 0.00 11.29 6.89 210.27 8.00

Total

519.01 66.76 109.63 69.16


67

Annex 8: Assets management good practice framework and survey results (Extracted from the edition 2011 of the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) published by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA)).

Exhibit 1: Good practices benchmarks for asset management functions

Section Insufficient Minimum Core Intermediate Advanced

1 AM Policy Development

No Policy in Place

Corporate expectations expressed informally and simply, e.g.: -all departments must update AM Plans every three years·.

Defined policy statements for all significant activities. Clear linkage to corporate goals. Policy supported by high level action plans with defined responsibilities for delivery.

AM Policy and Strategy reviewed and adopted by Executive Team each year. Expectations of each activity area defined with detailed action plans, resources, responsibilities and timeframes.

AM Policy and Strategy fully integrated into the organisation's business processes and subject to defined audit, review and updating procedures.

2 Levels of Service and Performance Management

No Level of services defined

Asset contribution to organisation's objectives and some basic levels of service have been defined.

Customer Groups defined and requirements informally understood. levels of service and performance measures in place covering a range of service attributes. Annual reporting against performance tarqets.

Customer Group needs analysed. Costs 10 deliver alternate key levels of service are assessed. Customers are consulted on significant service levels and options.

levels of service consultation strategy developed and implemented. Technical and customer levels of service are integral to decision making and business planning.

3 Demand Forecasting

No demand forecasting in place

Demand forecasts based on experienced staff predictions, with consideration of known past demand trends and likely future growth patterns.

Demand Forecasts based on robust projection of a primary demand factor (e.g.: population growth) and extrapolation of historic trends. Risk associated with demand change broadly understood and documented.

Demand forecasts based on mathematical analysis of past trends and primary demand factors. A range of demand scenarios is developed (e.g.: high/medium/ low).

As for 'Intermediate', plus risk assessment of different demand scenarios with mitigation actions identified.

4 Asset Register Data

No register available

Basic physical information recorded in a spreadsheet Of similar (e.g. location, size, type), but may be based on broad assumptions or not complete.

Sufficient information to complete asset valuation -as for 'minimum' plus replacement cost and asset age/life. Asset hierarchy, asset identification and asset attribute systems documented.

A reliable register of physical and financial attributes recorded in an information system with data analysis and reporting functionality. Systematic and documented data collection process in place. High level of confidence in critical asset data.

Information on work history type and cost, condition, performance, etc. recorded at asset component level. Systematic and fully optimised data collection programme. Complete data-base for critical assets; minimal assumptions for non-critical assets.

5 Asset Condition

No asset condition documentation available

Condition assessment at asset group level ('top-down). Supports minimum requirements for managing critical assets and statutory requirements (e.g. safety).

Condition assessment programme in place for major asset types, prioritised based on asset risk. Data supports asset life assessment. Data management standards and processes documented. Programme for data improvement developed.

Condition assessment programme derived from benefit-cost analysis of options. A good range of condition data for all asset types (may be sampling-based). Data management processes fully integrated into business processes. Data validation process in place.

The quality and completeness of condition information supports risk management, lifecycle decision-making and financial/ performance reporting. Periodic reviews of programme suitability carried out.

6 Risk Management

No risk management framework in place for AM

Critical assets understood by staff involved in maintenance / renewal decisions.

Risk framework developed. Critical assets and high risks identified. Documented risk management strategies fOf critical assets and high risks.

Systematic risk analysis to assist key decision-making. Risk register regularly monitored and reported. Risk managed consistently across the organisation.

Formal risk management policy in place. Risk is quantified and risk mitigation options evaluated. Risk is integrated into all aspects of decision making.

7 Decision Making

No decision making framework in place for AM

AM decisions based largely on staff judgement and agreed corporate priorities.

Formal decision making techniques are applied to major projects and programmes.

Formal decision making and prioritisation techniques are applied to all operational and capital asset programmes within each main budget category. Critical assumptions and estimates are tested for sensitivity to results.

As for 'Intermediate', plus... The framework enables projects and programmes to be optimised across all activity areas. Formal risk-based sensitivity analysis is carried out.


68

8 Operational Planning

No documented operational planning

Operational responses are understood by key staff, but plans may not be well-documented, mainly reactive in nature. Asset utilisation is measured for some key assets but is not routinely assessed

Emergency response plan is developed. Demand management is considered in major asset planning. Asset utilisation is measured for critical asset groups and is routinely analysed.

Emergency response plans and business continuity plans are routinely developed and tested. Demand management is a component of all operational decision making. Asset utilisation is measured and analysed for most asset groups.

Operational plans routinely analysed, tested and improved. Formal debriefs occur after inddents. Asset utilisation measured real-time and effectiveness analysed across all asset groups. Operational programmes are optimised using benefit-cost and risk analysis.

9 Maintenance Planning

No documented maintenance planning in place

Organisational objectives and how asset functions support these are understood. Compliant with legislation and regulations, Maintenance records maintained.

Asset criticality considered in response processes. Fault tracking and closure process. Strategy for prescriptive versus performance-based maintenance developed. Key maintenance objectives established and measured.

Contingency plans for all maintenance activities. Asset failure modes understood. Frequency of major preventative maintenance optimised using benefit-cost analysis. Maintenance management software implemented.

Forensic root cause analysis for major faults. Optimisation of all reactive and planned programmes alongside renewal planning. Procurement models fully explored.

10 Capital Works Planning

No documented capital works planning in place

There is a schedule of proposed capital projects and associated costs, based on staff judgement of future requirements.

Projects have been collated from A wide range of sources such as hydraulic models. operational staff and risk processes. Capital projects for the next three years are fully scoped and estimated.

As for 'Core', plus formal options analysis and business case development has been completed for major projects in the 3-5 year period. Major capital projects for the next 10-20 are conceptually identified and broad cost estimates are available.

long-term capital investment programmes are developed using advanced decision techniques such as predictive renewal modelling (refer Section 3.1).

11 Financial and Funding Strategies

No documented financial strategies

Assets re-valued in compliance with financial reporting and accounting standards. 10 year financial forecasts are based on extrapolation of past trends and broad assumptions about the future. Expenditure categories compliant with FRS.

Asset revaluations have a 'C ' grade data confidence· 10+ yr financial forecasts based on current AMP outputs. Significant assumptions are specific and well reasoned. Expenditure captured at a level useful for AM analysis.

Asset revaluations have a 'B' grade data confidence.· 10 year+ financial forecasts based on current comprehensive AMPs with detailed supporting assumptions / reliability factors. Asset Expenditure easily linked to finance databases.

Asset revaluations have an 'A' grade data confidence· 10 year + financial forecasts based on comprehensive, advanced AM plans with detailed underlying assumptions and high confidence in accuracy. Advanced financial modelling provides sensitivity analysis. demonstrable whole of life costing and cost analysis for level of service options.

12 AM Teams

No documented AM teams

AM allocated primarily to one or two people who have AM experience.

Cross-Council coordination occurs through a Steering Group or Committee. AM training occurs for primary staff. The executive team have considered options for AM functions and structures.

All staff in the organisation understand their role in AM, it is defined in their job descriptions, and they receive supporting training aligned to that role. A person on the Executive Team has responsibility for delivering the AM Policy/Strategy.

A formal AM capability building programme is in place and routinely monitored. The AM structure has been formally reviewed with consideration of the benefits and costs of options.

13 AM Plans

No documented maintenance AM Plans

Plan contains basic information on assets, service levels, planned works and financial forecasts (5-10 years) and future improvements.

As for 'Minimum' plus executive summary, description of services and key/critical assets, top-down condition and performance description, future demand forecasts, description of supporting AM processes, 10 year financial forecasts, 3 year AM improvement plan.

As for 'Core' plus analysis of asset condition and performance trends (past/future);, effective customer engagement in setting risk techniques applied to major programmes.

As for 'Intermediate' plus evidence of programmes driven by comprehensive ODM techniques, risk management programmes and level of service cost trade-off analysis. Improvement programmes largely complete with focus on ongoing maintenance of current practice.


69

14 Information Systems

No information systems in place

Asset register can record core asset attributes -size, material, etc. Asset information reports can be manually generated for AMP input.

Asset register enables hierarchical reporting (at component to facility level). Customer request tracking and planned maintenance functionality enabled. System enables manual reports 10 be generated for valuation, renewal forecasting.

More automated analysis reporting on a wider range of information. Key operations, unplanned maintenance and condition and performance information held.

Financial, asset and customer service systems are integrated and all advanced AM functions are enabled.

15 Service Delivery Mechanisms

No documented service delivery mechanisms

Service delivery roles clearly allocated (internal and external), generally following historic approaches.

Contracts in place for external service provision. Core functions defined.

Internal service level agreements in place with internal service providers. Contracting approaches reviewed to identify best delivery mechanism. Tendering / contracting policy in place. Competitive tendering practices applied.

All potential service delivery mechanisms reviewed and formal analysis carried out. Risks, benefits and costs of various outsourcing options are considered.

16 Quality Management

No documented quality management in place

Simple process documentation in place for service-critical activities.

Defined quality policy and basic Quality Management System. All critical activity processes documented.

Process documentation implemented in accordance with the Quality Management System plan. All processes documented to appropriate level of detail.

ISO 900 1certification achieved and surveillance audits demonstrates the satisfactory operation of the Quality Management System

17 Improvement Planning

No documented improvement planning

Improvement actions identified and allocated 10 appropriate staff.

Current and future AM performance assessed and gaps used to drive the improvement actions. Improvement plans identify objectives, timeframes, deliverables, resource requirements and responsibilities..

Formal monitoring and reporting on the improvement programme to Executive Team. Project briefs developed for all key improvement actions.

Improvement plans specify key performance indicators (KPls) for monitoring AM improvement and these are routinely reported.


70

Exhibit 2: Asset management performance status 2015 for selective Ministries and PEs against exhibit 1 benchmarks

MOI (Road) , PAT , TWB , WAL , MET , TAL , TPL

Section Insufficient Minimum Core Intermediate Advanced 1

AM Policy Development

2 Levels of Service and Performance Management

3 Demand Forecasting

4 Asset Register Data

5 Asset Condition

6 Risk Management

7 Decision Making

8 Operational Planning

9 Maintenance Planning

10 Capital Works Planning

11 Financial and Funding Strategies

12 AM Teams

13 AM Plans 14 Information Systems

15 Service Delivery

Mechanisms

16

Quality Management

17 Improvement Planning


71

Annex 9: Recommended sectoral infrastructure performance indicators

Table1: Performance indicators for the power sector

Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/ 2014

Sources of data PIPIs 2011 TPL Figures

Access: Outreach % of total households 78.1 78.3

Affordability: Tariff residential TOP/ KWh 50 91 TOP

Energy Use: Renewable Share % of energy use >1 % 5% (now 7.5%)

Electricity Sold: Household GWh/ year 17.9 19.8

Installed Capacity MW 15.3 16.6

Share of installed renewable capacity % of capacity ? 17 %

Maximal Demand MW 7.7 8.2

Minimal Demand MW 3.1 1.9

Gross Generation (total) MWh/ year 45,214 47,169

Length of Distribution Network Km n.a. 186

Distribution Losses % (target 5%) 12.34 9.64

Fuel Consumption KWh/ litre n.a. 4.28

Number of Employees # 104 135

Number of Customers # 14000 15195

Table 2: Performance indicators for the ICT sector

Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/

2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011 2013 WBG

Access: Fixed Lines #/ 100 people 25 28.6

Access: Mobile Subscriptions #/ 100 people 48.73 53.4

Access: Fixed Broadband Subscribers #/ 100 people 0.7 1.4

Affordability: Telecom. Service Price/ Fixed Line % of Aver. Monthly Income 17.5 6.4

Affordability: Telecom. Service Price/ Mobile % of Aver. Monthly Income 11.9 11.0

Affordability: Telecom. Service Price/ Internet % of Aver. Monthly Income ? 62.3

Competition: Number of Service Providers # 2 2

Quality: International Internet Bandwidth per Person bits/ person 1,429 2,733

Table 3: Performance indicators for the water and sanitation sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011, PWWA 2011 PWWA 2013

Number of Water Connection # 11,196 11,315

Population served # 61,608 62,338

Number of schemes # 5 5

Length of pipes km 164 165

Volume Produced 1000 m3/year 4922 3947

Number of drinking water safety plan in use number 5 5

Customer complaints number/year 122 986

Average water tariff TOP/m3 119 106

Volume of water produced - total produced from sources and treatment kl/conn/day 1.2 0.96

Volume of water produced l/capita/day 219 173

Volume of water sold (i.e. billed) - through meters or estimated unmetered kl/conn/day 0.89 0.74

Volume of water sold (i.e. billed) l/capita/day 163 135

Volume of sewage produced - total kl/conn/day none none

Volume of sewage produced l/capita/day none none

Continuity of water supply service (hours available) hours/day 24 22

Non-Revenue Water % of water produced 26 22

Non-Revenue Water kl/km/day 7.7 5.7

Sewerage coverage % of population n.a. ?

Drinking water quality compliance - residual chlorine % compliance 93 97

Drinking water quality compliance - microbiological % compliance 88 97

% of sewage produced which is treated to at least primary standard % of sewage none none

Customer complaints per 1000 connections number/1000 connections 11 87

Affordability new connection % of GNI per capita 2.4 2.7

Affordability - average bill % of GNI per capita 1 1.1

Affordability – bill for 6kL/month/connection % of GNI per capita 0.5 0.4

Table 4: Performance indicators for the solid waste sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011 WAL data

Access: Access to Regular Waste Collection (Urban) % Urban Population 73 80

Access: Frequency of Household Waste Collection collection/ week 1 1

Sustainability: Recycling Services and Waste Sorting PET; metals: cans; others metals: cans e-waste, metals, cans

Quality: Environmental Standards of Landfills Sanitary landfill/ dumpsite 1 sanitary landfill/ dumpsites 1 sanitary landfill / dumpsites

Efficiency: Cost Recovery Collection Fee; % collected Fee exist; 6 % collected Urban 65 %; Rural 15 %


72

Table 5: Performance indicators for the road sector

Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011 MOI Road data

Access: Total Road Network km 680 ? 930

Access: Paved Roads km 184 ? 560

Access: Unpaved Roads km 496 ? 370

Access: Paved Roads as % of Total Road % 27.1 ? 60

Access: Ratio of road network in good and fair condition % n.a. n.a.

Access: Road Density km/ km2 0.95 ? 1.2

Access: Population Density people/ km2 171 ? 140.8

Access: Private Motor Vehicle Registrations cars ? 4270

Access: Private Motor Vehicle Registrations vans and pick-ups ? 4828

Access: Private Motor Vehicle Registrations trucks ? 1972

Access: Private Motor Vehicle Registrations others ? 282

Access; current gas tax as % of gas price % ? ?

Table 6: Performance indicators for the marine sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011/ PAT data PAT data

Access: Number of Main Ports # 3 3

Trade Tonnes 235,197 250,664

Containers Throughput (TEUs) 12,047 14,751

Vessel Arrivals # 169 161

Efficiency/Productivity: Cargo Handling Equipment Forklifts Forklifts

Efficiency: Private Ownership of Port Terminal no no

Efficiency: Private Participation Ground Handling no no

Table 7: Performance indicators for the aviation sector Sector / Indicator Unit Value in 2011 Value in 2013/2014

Source of data PIPIs 2011 TAL data

Access: Number of Operational Airports (Paved) # 1 4

Access: Number of Operational Airports (Unpaved) # 5 2

Access: Inbound Flights per Week Inbound flights / week 16 16

Access: Inbound Seats per Week International seats/ week 2100 2200

Access: National Airlines Carrier Airlines Tonga no

Access: Other Airlines Carriers 2 Real Tonga Airlines

Access: Domestic Air Services no no

Affordability: International Air Freight Rates TOP/kg 650 ?

Efficiency: Private Ownership of Airport no no

Efficiency: Private Ownership of Terminal no no

Efficiency: Private Participation Ground Handling yes yes


73

Annex 10: Templates for Project Profile Document (PPD)

Exhibit 1: List of proposed projects to be documented with PPD following the NIIP implementation Review 2015

Nr. Priority NIIP2

1)

Priority Project Name Total mTOP

Ministry in

Charge

Operating Agency

Dev. Partner

Project Start Year

Project End Year

Multisectoral

21.10

M5 Ha'apai community resilience project tbd MEIDECC MEIDECC DFAT ? ?? ??

M6 Government ministerial complex tbd ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

M7 Pacific Games 2019 tbd ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

M-2015-1 Outer Islands resilience (Vavau, Eua and the Niuas) tbd MEIDECC MEIDECC ?? ?? ??

Energy

259.76

E9 Upgrade bulk fuel logistics (tank farm, Bunkering) 11.00 MEIDECC MEIDECC ?? ?? ??

E12 Renewable energy pilots (Coconut Oil/land fill gas) 3.00 MEIDECC MEIDECC ?? ?? ??

E13 Energy Roadmap TGIF Projects

MEIDECC MEIDECC ?? ?? ??

E15 Biomass Generation ('Eua) 5.00 MEIDECC MEIDECC/TPL Need DP ? ?? ??

E16 Outer Islands On-Grid Renewable Energy Project (OIREP) 10.00 MEIDECC TPL ADB/ DFAT 2014 2016


MEIDECC MEIDECC ?? ?? ??

E18 Relocate Critical Power Lines Underground

MEIDECC TPL ?? ?? ??

E19 Upgrade of Nuku’alofa Electricity Network 25.70 MEIDECC TPL Need DP ? ?? ??

E-2015-1 Smart Metering and Prepayment Procedures 8.00 MEIDECC TPL TPL Debt ?? ??

E-2015-2 Tongatapu Wind (2+2 MW) 43.00 MEIDECC TPL JICA + NZ-MFAT 2016 2018

E-2015-4 Outer Islands On-Grid Energy Efficinecy Project (OIEEP) 10.00 MEIDECC TPL ADB - EU ? ?? ??

Telecom

143.00

T8 E-Government 20.00 MEIDECC MEIDECC ??? 2015 2018

T9 Fibre-Optic Cable to Ha‟apai, Vava‟u etc 30.00 MEIDECC TCL WB & ADB ? 2015 2016

T10 Communications for Early Warning and Disaster Recovery 6.00 MEIDECC MEIDECC JICA ? 2015 2016

Water Supply and Sanitation

63.91

W3 Upgrade Neiafu Island mamao water supply (wells, distribution) 15.00 MPE TWB JICA ? 2016 2016

W4 Expand Nuku'alofa system to growth areas 11.40 MPE TWB ADB-DFAT ? ?? ??

W6 Water Softening for Nuku’alofa System 8.00 MPE TWB ?? ?? ??

W7 New well field for Neiafu, Vava’u 12.00 MPE TWB ?? ?? ??

Solid Waste

12.00

S6 New Landfill or Transfer Station on Ha’apai 4.00 MOH/MPE MOH WB Cyclone Ian ? 2016 2016

Transportation Road

241.55

R6 Agricultural Road Program 5.00 MOI MOI ADB ? ?? ??

R7 Upgrading of Toula Causeway (Vava‟u) 2.00 MOI MOI ?? ?? ??

R8 New road link to southern side of Fanga‟uta Lagoon 30.00 MOI MOI ?? ?? ??

R9 Overlay of AC Road in Tongatapu 20.00 MOI MOI JICA ? 2018 2020

R10 Outer Islands Roads Upgrading Program 10.00 MOI MOI ?? ?? ??

R-2015-1 Backlog Road Maintenance Program (TSCP 2) 20.00 MOI MOI WB/ DFAT/ GOT 2015 2019

Transportation Maritime

211.69

P10 Vuna Wharf (Stage 2 Marina) 20.00 MPE PAT PAT Loan

P12 Yellow Pier Upgrade 7.50 MPE PAT ?? ?? ??

P13 Slipway for Ferries at Sopu (now under P-2015-2) 1.50 MOI PAT ?? ?? ??

P14 Barge for Deep Water Dredging 1.00 MOI PAT ?? ?? ??

P15 Upgrade of Vava'u port (terminal, storage, forklift etc.) 25.00 MOI MOI ?? 2017 2020

P16 Nafanua ('Eua) Port Upgrade (now under TSCP2) 3.00 MOI MOI JICA ? ?? ??

P-2015-1 TSCP2 (Nav Aids, Vessels, Ports Repairs) Niuas, Eu'a & Ha'apai 4.00 MOI MOI WB ? 2016 2018

P-2015-2 Complementary ports repairs and upgrade incl. dredging 9.00 MOI MOI ?? 2016 2018

Transportation Aviation

64.00

A7 Additional Fire Tender (Vava‟u) 1.00 MPE TAL ?? ?? ??

A9 Expand apron area at Fua‟amotu 4.00 MPE TAL ?? ?? ??

A11 Resurfacing Ha‟apai runway, apron, taxiway 9.00 MPE TAL China Grant ?Loan ?? ??

A12 Control Tower for Fua'amotu 5.00 MPE TAL WB ? 2016 2016 1) Project with a year date added are new projects not reflected in the NIIP2

user

Sticky Note

Ministry's Projects that are in Proposed stage, and are not listed in Exhibit 1 with new additional entries NEMO and Met project (contact person Leveni 'Aho,email:[email protected]) Pacific Resilient Program (PREP);9mTOP;P;MEIDECC;N;WBD,2015-2020 Environment Projects (contact person: Lupe Matoto,email:[email protected]) Invasive Alien Species, 3.0mTOP;P; MEIDECC;N;GEF/SPREP/Govt.Tonga,2016-2020 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP);?;P;MEIDECC;N;GEF/SPREP/Govt.Tonga;2016-2020 National Action plan on sustainable land management (NAP);1.6mTOP;P;MEIDECC;N;UNEP/Govt.Tonga/2016-2020 National Implementation Plan (NIP) on Hazadous waste-0.8mTOP;P;MEIDECC;N;GEF/SPREP/Gov.Tonga:2016-2020 Programme of Work on protected Areas;?;P;MEIDECC;R,?;2016-2020 Information Project (contact person: Andrew Toimoana,email:[email protected]) T8; need DP?,period 2015-2020 Projects that are in Committed or Underway with updated details Ocean Planning;~2m Euro;U;MEIDECC;R;GIZ/IUCN,2014-2017 Invasive Alien Species; 0.7mTOP;C;MEIDECC;N;GEF/SPREP/Govt.Tonga,2012-2015 Ridge to reef on Fanga'uta Lagoon;3.4mTOP;C;MEIDECC;N;UNDP/Govt.Tonga,2014-2017 Energy projects (contact person: Inoke Vala,email:[email protected]) E-2015-1;period is 2016-2019 E-2015-4; AUSAID is one of the development partners, period is 2016-2018 E-18; need DP? Climate Change projects (contact person: Luisa Tuiafitu-Malolo,email:[email protected]) M3; period 2014-2018 M4;period 2014-2018 Cyclone Ian Recovery Project;10.7mTOP(in M3);C;TPL/MET/MOI;N;in M3;2014-2018


74

Exhibit 2: List of projects that are “underway” or “committed”

Nr. Projects in

NIIP 2 1)

Priority Project Name

Total mTOP

Status 2)

Operating Agency

Renewal [R]

versus New [N]

Development Partner

Project Start Year

Project End Year

6 Multisectoral

M3 Climate Resilience Sector Project (CRSP) 20.00 C MEIDECC N ADB, GEF +

DFAT ? 2015 2019

M4 Disaster response & evacuation infrastructure (CRSP)

in M3 C MEIDECC N in M3 2015 2019

18 Energy


45.00 U TPL R NZ-MFAT 2011 2018

E3 Additional/ replacement generators (Vava'u)

1.10 C TPL R TPL Debt 2015 2017

E4 Additional/replacement generators (Ha'apai)

3.10 C TPL R TPL Debt 2018 2018

E5 Additional/ replacement generators ('Eua) 2.60 C TPL R TPL Debt 2018 2018

E6 Village networks (electricity pole replacement) (part of E1)

In E1 U TPL R in E1 2011 2018

E8 Improved street lighting 0.80 U TPL N GOT/ TPL 2013 2015


7 Telecom

T4 Outreach – Expanding Services to Small Islands

4.00 C TCC N TCC Funding 2016 2016

T7 Local Reticulation of High Speed Internet (after TFSCP extension to outer islands.)

in T2 C TCC N in T2 in T2 in T2



7 Water Supply and Sanitation


11.91 U TWB R ADB-DFAT 2013 2016


in W2 U TWB N ADB-DFAT 2017 2018


2 Solid Waste

S1 Additional capacity for septage treatment NUDSP)

3.00 U WAL N ADB-DFAT 2014 2017

7 Transportation Road

R3 Transport Sector Consolidation Project (TSCP Roads)

11.60 U MOI R & N WB/DFAT 2009 2015

14 Transportation Maritime


11.30 U PAT R PAT Funding 2012 2016

P5 Upgrade Container Handling (Forklift) for QSW

6.00 U PAT N PAT Funding 2009 2016

P8 New Pilot Boat for QSW 1.50 U PAT N PAT Funding 2013 2014

P11 Upgrade of the Queen Salote Domestic Wharf

30.00 C PAT R & N JICA 2013 2015

P-2015-3 New Domestic Wharf 33.00 C MOI N JICA 2015 2018

10 Transportation Aviation


1.00 U TAL R & N WB TSCP 2011 2014


1.20 U TAL N WB TSCP 2011 2015


2.00 C TAL R & N WB TSCP 2015 2016


28.00 U TAL R WB TAIP ?? ??


4.00 C TAL R WB TAIP 2016 2016

1) New projects have numbers preceded by the year of introduction into the NIIP

2) U= Underway, C= Committed, P=Proposed


75

Exhibit 3: PPD template in word format

Item

Number of Excel Rows

Brief Information to be Provided

1. Sponsoring Ministry/ Agency and acronym 1 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (BBBBB)

2. Dates (2 rows)

1 Date of First Submission: YYYYMMDD

1 Date this Update: YYYYMMDD

3. Project Name and Acronym 1 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (BBBBB)

4. Project Timeframe

1 Planning period (years) = YYYY; YYYY

1 Construction period (years) = YYYY; YYYY

1 Operating period (years) = YYYY; YYYY

5. Project Development Status 1

Concept =1; Study =2; Development Partner Interest =3; Feasibility Study =4; Development Partner Commitment =5; Design =6; Tender =7; Construction =8; Commissioning =9

6. Location(s), and Area(s) Affected (Island(s), Human Settlement(s))

1 Island(s) name(s):

1 Human Settlement(s) name(s):

7. Project Components with quantities (e.g., “xx km of road”, “xx m

2 or m

3 of terminal building”, “xx

meters pipelines”, etc) 5

Item (up to 5 rows): (length, surface, capacity, etc.)

Unit: (km, m

2, m3/d,

etc.

Quantity: #####, #####, #####, etc.).

8. Investment Value, m TOP

1 Material and construction cost = ##.## m TOP

1 Planning, design and construction supervision = ##.## m TOP

9. Estimated Annual O&M Cost, m TOP/year

1 Operation cost (staff, consumables, energy, others) = #### TOP/ year

1 Asset maintenance cost = #### TOP/ year

1 Operational subsidies needed? No = 1 Yes = 2

10. Current priority level in sector project list 1

Current priority ranking within list of submitted project proposal by the agency (project priority may change with time with changing policy or environmental context)

11. Linkage with other infrastructure 1

Degree of linkage: None = 0 Low = 1 Medium = 2 High = 3

Brief Text Description: Aaaaaaa

12. Project Beneficiary(ies) (approximate types and number of persons or households benefitting [say which])

1

Type(s) of beneficiaries: Residential urban = 1 Residential rural = 2 Farmer = 3 Commerce = 4 Tourist = 5 Industry = 6 Human health = 7 School students = 8 Other (specify) = 9

Number of beneficiaries in each category: ######,

13. Land Availability for Project 1

Land availability for construction: Land immediately available = 1 Land acquisition necessary = 2 Land dispute risk low = 3 Land dispute risk medium = 4 Land dispute risk high = 5

14. Optimal use of existing infrastructure (renovation component)

1 Renovation of existing infrastructure = 1 Upgrade of existing infrastructure = 2 New infrastructure = 3


76

Item

Number of Excel Rows

Brief Information to be Provided

15. Beneficiary community contribution commitment for O&M

1

Land = 1 Materials = 2 Labour = 3 Cash = 4

Land area = m

2

value of material = #### TOP Number of man-days = #### Value of cash = #### TOP

16. Identified Funding Sources for O&M (% of total project O&M costs)

1 GOT xx %

1 Development Partner (grants)

xx %

1 Private sector/ service beneficiaries

xx %

17. Resilience of project assets to Climate Change and Natural Disaster Risk

1 Importance of project to foster resilience to CCA and / or DRM: Low = 1; Medium = 2; High = 3

1 Degree of resilience built into project design: Low = 1; Medium = 2; High = 3

18. Alignment with Governmental and ministerial policies

1 TSDF: Period YYYY/YYYY

1 Organization Outcome: Aaaaaaaaaaa

1 Corporate / Business Plan: Period YYYY/YYYY

1 Outcome: Aaaaaaaaaaaaa

19.

Main legal and regulatory requirement(s) to be complied with/ satisfied through the Project (construction standards, service level, climate resilience, air safety, navigation safety, road safety etc.)

1

List of important requirement to be advanced or satisfied; Aaaaaaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbbbbb Cccccccccccccc

20. Project expected benefits 1

Brief description: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

21. Environmental quality improvement for users 1

Environmental impact negative = 0 Environmental impact low positive = 1 Environmental impact medium positive = 2 Environmental impact high positive = 3

22.

Local Employment and Procurement during Construction (number of Tongan employed during construction; value of local materials procured for construction)

1

Degree of employment impact: Low = 1 Medium = 2 High = 3

1 Value of local materials: $$$$$$ TOP

23. Job Creation Potential during Operations 1


Number of new employees for operation: ####

24. Efficiency gains or reduction of cost for infrastructure users

1

No efficiency gain or cost reduction = 0 Low efficiency gain or cost reduction = 1 Moderate efficiency gain or cost reduction = 2 High efficiency gain or cost reduction = 3

25. Secured Funding Sources for Investment (% of total project investment cost)

1 GOT xx %

1 Development Partner to be approached:

AAAAAAA

1 Grants xx %

1 Loans xx %

1 Private Sector xx %

26. Environmental and Involuntary Resettlement Risks

1 Short description of risks of impacts, and of people or assets affected: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


77

Exhibit 4: Facsimile of PPD Template in excel format


78

Annex 11: Guidance for Enhanced Projects Prioritization

Exhibit 1: Proposed scoring criteria spread into four Criteria Groups (CG) or Themes Criteria Group 1: Project Scale and Status with the Affected Community scoring

Current priority level in sector project list

Linkage with other infrastructure

Project beneficiary(ies)

Land availability for the project

Criteria Group 2: Operational Sustainability

Optimal use of existing infrastructure (renovation component)

Beneficiary community contribution commitment for O&M

Identified Funding Sources for O&M

Resilience of project assets to CCA and DRM

Criteria Group 3: Policy Framework

Alignment with Governmental and ministerial policies

Main legal and regulatory requirement(s) to be complied with/ satisfied through the Project

Project expected benefits

Environmental quality improvement for users

Criteria Group 4: Financial and Economic Impact

Local employment and procurement during construction

Job creation potential during operations

Efficiency gains or reduction of cost for infrastructure users

Secured funding sources for investment


79

Exhibit 2: Draft project scoring evaluation template

Item Number of

Excel Rows Brief Information to be

Provided Scoring for Prioritization

1. Sponsoring Ministry/ Agency and acronym

1 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (BBBBB)

2. Dates (2 rows)

1 Date of First Submission: YYYYMMDD

1 Date this Update: YYYYMMDD

3. Project Name and Acronym 1 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (BBBBB)

4. Project Timeframe

1 Planning period (years) = YYYY; YYYY

1 Construction period (years) = YYYY; YYYY

1 Operating period (years) = YYYY; YYYY

5. Project Development Status 1

Concept =1; Study =2; Development Partner Interest =3; Feasibility Study =4; Development Partner Commitment =5; Design =6; Tender =7; Construction =8; Commissioning =9

6. Location(s), and Area(s) Affected (Island(s), Human Settlement(s))

1 Island(s) name(s):

1 Human Settlement(s) name(s):

7.

Project Components with quantities (e.g., “xx km of road”, “xx m

2 or m

3 of

terminal building”, “xx meters pipelines”, etc)

5

Item (up to 5 rows): (length, surface, capacity, etc.)

Unit: (km, m

2

, m3/d, etc.

Quantity: #####, #####, #####, etc.).

8. Investment Value, m TOP

1 Material and construction cost = ##.## m TOP

1 Planning, design and construction supervision = ##.## m TOP

9. Estimated Annual O&M Cost, m TOP/year

1 Operation cost (staff, consumables, energy, others) = #### TOP/ year

1 Asset maintenance cost = #### TOP/ year

1 Operational subsidies needed? No = 1 Yes = 2

10. Current priority level in sector project list

1

Current priority ranking within list of submitted project proposal by the agency (project priority may change with time with changing policy or environmental context)

Priority level 1 & 2 = 3 Priority level 3 & 4 = 2 Priority level 5 & 6 = 1 Priority level 7 and lower = 0

11. Linkage with other infrastructure 1

Degree of linkage: None = 0 Low = 1 Medium = 2 High = 3

Brief Text Description: Aaaaaaa

No linkage = 0 Low linkage (1 sector) = 1 Medium linkage(2 sector) = 2 High linkage (3 sectors or more) = 3

12. Project Beneficiary(ies) (approximate types and number of persons or households benefitting [say which])

1

Type(s) of beneficiaries: Residential urban = 1 Residential rural = 2 Farmer = 3 Commerce = 4 Tourist = 5 Industry = 6 Human health = 7 School students = 8 Other (specify) = 9

Number of beneficiaries in each category: ######,

Consider the cumulated beneficaries Between 1 and 10 beneficiaries = 0 Between 10 & 100 beneficiaries = 1 Between 100 & 1000 beneficiaries = 2 More than 1000 beneficiaries = 3

13. Land Availability for Project 1

Land availability for construction: Land immediately available = 1 Land acquisition necessary = 2 Land dispute risk low = 3 Land dispute risk medium = 4 Land dispute risk high = 5

Land immediately available = 3 Land acquisition necessary …with low land dispute risk = 2 …with medium dispute risk = 1 …with high dispute risk = 0

14. Optimal use of existing infrastructure (renovation component)

1 Renovation of existing infrastructure = 1 Upgrade of existing infrastructure = 2 New infrastructure = 3

Renovation more than 80 % = 3 Renovation between 50 & 80 % = 2 Renovation between 20 & 50 % = 1 New project = 0


80

Item Number of

Excel Rows Brief Information to be

Provided Scoring for Prioritization

15. Beneficiary community contribution commitment for O&M

1

Land = 1 Materials = 2 Labour = 3 Cash = 4

Land area = m2

value of material = #### TOP Number of man-days = #### Value of cash = #### TOP

High commitment = 3 Medium commitment = 2 Low commitment = 1 No commitment = 0

16. Identified Funding Sources for O&M (% of total project O&M costs)

1 GOT xx % Over 60 % identified = 3 Between 30 and 60 % identified = 2 Less than 30 % identified = 1 No identification = 0

1 Development Partner (grants)

xx %

1 Private sector/ service beneficiaries

xx %

17. Resilience of project assets to Climate Change and Natural Disaster Risk

1 Importance of project to foster resilience to CCA and / or DRM: Low = 1; Medium = 2; High = 3

High resilience gain expected = 3 Medium resilience gain expected = 2 Low resilience gain expected = 1 No resilience expected = 0

1 Degree of resilience built into project design: Low = 1; Medium = 2; High = 3

18. Alignment with Governmental and ministerial policies

1 TSDF: Period YYYY/YYYY

3 or more outcome documented = 3 2 outcome documented = 2 1 outcome documented = 1 No outcome documented = 0

1 Organization Outcome(s): Aaaaaaaa

1 Corporate / Business Plan: Period YYYY/YYYY

1 Outcome(s) : Aaaaaaaa

19.

Main legal and regulatory requirement(s) to be complied with/ satisfied through the Project (construction standards, service level,

climate resilience, air safety, navigation safety, road safety etc.)

1

List of important requirement to be advanced or satisfied; Aaaaaaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbbbbb Cccccccccccccc

3 or more requirements met = 3 2 requirements met = 2 1 requirement met = 1 No requirement documented = 0

20. Project expected benefits 1

Brief description: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

3 or more benefits documented = 3 2 benefits documented = 2 1 benefit documented = 1 No benefit documented = 0

21. Environmental quality improvement for users

1

Environmental impact negative = 0 Environmental impact low positive = 1 Environmental impact medium positive = 2 Environmental impact high positive = 3

Env. impact negative = 0 Env. impact low positive = 1 Env. impact medium positive = 2 Env. impact high positive = 3

22.

Local Employment and Procurement during Construction (number of Tongan employed during construction; value of local materials procured for construction)

1

Degree of employment impact: Low = 1, Medium = 2 ; High = 3

More than 50 FTE person-months or 70 % of local supply = 3 Between 30 & 50 FTE person-months or between 50 & 70 % of local supply = 2 Between 10 & 30 FTE person-months or between 20 and 50 % of local supply = 1 No employment or local supply documented = 0

1 Value of local materials: $$$$$$ TOP

23. Job Creation Potential during Operations

1


Number of new employees for operation: ####

More than 50 FTE person-months = 3 Between 30 & 50 FTE person-months = 2 Between 10 & 30 FTE person-months = No employment documented = 0

24. Efficiency gains or reduction of cost for infrastructure users

1

No efficiency gain or cost reduction = 0 Low efficiency gain or cost reduction = 1 Moderate efficiency gain or cost reduction = 2 High efficiency gain or cost reduction = 3 Short description of gains or cost reduction

No efficiency gain or cost reduction = 0 Low efficiency gain or cost reduction = 1 Moderate efficiency gain or cost reduction = 2 High efficiency gain or cost reduction = 3

25. Secured Funding Sources for Investment (% of total project investment cost)

1 GOT xx %

Over 60 % identified = 3 Between 30 and 60 % identified = 2 Less than 30 % identified = 1 No identification = 0

1 Development Partner to be approached:

AAAAAAA

1 Grants xx %

1 Loans xx %

1 Private Sector xx %

26. Environmental and Involuntary Resettlement Risks

1 Short description of risks of impacts, and of people or assets affected: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


81

Exhibit 3: Facsimile projects scoring spreadsheet for project prioritization exercise


82

Annex 12: Linkage Prioritization Criteria and TSDF II

Proposed NIIP Criteria for Project Scoring

CG1: Scale of Project and Status with Affected Communities

How many population benefit for the project, compared with other projects?

Are the local communit(ies) making customary land available for the project, or is sufficient government land available?

Are the local communities willing to make other tangible contributions to the project (e.g., tariff, labour, materials)?

Will the project benefit multiple sectors or social groups synergistically?

CG4: Financial and Economic Impact (on consumers of services)

Will the project employ local labour or materials in construction?

Will the project create longer term employment during operation?

Will the project result in lowering the cost of services, improving their accessibility, or raising their quality for affected villagers?

Are funding resources been secured for investment CG3: Policy Framework

Is the project clearly embedded as priority in an organizational outcome of the TSDF and the sector Ministry corporate plan?

Will the project contribute to local long term growth, diversification, and employment in the affected area?

Does the project strengthen human capacity in the affected area, in terms of better education and human health?

Will the project raise local standards, e.g., in construction, environmental quality, service quality, governance?

CG2: Operational Sustainability

Have resource required for the lifecycle O&M of the project been identified?

Will the project be resilient to future climate change and natural disaster risks?

Does the project make good use of infrastructure that already exists in the affected area?

Does the project contribute to environmental improvement (compared to project alternatives), or are potential negative impacts fully mitigated by project design?

1) TNO: Targeted National Outcome under TSDF II

Pillars and Organizational Outcome of the TSDF II (TNOs)

1)

TNO B: More inclusive, sustainable and balanced urban & rural development across island groups TNO C: More inclusive, sustainable and empowering human development with gender equality TNO F: More inclusive, sustainable and effective land & environment management and resilience to climate & risk

Is the rural (and traditional) economy strengthened?

Is the primary sector (agriculture, fishing, forestry)

protected and enhanced? Is the private sector empowered to expand sustainable

employment?

TNO A: More inclusive, sustainable and dynamic, knowledge based economy TNO B: More inclusive, sustainable and balanced urban & rural development across island groups TNO C: More inclusive, sustainable and empowering human development with gender equality TNO E: More inclusive, sustainable and successful provision and maintenance of infrastructure

Is employment that can empower local human development being created?

Is access to services being facilitated and costs being lowered to benefit wider groups of the population?

Will the project create business opportunities for local population?

TNO A: More inclusive, sustainable and dynamic, knowledge based economy TNO B: More inclusive, sustainable and balanced urban & rural development across island groups TNO C: More inclusive, sustainable and empowering human development with gender equality TNO D: More inclusive, sustainable and responsive good-governance

Are health services improving in quality and accessibility and are they raising human productivity and longevity in the rural areas?

Are educational opportunities in the rural areas expanding in ways that best meet local needs?

Are government services being delivered more effectively?

Are communities better empowered to assess and provide for their needs (through strengthened local leadership structures, social networks, and infrastructure)?

TNO B: More inclusive, sustainable and balanced urban & rural development across island groups TNO E: More inclusive, sustainable and successful provision and maintenance of infrastructure TNO F: More inclusive, sustainable and effective land & environment management and resilience to climate & risk

Will the population live in better harmony with their natural environment?

Is the peoples’ consumption of services environmentally and financially sustainable?

Is the path of social and economic development compatible with a flourishing and productive natural environment?

Are the country, its population, and its peoples’ livelihoods becoming more resilient to future climate change and natural disaster risks?


83

Annex 13: NIIP Monitoring Report - Draft Table of Content

The NIIP monitoring report proposed to be tested and developed during the training mission is proposed to simple and short (no more than 10 pages). It will strive to include the following information that will mainly rely on simple templates and block text to reflect the outcome of the NIIP implementation review report 2015:

1) List of projects that have been completed with fund disbursement during the reporting period

2) List of projects that have been committed during the reporting period with secured funding

commitments (Domestic national budget, PE resources, DPs grants, DPs loan)

3) List of projects under implementation with disbursement during the reporting period

4) List of proposed projects in the NIIP seeking sponsorship for implementation

5) List of new projects introduced in the NIIP proposed list of projects

6) Advancement of and demand for complementary measures

7) Key delay / funding/ technical issues that have appeared in NIIP projects

8) Mitigation measures foreseen to address issues mentioned under 7 above

9) 3 years MTEF capital budget foreseen for underway, committed and proposed projects (if available)

10) Financial performance indicators of PEs managing infrastructures

11) 3 years maintenance budget and expenditure for PEs and sector ministries managing infrastructure.

12) Sectoral performance indicators and hints of future emerging demand for projects

13) Brief outlook for the NIIP advancement for the coming financial year.

Responsibility for developing the report is proposed to rest by PAM from MFNP with contributions by the respective sector agencies, ministries and PEs and the support of the NIIP WG. The report will maximize the use of templates used in tables of the main NIIP implementation Review Report 2015. Draft report would be circulated to the DPs for comment. The report could finally serve as table document for a coordination meeting with the DPs led by the MFNP to orient DPs interest for the upcoming budget year. The longer term objective would be to encourage the ministries and agencies developing and managing infrastructure to structure similar chapters and datasets in their corporate/ business plans and annual reports so that the compilation of the NIIP annual report can become a simple routine task for PAM based on available sectoral information extracted from those reports and validated by the IPD database managed by PAM


84

Annex 14: Main documents reviewed

Budget Statement, MFNP, 2014/2015 Tonga National Infrastructure Investment Plan, October 2010 Tonga Strategic Development Framework 2011-2014, Annual Report Review 2014 Tonga National Infrastructure Investment Plan 2013-2023, , October 2010 Review and Assessment of National Infrastructure Investment Plans, Final Report 2013 National Infrastructure Investment Plan (NIIP) Draft NIIP Planning Handbook Tonga Strategic Development Framework 2011-2014 Tonga Strategic Development Framework 2015-2025, Draft Version 17 Performance to Business Plan, TPL December 2014 Annual Report, MET, 2013 Corporate Plan, MFNP, 2014-2017 Corporate Plan, MOH, 2013-2016 Corporate Plan, MEIDECC, 2014 - 2017 Corporate Plan, MOI, 2013-2016 Corporate Plan, MPE, 2013-2016 Corporate Plan, MPE, 2015-2018 Business Plan, TPL, 2015-2025 Business Plan, WAL, 2011-2015 NIP Tonga, EU, 2014-2020 Tonga Energy Road Map, 2010-2020 National Informatization Assessment For Tonga, NIA, 2014 School Infrastructure Survey, TESP, 2006 Annual Report, PAT, 2013 Annual Report, TAL, 2013 Annual Report, TBC, Draft 2013 Annual Report,TCC, 2013 Annual Report, WAL, 2014 Asset Management Plan, PAT, 2014 Fixed Asset Policies & Procedures, TCL, 2014 Asset Management Plan, TPL Distribution, 2014-2024 Asset Management Plan, TPL, Generation, 2014


85

Annex 15: Training mission plan

This Annex provides an overview of the activities and training sessions proposed to be deployed under the training mission to advance the objective of transitioning the NIIP as the national infrastructure planning and programming framework in the country. This also includes an overview of the estimated number and time input required from Tongan trainees during the training period and the data to be made available before the training mission to maximize on-the-job capacity development impact during the training sessions.

1. Strengthened project documentation (PPD)

One important weakness identified in this review is the unavailability of quantitative information in particular about the benefits of infrastructure projects. The PID template currently used by PAM to register all ODA supported projects has little space available for quantitative data needed for meaningful cross sectoral scoring and ranking. Several infrastructure projects do not have complete PID inputted in the PTD. It is proposed to strengthen while simplifying the project documentation to be provided for infrastructure projects to (i) align the project information with the objectives of the TSDF II, (ii) expand the semi-quantitative project information even when no deep study is available and (iii) enable an objective scoring and ranking of projects under an improved MCA scoring methodology. The Annex 9 provides the proposed template for such enhanced project documentation called Project Profile Document (PPD). Text in the excel template is minimized to the essential and drop down menu choices are maximized to facilitate the input of data even when detail studies are not available. The Annex 7 also includes the list of projects for which a PPD need to be documented by the sectoral agencies to enable their scoring and the testing of the enhanced prioritization methodology with the NIIP WG. On the request of the Deputy Secretary for Finance of MFNP during the wrap-up workshop and to save time, concerned ministries and PEs have already been communicated the PPD template in excel format and the list of projects to be documented with PPDs. It is proposed to foresee at the beginning of the training mission, a session with participants of all relevant ministries and PEs managing infrastructure to practice on-the-job the filling up of data required to be documented into the PPD. At the occasion of that session, the PPD template may be slightly enhanced/ adapted to take into account feed-back and suggestion of the NIIP WG participants.

2. Demand for infrastructure for the 16th

Pacific Games.

In this training session, the demand for infrastructure for the 16th Pacific Games will be discussed with

representatives of the concerned ministries to explore the identification and the profiling of project concepts that could be included in a next NIIP priority projects update to allow the mobilization of funding resources for their development and their inclusion in the national budget 2015/16. The session will explore with the participants the demand for infrastructure and how these infrastructures could be structured as multi-purpose initiatives with useful future roles beyond the games horizon that could be attractive project propositions for DPs. Identified projects will be framed as initial PPD to be supplemented later by responsible ministries to allow their uptake in the future list of high priority projects in the NIIP projects pipeline.

3. Streamlining CCA & DRM aspects in NIIP projects

The session will explore with the participants ways and means to strengthen the streamlining of CCA and DRM aspects in NIIP projects and which role could play a reinforced NIIP policy framework to advance such objectives. The different tools proposed to be deployed under the reinforced NIIP policy framework in particular the PPD, the cross sectoral prioritization methodology and the template of the annual NIIP monitoring report will be reviewed and fine-tuned to optimize the advancement and the documentation of streamlined CCA and DRM aspects in project covered under the NIIP.


86

4. Priority projects updating tools and routine

Under this task the PAM/ MFNP would coordinate with the support of the PCO consultant, the cross sectoral project prioritization process using an enhanced MCA methodology. The draft guidance documentation for establishing an enhanced MCA methodology and tools proposed to be pilot tested during the training mission is attached in Annex 10. It comprises (i) a list of prioritization criteria which are designed to be simple (reducing the risk of errors in its use) yet comprehensive while ensuring these are aligned with the priorities of the TSDF II and are affordable from an investment as well as an operational sustainability perspective, (ii) a project evaluation template that allocate scores for each criteria based on project information and data contained in the PPD and (iii) a scoring and ranking spreadsheet that transfer the scores of the individual projects into an electronic spreadsheet prioritization tool which is used to add up the scores for each project based on relative weightings applied to the criteria (the weightings are set in accordance with GOT policy priorities, and can be changed when political priorities evolve over time). The result of applying the prioritization tool to the long list of potential projects is a ranking of potential priority projects, presented both numerically and graphically for ease of reference. The top-ranked projects are accorded the highest priority for implementation in tiered groups. The prioritization criteria have purposely been grouped into four basic “themes” or Criteria Groups (CGs) linked to the TSDF current policies shown in Annex 11. The linkages between the pillars and organizational outcomes of the TSFD II and the proposed NIIP CGs and sub-criteria are illustrated in Annex 12 The weighting of the different CGs in the cross sectoral prioritization scoring process will be discussed, tested and finalized with the stakeholders during the training sessions dealing with the application of the enhanced MCA prioritization methodology. The routine to be deployed by PAM to update the priority list of projects across sectors to be coached, fine-tuned and tested in connection with the training mission will include the following:

1. Requesting the submission of completed PPD for each proposed and non-committed projects identified during the NIIP review (see list in Annex 7).

2. Inputting the PPD data into an upgraded PTD database or optionally into a sub-database linked to and modelled after the PTD database already existing.

3. Inviting the NIIP WG to join a training session to prioritize across sectors the list of proposed projects contained in the NIIP projects pipeline using the PPD received and the enhanced methodology highlighted above.

4. Documenting the list of proposed NIIP projects in three tiered groups (high priority, medium priority, low priority) to be attached to the NIIP annual monitoring report based on the outcome of the on-the-job projects prioritization training session with the NIIP WG.

This routine can be then repeated periodically to submit new infrastructure projects to the PACC and NIIP WG for uptake consideration into the NIIP projects pipeline and on an annual basis to produce follow-up NIIP projects priority lists to be documented every year in NIIP implementation monitoring reports.

5. NIIP implementation monitoring reporting

Under this task a model annual NIIP implementation monitoring report will be structured and practically developed and edited in cooperation with the PAM, the NIIP WG and the concerned sectoral ministries and PEs using the findings of the NIIP implementation review 2015 and the outcome of the updated projects prioritization effort highlighted in the previous paragraph. The proposed NIIP implementation monitoring report is proposed not to exceed 10 pages to avoid overloading governmental staff time availability. The report will make maximal use of templates for tables and block texts that can easily be reused and updated in future edition. The report will also incorporate elements allowing an evaluation of the progress of the implementation of the projects contained in the NIIP report and necessary mitigation measures when appropriate.


87

A draft table of content of a NIIP implementation monitoring report is attached in Annex 13. It will be discussed, fine-tuned and confirmed in the early stage of the training mission with the stakeholders and the PAM and MFNP staff. Templates for tables and block texts will be then added at the early stage of the training mission. The finally agreed model annual implementation monitoring report and underlying templates will be promoted for systematic use by sector ministries and PEs to document the infrastructure chapters of their corporate / business plans and their annual reports. This is expected to facilitate the edition by PAM of future annual monitoring and evaluation report edition.

6. Training mission plan

Table 1 summarizes the proposed training plan to be deployed during the training mission.

Table 1: Training plan summary

Training Session Objective Participants Deliverables Expected Outcome

1. Overview of the training mission activities and deliverables

Inform NIIP WG and participants of the objectives and deliverables of the training mission

NIIP WG, PAM, Infrastructure-heavy Ministries and PEs representatives

Agreement with participants of schedule of activities and expected deliverables

Participants are aware and support the approach taken to implement the training mission

2. Presentation of all the tools to be tested, fine-tuned and endorsed for future use during the training mission

Seeking primary feed-back from the participants about the adequacy of the tools and the need for fine tuning Particular elements of the session will be dedicated on how the NIIP framework and tools can support (i) the mainstreaming of CCA & DRM aspects and (ii) improved asset management and their maintenance in NIIP projects

NIIP WG, PAM, Infrastructure-heavy Ministries and PEs representatives

Agreement on the tools and their content and how they will be used to achieve the targeted deliverables with particular attention given to possibility for a reinforced NIIP to (i) support the

mainstreaming of CCA & DRM aspects in projects and (ii) improve asset management and their maintenance in NIIP projects

Participants are aware of the tools and planned deliverables and what should be their respective contribution to a successful achievement

3. On-the job training course on producing PPD files

Ensuring that PPD are produce by ministries and PEs to allow the cross-sectoral prioritization of projects and the drafting of the model annual report

NIIP WG, Infrastructure-Heavy Ministries and PEs representatives, PAM as observer

A few model PPDs are generated on-the-job with sectoral experts in each of the sector concerned. (one laptop computer per sector required for on-the-job training)

The sectoral agencies are able to generate swiftly the complete set of PPD needed for cross sectoral project prioritization

4.Discusion on identifying and framing projects to support the

development of the 16th

Pacific Games

Identifying project concepts and documenting preliminary PPD for

infrastructure projects that would support the 16

th

Pacific Games event

Ministries concerned with infrastructure

needed for the 16

th Pacific

Games

Outline project concepts and draft preliminary PPD for infrastructure projects

that would support the 16th

Pacific games

Outline project concepts can guide concerned ministries to complement data into the PPDs for

future projects uptake into the NIIP projects pipeline

5. Follow-up visits to selective PEs and ministries to complete missing or incomplete PPD files

Ensuring all PPD files are readily completed in all relevant infrastructure sectors

Infrastructure-Heavy Ministries and PEs representatives

All PPDs are completed on-the job and are available to allow the project prioritization exercise by the NIIP WG

All PPDs are completed in each of the relevant sectors

6. 1st Projects scoring

and ranking exercise

1st On-the-job training of

scoring and ranking of projects with the NIIP WG based on enhanced methodology. Fine tuning of the prioritization criteria and weighting in discussion with NIIP WG

NIIP WG, PACC representatives, PAM

Using a number of representative PPDs available, a number of projects are scored and ranked using the enhanced methodology

The fine-tuned prioritization methodology is understood and endorsed by the NIIP WG for routine use in the future

7. 2nd

Projects scoring and ranking exercise

2nd

on-the-job training of the scoring and ranking of projects by the NIIP WG based on enhanced methodology

NIIP WG, PAM

Using the remaining list of PPD available together with the lists of project screened earlier, an updated list of priority projects representing the updated NIIP project list is generated and documented

An updated list of priority projects representing the updated NIIP project list is available for inclusion in the model NIIP implementation monitoring report

8. Joint development of a model NIIP implementation monitoring report

1st On-the job training with

PAM and the NIIP WG to develop a model NIIP implementation monitoring report

PAM, NIIP WG, Infrastructure-Heavy Ministries and PEs representatives

Using the outcomes of previous training sessions and the data of the NIIP implementation review report 2015 , attempt to generate a 10 pages complete implementation monitoring report

Participants are made aware of the gaps (assets value and consolidated maintenance expenditures ?) in the information needed to complete a brief while comprehensive NIIP

implementation monitoring report


88

9. Follow-up visits to selective PEs and Ministries to complete data needed for the model NIIP implementation monitoring report

Ensuring complete data are available to complete a model NIIP implementation monitoring report

Infrastructure-Heavy Ministries and PEs representatives

All data are collected and available to complete a model NIIP implementation monitoring report

All sectoral agencies have delivered the information need to compile a complete NIIP implementation monitoring report

10. Finalization of a complete model NIIP implementation monitoring report

2nd

on-the job training with PAM and the NIIP WG to finalize a model NIIP implementation monitoring report

PAM, NIIP WG, Infrastructure-Heavy Ministries and PEs representatives

Using complementary data delivered by the sectoral agencies a 10 pages complete implementation monitoring report is compiled

A complete model NIIP implementation monitoring report is available and disseminated to stakeholders. Templates for follow-up edition of NIIP implementation monitoring report are disseminated to concerned parties.

11.. Wrap-up session, lessons learned and recommendation for future NIIP update

Providing guidance for future NIIP updating reports

NIIP WG, MFNP, PAM Infrastructure-Heavy Ministries and PEs representatives

Guidance manual and accompanying templates for future NIIP monitoring and evaluation report drafting

PAM with support of the NIIP WG and representatives of Infrastructure-Heavy Ministries and PEs are able and have acquired practice in developing future edition of NIIP implementation monitoring report

7. Time input requirement for Tongan staff

The above training plan is expected to require the participation of ministerial (in particular MFNP and PAM staff as well as MOI, MEIDECC, MPE, MET and MOH staff) and PEs representatives (in average 15 to 20 people per training event) for about 4 full training days (morning plus afternoon) spread over a period of 2,5 weeks. These joint training sessions will be interspaced with some on-the-job training sessions at the premises of selective Ministries and PEs (maximum half a day per institution at the institution premises with access to a computer of the institution for training purposes) to be able to (i) complete PPD datasets of projects that may be too incomplete to score and (ii) secure all the projects data and operational data of agencies needed to document a complete model NIIP monitoring annual report.

8. Data to be made available before training mission start To ensure a successful training mission a number of document and data are necessary to be made available to the PCO and the PCO supported trainer before the arrival of the trainer in Tonga to maximize on-the-job capacity building impact.These information include the essentially the following:

1) Completed PPDs in excel format for all projects mentioned in the Exhibit 1 of the Annex 10 using the excel PPD template already passed to Ministries and PEs.

2) Completed maintenance expenditures for years 2012/13 and 2013/14 and budget for year 2014/15 for the following institutions: MOI-PMD, MOI-Road, MET, MOH, MEIDECC-energy, MEIDECC-ICT as well as for TWB, WAL, TAL, TPL, PAT, TCC and TCL.

3) Estimated current values of infrastructure assets for the same institutions (MOI-PMD, MOI-Road, MET, MOH, MEIDECC-energy, MEIDECC-ICT as well as for TWB, WAL, TAL, TPL, PAT, TCC and TCL).

4) Completed KPIs of infrastructure sectors indicated in Annex 9. 5) MTEF 3-year rolling budget datasets currently available for infrastructure projects which are

“underway”, “committed” or “proposed” in the list of the exhibit 2 of the Annex 10. 6) Latest MTEF 3-year rolling budget datasets for MOI-PMD, MOI-Road, MET, MOH, MEIDECC-

energy, MEIDECC-ICT as well as for TWB, WAL, TAL, TPL, PAT, TCC and TCL so far they are planning to rely on public funding from domestic sources or DPs.

7) Documentation of projects mainstreaming CCA and DRM (PREP and CRSP). 8) Concept paper or documentation so far available from the Government or concerned Ministries

regarding the proposed approach for infrastructure development for the 16th Pacific Games in

2019.

tonga niip implementation review (2015) imp review draft final report-v2 (2) … · the report was...

Documents