Research and Development - Engineers Against Poverty

A Sustainability Poverty and InfrastructureRoutine for Evaluation

Research and Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................3

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................4

2 RESEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................5

2.1 Sustainability .....................................................................................................................5

2.2 Poverty ..............................................................................................................................5

2.3 Infrastructure.....................................................................................................................5

2.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................6

3 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS ..............................11

3.1 SPeAR®...........................................................................................................................11

3.2 Comparative Analysis ......................................................................................................11

3.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................13

4 DEVELOPMENT OF ASPIRE ....................................................................................................14

4.1 Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................14

4.2 Indicators ........................................................................................................................15

4.3 Software..........................................................................................................................17

4.4 Assessement Methodology ..............................................................................................17

5 PROJECT LIFE CYCLE ..............................................................................................................18

5.1 Project Life Cycle Analysis ..............................................................................................18

5.2 ASPIRE Applications.........................................................................................................19

6 CONSULTATION & TESTING ...................................................................................................20

6.1 Market survey..................................................................................................................20

6.2 Testing.............................................................................................................................20

6.3 Outcomes........................................................................................................................20

6.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................21

APPENDIX A: ASPIRE INDICATORS – KEY REFERENCES .......................................................22

APPENDIX B: INITIAL MARKET SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................23

APPENDIX C: TESTING FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................24

APPENDIX D: CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................26

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................41

PAGE 2

ASPIRE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

CONTENTS

Sustainable infrastructure services are central toreducing poverty and promoting sustainabledevelopment. However, in the past,infrastructure developments have often failedto deliver the expected societal benefits,especially to the poor. They have also fuelledcorruption and resulted in negative social andenvironmental impacts on local communitiesand ecosystems. Globally, investment flows ininfrastructure are growing rapidly, driven byeconomic growth as well as poverty reductionand climate change objectives. This presents aunique opportunity to promote thedevelopment of infrastructure that is bothsustainable and pro-poor, and avoids the risksand limitations of past practice.

However, developing sustainable ‘pro-poor’infrastructure in practice requires tools thatsupport the integration of poverty reductionand sustainability objectives throughout theentire infrastructure project life cycle. Thesetools need to be easy to apply and readilyunderstandable by all project stakeholders.ASPIRE has been produced to meet thesechallenging specifications.

ASPIRE is a software based tool for assessingthe sustainability of infrastructure projectswhich recognises poverty reduction as anoverarching objective. It provides a holisticappraisal framework encompassing the four keydimensions of environment, society, economicsand institutions. ASPIRE was the result of anintensive two year research, consultation andtesting programme, funded by the Institution ofCivil Engineers (ICE) R&D Enabling Fund, ArupDesign and Technical Fund and EAP programmeresources. To develop ASPIRE, the following keyactivities were undertaken:

• Comparative analysis of leading assessmentframeworks to identify key strengths andweaknesses of each assessment frameworkand then review how ASPIRE can draw onthe strengths and address the weaknesses.

• Development of the conceptual frameworkfor ASPIRE and identification of acomprehensive indicator set to definesustainable pro-poor infrastructure.

• Analysis of how ASPIRE could integrate intothe key stages of the project life cycle.

• Development of an initial version of ASPIREthat was then tested on a broad range ofactual projects.

Through this process, Arup and EAP havedeveloped a unique tool that has beendemonstrated in practice to add value to a widerange of stakeholders with an interest indeveloping sustainable pro-poor infrastructure.

This report provides an overview of the researchand development process for ASPIRE. Currentand potential users of ASPIRE who want to gainadditional insight through understanding itsdevelopment process will find this reportinformative. It will also be relevant toresearchers in this area who are interested inthe lessons from our experience and how theymight apply or compare with other tools orother sectors, as well as to policymakers whoare interested in the ‘state of the art’ in termsof understanding project impact to informpolicy decisions. This report does not, however,contain detailed information on how toconduct ASPIRE assessment or use thesoftware. For information on how to useASPIRE, please refer to the ASPIRE User Manual.

PAGE 3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document provides a concise summary ofthe development of ASPIRE – a newsoftware-based sustainability assessment toolfor infrastructure projects which includespoverty reduction as an overarching agenda.ASPIRE was developed through a uniquepartnership between Arup and EngineersAgainst Poverty (EAP), with support from theInstitution of Civil Engineers Research andDevelopment Enabling Fund, Arup’s internalDesign & Technical Fund and EAP programmeresources.

The final version of ASPIRE is available athttp://www.oasys-software.com/aspire

The following chapters describe the key stagesin the development of ASPIRE to meet thesespecifications. The core of this process was themodification of an existing proven sustainabilityassessment tool – SPeAR®. To develop ASPIRE,the following key activities were undertaken:

• Research and literature review to understandthe relationship between poverty,infrastructure and sustainable development(Chapter 2).

• Comparative analysis of SPeAR® with otherleading assessment frameworks to identifystrengths and limitations of the base modeland to identify areas for refinement(Chapter 3).

• Development of the conceptual frameworkfor ASPIRE and identification of acomprehensive indicator set to definesustainable pro-poor infrastructure(Chapter 4).

• Analysis of how ASPIRE could integrate intothe key stages of the project life cycle(Chapter 5).

• Developments of an initial version ofASPIRE and detailed testing on a broad rangeof actual projects (Chapter 6).

PAGE 4


1. INTRODUCTION

An extensive literature review was undertakento better understand the relationship betweensustainable development and poverty reduction,the role of infrastructure in addressing theseobjectives and the barriers to achieving positivedevelopmental outcomes. Key points arisingfrom the review are summarised here asbackground to Arup and EAP’s decision todevelop ASPIRE.

2.1 Sustainability

Sustainable development has beeninternationally agreed as the fundamentalguiding principle for development at the global,national and local level. The most widely-accepted definition of sustainable developmentwas that proposed by the Brundtland Report:“development that meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their own needs”1.

In some respects, the emphasis of Brundtland’sdefinition is on the principle ofintergenerational equity; the needs and rightsof future generations. However, implicit in theconcept of ‘meeting the needs of the present’ isthe principle of intragenerational equity (i.e.equity within the current generation). Theimportance of this principle was reaffirmed inan international context at the World Summiton Sustainable Development in 2002 whichdescribed poverty eradication as both anoverarching objective and essential requirementof sustainable development2. Sustainabledevelopment therefore requires prioritising theneeds of the world’s poorest who currently donot have even their basic needs met.

2.2 Poverty

Extensive research on poverty was carried outby Arup as part of their Drivers for Changeprogramme. The results of this research havebeen published in a designed series of cards.For further information about the Drivers ofChange research go towww.driversofchange.com.

This highlighted severe deficiencies in basicinfrastructure services both in rural communitiesand for rapidly expanding poor urbanpopulations in developing countries. Globally,more than 884 million people do not have safedrinking water or access to roads, 2.5 billion

have no sanitation facilities3, 2.3 billion lackreliable sources of energy and 4 billion arewithout modern communication services4.Poverty involves lack of access to basic servicesand material deprivation as measured byincome, also lack of adequate food, clothingand shelter, as well as low achievements ineducation and health. It also includes peoples’vulnerability to adverse events (e.g. illness,violence, economic shocks, bad weather, andnatural disasters) and a lack of power and voiceto influence institutions and key decisions thataffect their own lives5.

2.3 Infrastructure

Infrastructure directly contributes todevelopment and alleviating poverty byimproving the access of poor people to servicessuch as clean water and sanitation, health andeducation and by protecting them againsthumanitarian disasters6. In particular, well-designed infrastructure projects can bringsignificant positive benefits for women and girlsby improving access to markets, schools, andhealth services or improving women’s safety7. Inaddition, infrastructure enhances theopportunities for more people to participate ineconomic activity through supportingmacroeconomic development, providingemployment and ‘removing bottlenecks in theeconomy which hurt poor people by impedingasset accumulation, lowering asset values,imposing high transaction costs and creatingmarket failures’8. This is also illustrated by theanalysis of the role of infrastructure in achievingthe Millennium Development Goals which issummarised in Tables 1-3.

Infrastructure can be seen as playing a criticalrole in brokering the relationship betweensociety’s needs and the limited carrying capacityof the planet which is essential to sustainabledevelopment. However, historically,infrastructure provision has been inefficient andresource-intensive both in construction andoperation. Consequently, the built environmentaccounts for up to half of global raw materialsconsumption and up to half of national energyconsumption9.

In the future, as we adapt to climate changeand transition to a low carbon economy,infrastructure projects will increasingly have todemonstrate that they are energy efficient and

PAGE 5


2. RESEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW

employ renewable resources. Equally,infrastructure in the form of drainage, flooddefences, and irrigation systems form part ofthe arsenal for combating climate change andreducing risk due to sea-level rise, flooding andchanges to rainfall. Significant flows ofresources for climate-related infrastructureinvestment in developing countries isanticipated which address both mitigation andadaptation. Coordinated effectively and usedappropriately, these resources will not onlyachieve their climate-related objectives but alsorepresent an enormous opportunity to promotesustainable development and povertyreduction.

Unfortunately, approaches adopted forplanning and delivery of infrastructure fordevelopment have often failed to produce theirintended benefits, even on well-intentioneddonor funded programmes. Instead,

infrastructure development has a long record ofproducing unacceptable environmental impactsand has failed to adequately address the needsof the poor. See Table 4.

2.4 Conclusion

Lack of infrastructure is a priority in tacklingpoverty since access to water, energy,healthcare, education and markets enablescommunities to move beyond survival to selfsufficiency. Equally, effective services, facilitiesand transport links underpin equitableeconomic growth. However, infrastructureprojects tend to be delivered with the emphasison technical performance within the projectboundary rather than recognising their longterm contribution to the sustainabledevelopment of the communities they serve orare located in. The increasing requirement tocarry out environmental and social impact

PAGE 6


Sustainable Pro-poor Infrastructure:Key Outcomes

• Provides access for the poor toaffordable services that meet theirbasic human needs, reduce theirvulnerability to natural disasters andallow them to participate ineconomic activity;

• Enhances employment generation inconstruction, operation andmaintenance;

• Supports substantive freedoms11 forindividuals and communities toparticipate in decision making thataffects their wellbeing andlivelihoods;

• Minimises the consumption ofnatural resources and the impact onbiodiversity and natural systems;

• Is financially, operationally andinstitutionally viable in the longterm; and

• Is designed and operated throughholistic consideration of social,environmental and economicbenefits and costs.

BOX 11 United Nations (1987) Our Common Future - Report ofthe World Commission on Environment andDevelopment. United Nations, New York, 1987.

2 United Nations (2002) Report of the World Summit onSustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa,26 August- 4 September 2002. United Nations, NewYork, 2002.

3 WHO & UNICEF (2008) Progress in Drinking-water andSanitation: special focus on sanitation.

4 Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) (2006) Promoting Pro-Poor Growth– Infrastructure. Paris: OECD.

5 Department for International Development (DFID)International Development White Paper. DFID, London,2006.

6 Jahan, S. and McCleery, R. (2005) Making InfrastructureWork for the Poor: Synthesis Report of Four CountryStudies Bangladesh, Senegal, Thailand and Zambia.United Nations Development Programme, New York.

7 OECD (2006).

8 OECD (2006) pg. 18.

9 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and TheInternational Council for Research and Innovation inBuilding and Construction (CIB) (prepared by Du Plessis,C.) Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction inDeveloping Countries. CSIR Building and ConstructionTechnology, Pretoria, 2001.

10 Mileti, D.S. (1999) Disasters by Design: A Reassessmentof Natural Hazards in the United States. Joseph HenryPress. Washington D.C.

11 Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

assessments is predicated by a philosophy of‘do no harm’ and the need to mitigate thepotential negative impacts of infrastructureprojects, as opposed to recognising theopportunity to enhance the environment,strengthen society, and act as a catalyst foreconomic growth.

A different approach is required to ensureinfrastructure developments are sustainable andcontribute to reducing poverty. This requiresconsideration of both the product (watersupply, road, etc) and the process by which it isconceived, implemented and operated, basedon criteria which determine project success interms of outcomes rather than outputs. Positiveoutcomes include promoting economic vitality,supporting human health and well-being,

PAGE 7


MDG Goals Targets

Goal 1: Eradicate extremepoverty and hunger

Target 1: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day

Target 2: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and youngpeople

Target 3: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

Goal 2: Achieve universal primaryeducation

Target 4: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a fullcourse of primary schooling

Goal 3: Promote gender equalityand empower women

Target 5: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and to alllevels of education no later than 2015

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Target 6: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate

Goal 5: Improve maternal health Target 7: Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio

Target 8: Achieve universal access to reproductive health

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS,malaria and other diseases

Target 9: Have halted by 2015, and begun to reverse, the spread of HIV/AIDS

Target 10: Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those whoneed it

Target 11: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and othermajor diseases

Goal 7: Ensure environmentalsustainability

Target 12: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmesand reverse the loss of environmental resources

Target 13: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss

Target 14: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinkingwater and basic sanitation

Target 15: By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slumdwellers

Goal 8: Develop a GlobalPartnership for Development

Target 16: Address the special needs of least developed countries, landlocked countries and smallisland developing states

Target 17: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financialsystem

Target 18: Deal comprehensively with developing countries’ debt

Target 19: In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugsin developing countries

Target 20: In cooperation with the private sector, make available benefits of new technologies,especially information and communications

Table 1: The UNMillenniumDevelopment Goals

minimising environmental impact, enhancinginstitutional capacity, and reducingvulnerability10. See also Box 1. In practice,developing sustainable ‘pro-poor’ infrastructurerequires tools that support the integration ofthese core characteristics into the projectprocess throughout the entire infrastructureproject life cycle, and help those funding,commissioning, designing and implementinginfrastructure projects to consider a wider rangeof issues and stakeholder concerns. Such toolsneed to be easy to apply and readilyunderstandable by all project stakeholders.These requirements formed an initial brief forthe subsequent development of ASPIRE.


Service Physical Infrastructure Examples of socio-economic inputs MDG Targets

National and internationalmovement and Import/export ofgoods and people

• Ports/harbours• Airports• Highways• Railways

• Trade relations and agreements 16, 17, 19, 20

Service industries e.g. banking • Offices • Skills training• External investment

16, 17, 20

Manufacturing and processing • Factories• Industrial units

• Skills training 17

Acute health care • Hospitals• Pharmaceuticals

• Medical training• Affordability• Accessibility

3, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11,16, 17, 19

Further education • Universities• Colleges• Secondary schools

• Academic links• Curriculum development• Affordability

2, 4, 5, 7, 16, 17

Community mobilisation • Community centres• Public buildings

• Community demand• Building skills

16

Disaster Risk Reduction • Communal shelters• Flood defences

• Community awareness• Warning systems

12, 13, 15, 16

Communications • Wireless networks• Mobile networks• Telephone networks• Telecentres

• Local skills training• Private sector enterprise

1, 2, 5, 15, 16, 17,20

Power supply • Power stations• Electricity distribution

• Demand management• Affordability

1, 2, 4, 12, 15, 16,17

Agriculture and food distribution • Local roads• Irrigation• Local markets

• Training• Information

1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17

Public transport and accessibility • Pedestrian/cycle routes• Bus systems• Water transport

• Needs assessment• Affordability• Road safety

2, 4, 12, 16, 17

Primary healthcare • Health centres • Health promotion• Health training

3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 15, 16

Primary education • Primary schools • Teacher training• Affordability• Curriculum development

2, 4, 5, 9

Access to finance/markets • Microcredits • Link to formal banking• Link to markets

1, 2, 5, 15, 16, 17

Shelter • Houses • Building skills• Siting• Demand

1, 2, 6, 15

Sanitation and wastemanagement and disposal

• Latrines• Drainage systems• Sewerage systems• Solid waste transfer• Landfill sites• Recycling plants

• Hygiene promotion• Community management• Community recycling

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11,12, 15, 16

Water supply • Point sources• Treatment• Storage• Distribution systems

• Hygiene promotion• Community management• Maintenance training• Private sector enterprise

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11,14, 15, 16

Table 2: Analysis ofthe contribution ofinfrastructure toservices provisionand MDG’s

Adva

ncedInfrastructure

Infrastructure

forcommunitywellb

eing

BasicInfrastructure

forsurvival


Sector MDG 1: Reduce incomepoverty and hunger

MDG 2: Fullprimaryeducationcoverage

MDG 3: Genderequality ineducation

MDG 4: Reduce< 5 mortality

MDG 5:Maternalmortalityreduction

MDG 6:Communicabledisease

MDG 7:Environmentalprotection

MDG 8:Framework fordevelopment.

Transport– Local(Village toTownship orMain Road)

+++Improvements to low-volumelocal roads and associatednetworks of village tracks cansignificantly reduce poorfarmers’ transaction costs andexpand their productionpossibilities

++Village roadssignificantly affectschool enrolmentand attendance

++Girls’ attendancesignificantlyincreased by saferroads

+Increases use ofprimaryhealthcarefacilitiesand facilitatesaccessto better water

+Positively affectsantenatalcare and share ofdeliveriesprofessionallyattended

+Care needed tomaximisecompatibility ofengineering designwith localenvironment

+Work on localroads/transportcan generatemuch youthemployment

Transport– Trunk(Beyond theTownship)

+++Availability of competitivetransport serviceson adequately maintained trunknetwork is critical to theeffective participation of anarea in national andinternational markets

+Quality of link toregional centresignificantly affectsquality of teacherwho can beattracted andhis/her attendance

+Helps secure betterquality ofteacher

++Vaccines/drugssupply, visits bymore skilledhealthpersonnel andemergencyevacuations

+Increases in-hospital deliveriesand often criticalwhen emergencyobstetricsrequired

+Important for drugsupply and higher-level diagnosticsCare needed toavoid stimulatingAIDS spread

–Great care needed infragile ecologicalenvironments tominimise risksand compensatepeople who suffer

+++Essential facilityto enable area tobenefit frominternationaltrade

Modernenergy

+++Rural electrification oftencorrelates with sharp increase inregional incomes and growth ofnon-farm activity. Reliability ofmodern energy supply stronglyaffects investment in, andcompetitiveness of, localenterprises

+Availability ofmodern energyincreasesenrolmentand attendancerates, and homeelectrificationraises timedevoted to study

++Modern energyhelps familiesrelease girls forschool: lesstime collectingfuel-woodand water, andschoolsimproved

++Sharply reducesindoorsmoke pollutionand impurities inwater/foodconsumed, thetwo majormortality factors

+Reduced stressof householdchores, andelectricityimproves medicalservices (hours,equipment,refrigeration)

+Improved medicalservices,including fromattractionof more qualifiedpersonnel

++Reduces pressure onland resources (bymoving water andreducing fuel-woodneed), but careneeded to avoid ill-effects of large dams

+Small quantitiesof electricityessentialfor use of modernICT

Telecoms/ICT

++ICT significantly improves theefficiency of most service-sectoractivities (incl. government) andcan in particular reach poorerpeople with informationof direct use for improving theireconomic situation

+ICT helps expandand improveteacher training,and can makeclasses moreinteresting

+ICT can makeschool moreworthwhileattendingby strengtheningstudents’ examperformance

+Can promotebetter healthpractices andensure timelyavailability oflife-criticaldiagnostic info.and drugs

+ICT enablesefficientarrangementsfor emergencytreatment

+Reduce drug stock-outsand make efficientreferrals to highermedicalinstitutions

+Record-keepingand retrieval servicesof importance forenvironmentalprotection

++Essential to targetfor ICTs’ supply,and forparticipationin internationaleconomicopportunities

Householdwater

++Convenient, good water cansubstantially reduce morbidityand mortality, time spentfetching water, and enterpriseinterruptions, and improvenutrition, with significant effectson poor people’sproductivity

++Good home watersupplyincreases schoolattendance(especially bychildren withliterate mothers)and increaseslearning capacity

+More convenienthome watersupply facilitatesrelease of girls forschool and reducesabsences due tosickness

+++Good homewater supplygreatly reduceschild mortality,especially ifmother is literate

+Water improvesgeneralmaternal healthand deliveries

+Clean waterimportant fordisease treatment,and for formulamilk(HIV mothers)

+++Crucial for meetingthe householdwater target underthis goal

+Waterimprovementmuch needed inleast developedcountries

Sanitation +Adequate sanitation sharplyreduces illnessand expenditure on medicaltreatment (itselfa significant factor in poverty)

+Goodsanitation/waterhelps attract goodteacher

++Good schoolsanitation andwater facilitiesincrease girls’attendance. Infantand child mortalityrates are loweramong childrenwhose mothers aremore highlyeducated

+Improvedsanitationdecreases childmortalityand improvesnutrition

+Improvedsanitationreduces maternalillness

+Effective waterdisposal reducesmalaria mosquitobreeding

++Crucial for meetingthe sanitation targetand combating urbanenvironmentaldegradation

+Sanitation highpriority in leastdevelopedcountries

Watermanagementstructures

+++Irrigation and flood controlstructures can greatlyincrease incomes and nutritionlevels of the poor if they aremanaged to maximise benefitsto the community as a whole,and especially if they supportproduction of labour-intensivecrops

+Less drudgery forwomenin obtaining waterfor household needs

+More amplesupplies ofwater forhousehold use

–Care needed toavoid adversehealthconsequences ofman-madechanges in waterregimes

++Sound planning,design and op. ofwater-relatedstructures are key inprotectingenvironmentalresources andaccommodatinggrowing populations

Table 3 – Sectoral analysis of contribution of Infrastructure to the MDG’s 12.

+, ++ and +++ indicate the relative level of improvement from the pre project/intervention level.


Report Key Issues

The World Bank (2006): Infrastructure at the Crossroads –Lessons From 20 Years of World Bank Experience13

An internal review of lessons learned from 20 years of World banklending to energy, transport, water and sanitation and urbandevelopment projects.

Problems identified with World Bank infrastructure investments(particularly in 1980s and 90s) included:

• Overly complex project design

• Optimistic or unclear economic, financial, and institutionalassumptions at appraisal

• Inadequate implementation monitoring frameworks andarrangements

• Failure to accurately gauge political commitment

• Lack of attention to sustainability

OECD – Development Assistance Committee (2006):Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: Infrastructure14

Part of a series of reports on the promotion of pro-poor growthfocused primarily on the role of donors. Developed by the DACPOVNET Task Team on Infrastructure drawing on the expertise ofbilateral and multilateral donors, partner countries, private actorsand civil society.

“Because of insufficient investment, inadequate planning, poormaintenance and unsustainable sector governance,most…partner countries – especially low income countries –suffer from huge gaps in infrastructure.Without major progress, itwill be impossible for these countries to significantly reducepoverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals”15.

Department For International Development (2002):Making Connections - Infrastructure For PovertyReduction16

An internal DFID review conducted by a multi-stakeholder team.Focused on how infrastructure can benefit poor people and thelessons from past mistakes, especially for donors.

“Infrastructure…has a bad name among many donors because inthe past investment did not always deliver the expected benefits.Investment choices were distorted by political or personalinterests, without strong systems or procedures to scrutinise them.There was a bias towards large-scale capital projects, and neglectof institutional issues and maintenance. The contribution togrowth was sometimes less evident than the damage to theenvironment and to vulnerable people displaced from homes orlivelihoods”17.

World Commission on Dams (2000): Dams andDevelopment: A New Framework for Decision-Making18

A multi-stakeholder commission with a mandate to review thedevelopment effectiveness of large dams and developinternationally acceptable criteria, guidelines and standards forlarge dams. It reviewed a large range of material including eightdetailed case studies.

While some projects had delivered significant developmentalbenefits, evaluation of the planning and project cycle revealed aseries of limitations, risks and failures in the manner in whichthese facilities have been planned, operated and evaluated:

• Participation and transparency in planning processes frequentlywas neither inclusive nor open.

• Options assessment has been typically limited in scope andconfined primarily to technical parameters and the narrowapplication of economic cost-benefit analyses.

• The participation of affected people and the undertaking ofenvironmental and social impact assessment have oftenoccurred late in the process and were limited in scope.

• The paucity of monitoring and evaluation activity once theproject was completed has impeded learning from experience.

Table 4 – Keyfindings from recenthistorical reviews ofinfrastructuredevelopment

12 OECD, 2006, Annex B.

13 The World Bank (2006) Infrastructure at the Crossroads –Lessons From 20 Years of World Bank Experience. TheWorld Bank, Washington.

14 OECD (2006).

15 OECD (2006) Pg. 17.

16 DFID (2002) Making Connections: Infrastructure forPoverty Reduction. DFID, London.

17 DFID (2002) Pg. 5.

18 World Commission on Dams (2000) Dams andDevelopment: A New Framework for Decision-Making,the Report of the World Commission on Dams.Earthscan, Virginia.

A comparative analysis was carried out of anumber of existing tools and frameworks forassessing the performance ofprojects/programmes in relation to sustainabilityand/or poverty. SPeAR® - a sustainabilityassessment tool previously developed by Arup –was used as a benchmark. The purpose of theanalysis was to understand whether existingtools and frameworks were:

a. applicable to infrastructure projects indeveloping countries;

b. addressed both sustainability and povertyreduction agendas; and

c. could be used at different stages in theproject lifecycle.

The analysis also looked at indicators in terms ofthe extent to which they are project specific,and whether they are qualitative or quantitative.The time required undertaking assessments, thelevel of information needed and the type ofoutput was also reviewed.

3.1 SPeAR®

The Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine,known as SPeAR® was originally developed in2001 by an in-house team of specialists in Arup,initially targeted primarily for use in the UK. It isa holistic tool which brings together a largenumber of indicators relating to the total impactof the project system on the environment, useof natural resources, and socio-economicimpact. SPeAR® contains a set of core sectorsand indicators that were derived from the UKGovernment's set of sustainability indicatorsand its sustainability strategy (Securing theFuture (2005)); United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) indicators; and the GlobalReporting Initiative (GRI). SPeAR® has beenindependently reviewed by Forum for the Future(a leading sustainability non-governmentalorganisation) and has been successfully appliedon hundreds of projects worldwide.

Particular proven strengths are:

• An integrated, cross-sectoral perspective ofsustainability which addresses and balancessocio-economic as well as environmentalconcerns based on universally acceptedindicator sets.

• The graphical output is readilycomprehensible to multiple stakeholders (notjust technical experts) providing a facilitationmechanism for stakeholder engagement.

• It allows monitoring of sustainabilityperformance against agreed criteriathroughout the project life cycle.

• It highlights information gaps in sustainabilityappraisals.

• It drives informed decision making by projectand programme teams, and identifiespriorities for action.

• It has been successfully used as a trainingtool to support organisational learning aswell as promoting sustainability on projects.

3.2 Comparative Analysis

Four other leading frameworks/tools wereidentified as representing leading internationalthinking on sustainability and/or povertyassessment (see Table 5). A summary of theanalysis is provided in Table 6.

PAGE 11


3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS

Name of Framework/Tool Primary focus Lead Research Institution

1. Project Sustainability Assessment Sustainability International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC)

2. IUCN Sustainability Assessment Sustainability TheWorld Conservation Union (IUCN)

3. Sustainable Livelihoods Framework Livelihoods and Poverty Department for International Development (DFID)

4. Ex-Ante Poverty Impact Assessment PovertyOrganisation for Economic Co-operation for Development(OECD)

5. Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (SPeAR®) Sustainability Ove Arup & Partners International Limited

Table 5:Frameworks/Toolsreviewed

The dimensions of the DFID and IUCNframeworks were conceptually well-defined butthis did not necessarily translate into a tool withpractical application on infrastructure projects.The FIDIC, OECD and SPeAR® frameworks aremore specifically project focused. Whilst eachoffers useful elements for appraisingperformance against some of the requirementsof sustainable pro-poor infrastructure, none ofthem effectively integrate poverty reduction andsustainability criteria in one framework. Thisconfirmed the likely need for a new tool toenable those responsible for infrastructureprojects in developing countries to addressthese issues in an integrated manner.

PAGE 12


The number and range of indicators and way inwhich they were grouped varied widely, butthere was significant overlap in terms of keythemes relating to environmental resources,economics and social well-being. In some casesindicators are self-selected and specific to theproject which was felt provided less scope forobjective comparative analysis and a risk thatkey issues are overlooked. A generic list ofindicators was felt to be preferable. Even so,most indicators were qualitative which impliesthat the output is to some extent subjective anddependent on the competencies, perspectiveand intent of the user.

Features 1. FIDIC ProjectSustainabilityAssessment

2. IUCN SustainabilityAssessment

3. DFID SustainableLivelihoodsFramework

4. OECD Ex-AntePoverty ImpactAssessment

5. SPeAR

Primary Focus Sustainability Sustainability Livelihoods, poverty andvulnerability

Poverty Sustainability

Assessment Scope Project Geographical area(regional or national)

Community Programme/project Project /programme

Qualitative/Quantitative Quantitative Qualitative andQuantitative

Qualitative Primarily Qualitative Primarily Qualitative

Output No visual output orpresentation. Primaryoutput is a list ofindicators.

This method uses 2visual tools: the‘barometer ofsustainability’ and the‘egg of wellbeing’. Theoutput is an overlay andhence hard to visualiseindividually

The main visual outputis the asset polygon,which presents arelative overview ofpeople’s assets underthe five capitals.

The main visual outputis a series of matrices.While these matrices areuseful for organising thedata they do not providea clear visual output.

Simple visual outputbased on four quadrantrepresentation ofsustainability and trafficlight colour coding.

Indicators Indicators are projectspecific with a processspecified for tailoringgeneric indicators forproject-specificapplications.

Indicators are onlyselected after specifyinggoals,sub-elements andobjectives.

No indicators. Mainlybased on the collectionof qualitativeinformation defined inconsultation withcommunities.

Uses a series of high-level subjectiveindicators.

Standard indicators withscope to add/omitindicators to suit theproject brief.

Time/Cost Minor/moderate timeand resourcesdepending on dataavailability and depth ofassessment.

Long term (2 yearapprox.) assessmentprocess.

Time, cost and resourceintensive.

Costs vary between15000 to 40000 USDfor typical assessment.

Minor/moderate timeand resourcesdepending on dataavailability and depth ofassessment required.

Applicability in theProject Life Cycle

Primarily for use inthe design phase of theproject lifecycle but could beapplied duringimplementation.

Not designed for use ina project environment.Could inform policydevelopment and thedesign of subsequentprojects of programmes.

Primarily for thedesign of povertyrelated programmeinterventions but couldbe used at other stages(e.g. for evaluation).

Specifically designed forthe ex ante assessmentof proposed projects ofprogrammes.

Designed forapplicability throughoutthe project lifecycle.

Comments Project focusedappraisal tool withan emphasis onquantitative indicators.

The human andecosystem dimensionclearly defined in theframework but thisclarity is lost in thevisual output.

The five capitals are welldefined and provide acomprehensive andbroad framework.

Concept of outputs andoutcomes is robust.Weakness in assessingtechnology andinstitutions.

Wide range ofapplication and clearoutput.

Table 6: Summary of Comparative Analysis of other Frameworks/Tools

The outputs included diagrams and matrices.The diagrams provide a valuable overview butgenerally require reference to more detailedoutput for interpretation and substantiation.SPeAR® performed strongly compared to othertools as it provides a simple approach to datainput with a clear and powerful graphicaloutput. In addition, its primary focus is oninfrastructure and is applicable at all stages ofthe project life cycle with a track record ofsuccessful practical application. SPeAR® hassome acknowledged limitations as a tool,including the subjective nature of theassessment method and a fairly genericapplication.

3.3 Conclusion

The analysis concluded that the SPeAR®software platform should be adapted forASPIRE, but that a comprehensive review andreconsideration of the conceptual frameworkand indicators was required based on currentdocumentation and cross-referencing againstthe indicators used in other tools. Keyrecommendations included:

PAGE 13


• A core framework that seeks to ‘balance’environmental and ecosystem quality withhuman and community well-being.

• An explicit institutional dimension as part ofthe conceptual model in addition to the threepillars: economic, social, environmental. Oneof the key barriers for the implementationand delivery of sustainable infrastructureprojects in the developing country context isthe limitation in capacity and effectiveness ofthe institutional structures and processes.

• New indicator sets to cover issues particularlyrelevant to developing country contextsincluding: vulnerability, capacity building,prevention of corruption, conflict sensitivity,social inclusion and the provision of essentialservices.

• Guidance to users on the assessment processto include stakeholder identification/analysisand definition of the assessment boundary.

• Consideration of how the tool can be used atdifferent stages of the project life cycle.

The development of ASPIRE was considered infour key areas: the conceptual framework, theindicators, the software interface, and the roadmap for carrying out an assessment.

4.1 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework is underpinned bythe primacy of the environment and thedynamic between people and the planet (whichin the IUCN framework is articulated in terms ofhumans and ecosystems). The essence ofsustainable development is to find the criticalbalance between the needs of society and thenatural environment both globally and locally,acknowledging that our planet has limitedcarrying capacity to support an increasing globalpopulation aspiring to a higher quality of living.This is particularly acute in developing countrieswhere the basic needs of millions are unmetand there is a more direct reliance onecosystems. This results in a tension betweenthe creation and maintenance of societal assetsand environmental impact which is implicit inthe ASPIRE keystone diagram (see Figure 1).

Infrastructure plays a key role in brokering thispeople-planet relationship, but is only effectiveand sustainable long term if supported byrobust institutional structures and processes andwell-balanced economic development. Hencethe ASPIRE conceptual framework uniquely hasfour dimensions: society, environment,economic and institutions. These are presentedas inter-locking keystones forming a circle inrecognition of their dependence on one another(see Figure 1). The inclusion of the Institutionalenabler was a key finding of the comparativeanalysis of assessment frameworks and mirrors

the four core dimensions of social,environmental, economic and institutional usedby the United Nations Commission onSustainable Development (CSD). The fourdimensions of ASPIRE also reflect the DFIDSustainable Livelihoods approach assuming thatthe fifth dimension of physical assets is theproject itself.

Within each of the four dimensions a number ofkey themes (either 4 or 6) have been identifiedunder which indicators are grouped:

• Environment is considered in terms ofenhancing and minimising impact on naturalassets: air, land, water, biodiversity, materials.Energy is included as a sixth themerecognising the increasing importance ofrenewable energy sources and energyefficiency.

• Society is considered in terms of four themesrepresenting assets required to meet needsequitably, unlock human potential andalleviate poverty through: access to services,public health, culture, stakeholderparticipation. Two further themes -vulnerability and population - include issuessuch as conflict, exposure to natural hazards,displacement.

• Economics encompasses four themes whichcontribute to economic vitality: projectviability long term, macro-economic effects(such as inflation and competition), livelihoodopportunity and equity of economicopportunity.

• Institutions includes four themes whichconsider the capacity and effectiveness of the

PAGE 14


4. DEVELOPMENT OF ASPIRE

Figure 1: ASPIREConceptualFramework

institutional environment to support thedelivery of infrastructure that contributes tosustainable development: policy,governance, skills, and reporting.

4.2 Indicators

Within this conceptual framework, it was thennecessary to identify a comprehensive set ofindicators to assess project performance. ASPIREuses the same organising principle of SPeAR.The four key dimensions of sustainability -environment, society, economics and institutions– are represented as four quadrants which aredivided into 20 primary theme areas as shownin Figure 2. The Society and Environmentquadrant has 6 themes each and the Institutionsand Economics quadrant has four themes each.Within each theme there are 4-5 sub-themes (orindicators).

Drawing on the existing SPeAR indicators, keyreferences as summarised in Appendix A and a

PAGE 15


series workshops/discussions with sectorspecialists and consultants, an initial list ofapproximately 160 sub themes was drafted. Theprocess was jointly managed by a team ofexperts from Arup and EAP, mobilising expertisecovering all four sustainability dimensions.Through a further series of workshops anddiscussions, the initial list was streamlined to 96sub-themes. Although this is a large number ofindicators to address in an assessment, it doesprovide a comprehensive framework thataddresses the totality of issues that need to beconsidered. This is particularly important at theoutset of a project to ensure that opportunitiesare not overlooked and gaps are identified. Thisapproach, together with the ability to omit asmall number of indicators if consideredirrelevant for a particular project, was felt to bea more rigorous approach than either usingfewer generic indicators or selecting projectspecific indicators. A smaller number of KeyPerformance Indicators (KPIs) aligned with a

Figure 2: ASPIREKeystone

particular project’s objectives can be identifiedfrom amongst the overall list of 96 sub-themesand used as the basis for more detailedmonitoring and evaluation on a quantitativebasis.

A further consideration in this indicatordevelopment process was how ASPIRE couldsupport the assessment of performance againstthe Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) asdiscussed previously in section 2.3. Figure 3maps the MDG goals on the ASPIRE framework.It should be noted that, generally, it is notpossible to directly measure performance ofinfrastructure projects against the MDGs. Forexample, reducing hunger or improving healthand education outcomes requires broad-basedmulti-dimensional interventions that extendbeyond the boundaries of most infrastructureprojects. However, understanding how

PAGE 16


Figure 4: TypicalASPIRE Assessmentoutput

Figure 3: ASPIRE and MDGs


infrastructure can be designed to integrate withother programs or to be the focal point forbroad-based multi-sector interventions is centralto achieving the MDGs.

4.3 Software

The ASPIRE software has been designed to beeasy to use and understand, so that it can beoperated and understood by project managers,planners and engineers who may not havespecialist knowledge of sustainability andpoverty reduction issues. Key considerations indeveloping the software were:

• It should be easy to use and understand sorequires minimal training;

• It should not be too data intensive so thatmoderate time and resources are required tocarry out an assessment;

• There should be a high degree oftransparency in terms of data input andoutput and both should be able to bechecked and audited to ensure quality andconsistency;

• The output should be tabulated as well aspresented graphically; and

• It should be easily accessible via the Internet.

The software utilises Microsoft Windows. Itleads the user through a series of questions,and provides illustrative best and worst cases toassist in allocating a non-weighted score toeach of the sub-themes. If the user requiresmore information to help with decision-making,ASPIRE also provides ready access tobackground information for each sub-themethrough the software. The user then has toenter a short justification for each score. Thesescores are then aggregated for each theme toprovide a high level, graphical output. A ‘trafficlight’ system is used to indicate strengths(green) and weaknesses (red). See Figure 4.

The detailed steps for carrying out an ASPIREassessment are outlined in the User Manual.

4.4 Assessment Methodology

In the process of developing the software it wasconsidered important also to develop a clearmethodology for undertaking an assessmentusing ASPIRE. This was divided into 4 key stagesand 10 key steps were identified as shown inFigure 5. Further details of each step areprovided in the User Manual.

Figure 5: The ASPIRE Road Map

Initiating theassessment

Step 1: Define boundaries and objectives• Understand the scope of the project and define objectives• Define the assessment boundary

Step 2: Identify stakeholders• Identify the primary and secondary stakeholders• Identify the stakeholders to be consulted

Step 3: Review list of sub-themes• Review list of sub-themes for relevance• If a sub-theme needs to be removed then provide justification

Step 4: Policy and regulatory framework• Understand the regional or national policies and regulations• Assess the impacts of policies and regulations on the project

Datacollectionand entry

Step 5: Data collection• Collect data through primary and secondary sources• Verification of data

Step 6: Data entry• Enter data in the ASPIRE software in the data entry menu• Justify all the indicators – ‘sub-themes’

Review Step 7: Initial Outputs• Keystone diagram• Excel Report

Step 8: Feedback to project team/stakeholders• Initial outputs to be communicated with team/stakeholders• Agreement on areas requiring review or modification

Step 9: Review ASPIRE based on feedback• Update ASPIRE based on feedback from team/stakeholders• Carry out further rounds of iteration and feedback if required

Reporting Step 10: Final outputs and reporting• Generate final outputs• Write the assessment report

This section discusses the analysis carried out inorder to develop a generic project life cycle(PLC) which was used to explore how ASPIREmight be used at various stages of projectdevelopment. In order to maximise the impactand applicability of ASPIRE, it was consideredimportant to develop a tool that, as well asbeing used at the early stages of projectconcept development, could be used topromote informed decision making throughoutthe project cycle right through to evaluation ofcompleted projects. In addition, it should beflexible so that it can be used in a number ofways (e.g., to inform the brief, promotedialogue between partners, carry out gapanalyses, undertake options comparison,facilitate ongoing monitoring and evaluation ofmulti-phased projects, and promote institutionallearning).

5.1 Project Life Cycle Analysis

A review of four major donors’ project lifecycles was carried out to compare their stagesand definitions. The outcome of this review isshown in Figure 6. Based on the analysis, ageneric project life cycle with six key stages atwhich sustainability and poverty impacts needto be considered was identified. These areshown in Figure 7 and described briefly below.

PAGE 18


5. PROJECT LIFE CYCLE

Stage 1: Policy Development

This will normally be carried out at a nationallevel to identify relevant national policies andpriorities which can then inform broad projectcriteria in discussion with key nationalstakeholders.

Stage 2: Identification

The vision, goal and objectives for the projectare defined and agreed at this stage.Stakeholder analysis and some preliminary high-level consultations are important and necessarycomponents to ensure that the priorities of allpotential delivery partners, champions,beneficiaries and even possible detractors aretaken into consideration.

Stage 3: Design

At this stage one or more infrastructure projectoptions can then be identified based on theproject objectives and their feasibility assessed.Detailed requirements for delivering the projectare developed. Measurable indicators ofperformance will need to be agreed. Projectdesign will include developing a scope of works,scheme design, programme and budget.Agreement also needs to be reached with anyproject partners on the preferred managementmodel for delivering the project.

Figure 6: Comparison of selected donor project lifecycles Figure 7: Simplified generic project life cycle

Stage 4: Appraisal

This is the stage at which the project design isreviewed to check that it meets all the policyand project criteria in the most effective,equitable, sustainable, efficient and replicablemanner. This is the chance to ask difficultquestions about impact, sustainability and risks,and if there are concerns or weaknesses thereneeds to be a mechanism to go back andimprove the project design before moving on toimplementation. This feedback loop to refinethe design is shown in Figure 7.

Stage 5: Implementation

This stage includes not only the detailed designand construction or installation of facilities butalso the ongoing operation and maintenance.There is less scope at this stage to influence theshape of the project since most of the decisionsrelating to poverty impact and sustainability willhave been finalised in Stages 2 and 3. However,ongoing monitoring of the agreed performanceindicators should be included in Stage 6 toprovide a feedback loop as shown in Figure 7.This helps to identify areas where the intendedimpacts are not being achieved, or the project isunder-performing.

Stage 6: Evaluation

Evaluation is an important part of the cycle tolearn lessons which can inform future projects.However, it is not always routinely undertakenon project completion. An evaluation may beundertaken after several years of operation andshould draw on information from all theprevious stages of the project cycle to assessperformance at the earlier stages.

5.2 ASPIRE Applications

An Arup project team was then asked to reviewASPIRE and consider how it might be used on asignificant large scale infrastructure project.Table 6 summarise the outcome of this exercise.

Additional, up-front investment will be neededto carry out analysis at the start of the projectcycle. Such investment is crucial to ensure thatsustainability and poverty reduction are includedat the outset, and will be most effective if thereis a multi-disciplinary team with strongcommunication capabilities to interacteffectively with external and internal projectstakeholders. The graph shown in Figure 8illustrates the cost-benefit of involving

stakeholders in the decision-making process atthe start of the project. Adapting designs andprocesses to meet the needs of the poor fromthe outset is significantly less costly than tryingto effect changes later in the project.

PAGE 19


StepNumber

Project cyclestages

Activities/Analysis CanASPIREbe used?

1 PolicyDevelopment

Baseline assessment �Raising awareness/training �

2 Identification Master planning �Feasibility study �Options evaluation �Risk identification and analysis �Gap analysis �Stakeholder analysis and mapping �Identification of key performance indicators �

3 Design Concept design review �Stakeholder consultation �

4 Appraisal Design review �Stakeholder consultation �

5 Implementation Monitoring �Stakeholder consultation �

6 Evaluation Time series evaluation �Comparison of projects �Auditing �Whole life project monitoring �Post project evaluation �Raising awareness/training �

Table 6: Applying ASPIRE during various stages in the project cycle

Project Time �

High Influence of stakeholder

Cost of changes

Low

sFigure 8: Influenceof stakeholders v.cost of changesto infrastructureprojects

6.1 Market survey

Following the literature review, comparativeanalysis and development of the conceptual 4 –quadrant model, an initial questionnaire wassent out to 45 private sector, academic, non-governmental and government organisations.Its purpose was to assess the demand for sucha tool and how sustainability and povertyreduction issues were currently being prioritisedand addressed among these organisations(Appendix B). 20 responses were received andthis information was then used in developingthe indicators and software.

6.2 Testing

An initial version of the ASPIRE software wastrialled on nine different infrastructure projectsbetween December 2008 and May 2009. Theseprojects were selected to provide a cross-sectionin terms of scale, sector, geography andparticipants (see Table 7). Four projects wereselected in sub-Saharan Africa ranging fromlarge scale donor-funded/public sectorinterventions to NGO supported communitybased projects. A post-disaster reconstructionproject was chosen in Sri Lanka. The remainingtwo projects in the UK and US are consideredexemplars of sustainable development based onassessments using SPeAR and/or other tools(e.g. LEED, BREEAM).

Testing organisations were asked to providedetailed feedback on the use of ASPIRE througha standardised questionnaire. The purpose of

PAGE 20


6. CONSULTATION & TESTING

the testing was to assess ease of use of thesoftware as well as to encourage debate on thetool’s overall themes and appraisalmethodology (Appendix C).

Projects sheets for several test projects havebeen included in Appendix D. These providebackground information about the project,discuss how the ASPIRE assessment was carriedout and also the key lessons for the projectfrom the assessment process.

6.3 Outcomes

The feedback from the testing stage highlightedseveral areas in which the software content anduser interface could be improved. It alsorevealed the diversity of potential applicationsthat the testing organisations consideredappropriate for ASPIRE.

User Interface• Overall users found the software intuitiveand easy to use even at their initialassessment.

• Various improvements were made to thesoftware in response to user feedbackincluding navigation between and withinscreens; data entry; saving draft assessment;speed of output generation.

Themes & Sub-Themes Content• Considerable feedback was offered by userson the sub-themes’ categorisation andcontent. This was used in finalising the sub-

Name of Project Location Sector Testing Organisation Details of Project

Community Water andSanitation project

Nairobi, Kenya Water & Sanitation Maji na Ufanisi/Arup Toilet block built by community

Tsunami Housing Construction Kalutara, Sri Lanka Housing Croix-Rouge de Belgique - CRB Technical supervision for housing construction

Chyanyana Irrigation PilotProject

Kafue, Zambia Irrigation Private InfrastructureDevelopment Group (PIDG)

Irrigation project jointly run by small scalefarmers and commercial farmers

Gautrain, Rapid Rail link Joburg, South Africa Transport (Rail) Arup Johannesburg 80km rail link construction

Kindergarten Project Ghana Construction (Education) Arup/Sabre Trust Develop and build a prototype kindergarten

Greywater Management Project Cape Town Water & Sanitation University of Cape Town Options for sustainable grey watermanagement at community level

Post Tsunami school and healthfacility reconstruction

Sri Lanka Construction (Education &Health)

UNOPS 21 schools and 33 health clinics

Angwin Eco Village California, USA Housing Arup 275 housing units and 66 acre land

Greenfield Site Bristol, UK Construction (Commercial) Arup Bristol Office scheme near existing semi ruralcommunities

Table 7: ASPIRETest Projects

themes (indicators) and the accompanyingquestions, and best and worst case guidance.

Scoring & Assessment

• Users reported that most of the informationrequired to conduct an ASPIRE assessmentwas readily available from existing projectdocumentation or had been collected forother reporting requirements.

• Some users commented that, because thekeystone diagram shows the average scoreof 5-6 sub-themes, particularly good or badperformance on particular sub-themes couldbe masked. An option to generate a ‘best’and ‘worst’ case chart which depicts thehighest and lowest scoring sub-theme foreach theme was added so that it is possibleto break down and track sub-themeperformance graphically.

• During the testing process, the ASPIRE teamnoticed differences in how individualsapproached scoring. For example, how‘average’ performance was indicated tendedto be very subjective. To preventinconsistency in the use of the tool, the bestand worst case scenario wordings for eachsub-theme, which are the basis for assigninga score, were edited, and more guidance onscoring best practices has been provided inthe user manual.

• The format of the keystone image and thereports has also been updated to better meetthe needs of users.

Applications• All testers, from engineers to academics,reported that the ASPIRE themes and sub-themes were relevant to their projects.ASPIRE was considered to be a morecomprehensive appraisal tool than thosecurrently being used to assess povertyreduction and sustainability performance,and users expressed interest in adopting theuse of ASPIRE as part of their standardpractices for project development. Inparticular, users noted the importance of atool like ASPIRE to enable their organisationto ‘zoom out’ from the technical, projectdriven focus to a longer-term projectsustainability perspective at all stages of theproject cycle.

• A major finding of the testing was that thescale of reference in the tool could bedifficult to match with the particular projectbeing assessed, since an NGO working on asmall community project may have different

areas of focus than a large scale privatesector infrastructure project. Flexibility hastherefore been built into the tool to addressthis diversity by allowing limited exclusion ofsub-themes from assessments.

• Additionally, due to particular reportingrequirements within some organisations,opportunities for customisation wereidentified so as to align ASPIRE with existinginternal frameworks, and this service hasbeen included in the overall businessoffering.

• A minority of testers initially felt that theirprojects did not focus specifically on povertyreduction and therefore would notnecessarily benefit from an ASPIREassessment. This perspective highlights thegap that ASPIRE is attempting to fill in re-orienting project appraisal from a purelyenvironmental perspective to include thewider social, institutional and economicimpacts.

• The testing stage also highlighted thatASPIRE could potentially be applied in thedeveloped country context where there isincreasing recognition of the need to identifysocial as well as environmental impacts.There is scope in the future to adapt ASPIREto this context.

6.4 Conclusion

The testing process has demonstrated that theASPIRE model provides a useful analyticalframework for programme and projectmanagers, engineers and monitoring andevaluation specialists to understand andevaluate the implications of infrastructureprovision and its contribution to povertyreduction and sustainable developmentthroughout the project cycle. It has providedconfidence that ASPIRE meets the keyspecifications defined at the start of thedevelopment process, namely:

• Facilitates the design and delivery ofsustainable pro-poor infrastructure;

• Integrates into the project life cycles of users;

• Provides appropriate performance indicators;

• Is easy to use by project team members;

• Creates simple graphical outputs that can beunderstood by non-experts to facilitateengagement with key stakeholders; and

• Can be used to monitor and assess whole lifeperformance of projects.

PAGE 21


Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2006) Promoting Pro-PoorGrowth – Infrastructure. OECD, Paris.

World Bank - Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project:http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp

International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2003) Thematic Evaluation Report: Employment IntensiveInvestment and Poverty Alleviation. Committee on Technical Cooperation, ILO, Geneva.

International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) (2004) Project Sustainability Guidelines.FIDIC, Geneva.

Royal Academy of Engineering (2005) Engineering for Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles.Royal Academy of Engineering, London.

International Finance Corporation (2007) Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook forCompanies Doing Business in Emerging Markets. IFC, Washington.

Department for International Development (DFID) (2006) Eliminating World Poverty – MakingGovernance Work for the Poor. White Paper on International Development. DFID. London.

Fenner, R A, Cruikshank, H J and Guthrie P M (2006)Widening engineering horizons: addressing thecomplexity of sustainable development. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,Engineering Sustainability 159, December 2006 Issue ES4 pp 145-154.

Hawkins, J, Herd, C and Wells, J (2006) Modifying infrastructure procurement to enhance socialdevelopment. Institution of Civil Engineers & Engineers Against Poverty, London.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and The International Council for Research andInnovation in Building and Construction (CIB) (prepared by Du Plessis, C.) Agenda 21 for SustainableConstruction in Developing Countries. CSIR Building and Construction Technology, Pretoria.

PAGE 22


APPENDIX A: ASPIRE INDICATORS - KEY REFERENCES

ASPIRE: a unique collaboration between Engineers Against Poverty and Arup to support theintegrated appraisal of poverty reduction and sustainability performance of infrastructuredevelopments.

A survey of interest for a new appraisal tool.

From initial consultations with key stakeholders we have identified that:

1. Many organisations involved in infrastructure provision are dealing with the complex challenges ofensuring sustainability and making positive contributions to poverty reduction.

2. There is a lack of simple and effective tools to address these challenges in an integrated way.

ASPIRE is being developed to respond to these needs. The ASPIRE project team is now seekingorganisations interested in utilising ASPIRE for their projects and operations. We would like to knowif such a tool would be useful and relevant to the work of your organisation and would be grateful ifyou could answer the following questions:

PAGE 23


APPENDIX B: INITIAL MARKET SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Which of these best describes your organisation? (mark with an X)

Private sector Government Government agency NGO

Question Yes No Answers & comments

1 Is poverty reduction a key strategic or commercial driver foryour organisation?

2 Is sustainability a key strategic or commercial driver for yourorganisation?

3 Does your organisation currently use any formal frameworksor tools for assessing poverty reduction impacts? If so pleasename.

4 Does your organisation currently use any formal frameworksor tools for assessing sustainability? If so please name.

5 From the information you have received on ASPIRE do youthink that it could add value to your existing processes andactivities? If yes, at what stage(s) of the project lifecycle doyou think it would be most useful: project identification,planning & design, implementation or post-projectevaluation?

6 Would you be interested in receiving more information onASPIRE?

7 Would you or one of your colleagues be interested in meetingone of our project team to discuss a possible collaboration topilot ASPIRE on one of your projects?If yes, please provide contact details.


APPENDIX C: TESTING FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Does your organisation currentlyuse any frameworks or tools forassessing sustainability and/orpoverty reduction impacts? If soplease name.

2. Did you find ASPIRE easy to use?

3. What application(s) do you see forthe ASPIRE tool within yourorganisation?

4. What are the targets/drivers thatASPIRE would help you meet?(These might be internationaldevelopment targets, nationalgovernment objectives ororganisational mandates)

5. What would be the other benefitsto your organisation of adoptingASPIRE?

6. How would your organisation usethe results of ASPIRE to changeproject design and delivery?

7. Are any barriers foreseen toimplementing the proposed designand delivery changes?


8. Do you currently collect all theinformation necessary to completeASPIRE?

9. At what stage(s) of theproject/programme lifecycle do youthink ASPIRE would be most useful:project/programme identification,planning & design, implementation,monitoring or post-project/programme evaluation?

10. At what geographical level wouldyou use ASPIRE: community,national, or regional?

11. Are all the themes and sub-themescurrently included in ASPIRErelevant?

12. What improvements/changes wouldyou suggested to make ASPIREmore

a) User friendly?

b) Relevant for its intendedapplication?

13. Do you think that ASPIRE canincrease the likelihood of aninfrastructure project producingsustainable andpro-poor outcomes?

14. If ASPIRE has been tested on aproject(s) we would like thefollowing information if possible(we will only use any data from youwith your permission):

• One page introduction and image for the case study project

• ASPIRE keystone output

• ASPIRE excel report output

• Comments specific to the case study


APPENDIX D: CASE STUDIES


Arup InfrastructureGautrain Rapid Rail LinkGauteng, South Africa

Case Study:

Project Description

The proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link entails theconstruction of a modern, state-of-the-art rail networkconsisting of two spines: a north-south spine linking thetwo major cities of Pretoria and Johannesburg (acommuter service), and an east-west spine linking Sandtonand the East Rand at Rhodesfield in Kempton Park (acommuter service), together with a dedicated servicelinking Sandton and JIA airport. A network length ofapproximately 80 km is planned, with provision for futureextensions. Gauteng is the economic hub of South Africa,generating more than 36% of the country's GrossDomestic Product (GDP), whilst covering less than 2% ofthe country's total surface area. Gauteng therefore plays avital role in the national economy and it is important toprevent this being undermined by traffic congestion.Furthermore, land development in Gauteng has historicallybeen distorted and, in many cases, has not beensupported by an adequate public transportation system.

Rapid rail link

ASPIRE Keystone

The ASPIRE assessment hasbeen carried out bymembers of the ArupJohannesburg team, whoare the technical reviewersfor the development of theGautrain link.

The assessment was carriedout at the Implementationstage of the project lifecycle, during the furtherstakeholder consultationphase of work and has beenvaluable in highlighting theimportance of stakeholderinvolvement in thesuccessful evolution of thescheme as well as the robustfinancial viability.

Sour

ce:A

rup

Sout

hA

fric

a


InstitutionsThe Gautrain Rapid Rail Link scores notablyhighly within the Institutions quadrant of theASPIRE assessment. This is owing to theinvolvement of a private sector consortiumwhich is well resourced and under strongcontractual obligation to include capacity oflocal companies. National and ProvincialGovernment approvals are in place; a multi-stakeholder review called the 'GautrainIntegration Report' checked that all aspects ofthe project would be aligned with othertransport institutions and as well as withnational, provincial and local development andtransport policies. Further to this, the Provincialgovernment has a well resourced project officeto manage the project and staff within theproject office have the skills, financial resourcesand organisational capacity to meetresponsibilities. The scheme has a record ofgood public relations and has been opened toinspection by members of the public during keystages of the development process.

EnvironmentStrengths of the Environment quadrant includeEnergy and Land elements, where the project isencouraging a new development philosophy inSouth Africa of higher density mixed use, highquality developments at stations and transportnodes. This is a welcome development in thecontext of an otherwise very low density,unsustainable development culture. Biodiversityand water score relatively poorly, owing to themajor impact on water/riverine systems throughdisposal of water during construction.Tunnelling has had an impact on groundwaterand aquifers which are part of the resource ofpublic water authorities. Little advanceplanning for impacts of such water extractiontook place. Furthermore, trees on route havesometimes been felled without adequateconsideration of alternatives or replacement.

EconomicsA significant amount of training andempowering of local labour and businesses willbe undertaken to deliver the project.Interestingly, the Equity strand still scorescomparatively lower than the other Economicsthemes, as there has been some debate aboutaccess to public transport for low income

communities in South Africa, as the mainbeneficiaries in the near term will likely becurrent transport users in middle and highincome groups. Ensuring open access and farelevies to benefit all socioeconomic groupswould have resulted in a higher evaluation, butthrough an integration report, the project hasoutlined the positive indirect impacts onemployment opportunities and the fact thatother transport systems are likely to becomemore efficient and accessible in the long termas a result of the operation of Gautrain. Takingthese limitations into account, the project stillperforms strongly in the Economics quadrantdue to its focus on equal opportunities,transparent contracting practices whichpromote ethical competition, high labourstandards, long term operational viability andstrategic alignment with regional and nationalinfrastructure policies.

SocietyWithin the Society quadrant, the Services andPopulation themes appear to be weaker thanothers because the indicators within thesethemes had neither a positive nor negativeimpact to the project and were therefore givenan average/neutral score. For instance the focusof the project is improving transportation forcurrent users, and access to other key servicessuch as primary education provision,telecommunications and fuel sources is not theprimary focus so the assessment assumes aneutral stance on the project impact oncommunity cohesion along the transportcorridor. However, in-depth analysis of incomelevels and land use was conducted to assess theproject’s value over the next 20 years, whichplans for possible changes in population, andthere are strong accountability and grievancemechanisms in place to ensure that allconstruction, social and environmentalcommitments are delivered, leading to higherscores in the Stakeholder theme.

ASPIRE Assessment

Aru

pIn

frastructu

reG

autrain

Rap

idR

ailLink

Gau

teng

,Sou

thA

frica

Maji Na UfanisiCommunity Water & Sanitation ProjectNairobi, Kenya

Case Study:

Project Description

The project is a water and sanitation project in theinformal settlement of Kiambiu in Nairobi, Kenya,supported by Arup. The project involves the constructionof shower and latrine blocks with a single water kioskconstructed alongside. Five blocks have been constructedsince 1999 and they provide clean water, safe sanitationand shower facilities for approximately 70% of the 60,000people living in the settlement.

The project is supported by a Kenyan based Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) called Maji na Ufanisi.Maji initiated the project by consulting with the localcommunity to identify the key water and sanitation needsof the settlement. In order to encourage communityownership of the project, the community donated labourfor construction and formed a Community BasedOrganisation (CBO) responsible for the blocks, known asKiambiu Usafi Group. Once constructed, the CBO tooktotal control of the management of the blocks whichincludes financial matters, cleaning, and operation andmaintenance.

A water-sanitation-shower block in Kiambiu

ASPIRE Keystone

The ASPIRE assessment wasundertaken by Arup staff whotravelled to Kenya to obtain inputsfrom local staff working for Maji naUfanisi and the local community.

The assessment was carried out atthe Evaluation stage of the projectcycle, forming a post projectevaluation. The use of ASPIRE atthe Evaluation stage was extremelyvaluable for helping Arup staff toprepare for the trip to Kenya, asthe indicators focused the teamtowards the relevant issues.According to the assessor, becausethe project performed very well inmost areas, it is an exemplar ofsmall-scale construction projects inthe developing country context andwill serve to inform similar futureprojects.

Sour

ce:M

ajin

aU

fani

si/A

rup

PAGE 29



InstitutionsThe Institutions quadrant highlights some keystrengths of the project as well as somegovernance weaknesses that may pose a threatto the future success and management of theproject. Firstly, socioeconomic analyses wereconducted by Maji before projectimplementation, and a structured monitoringand evaluation process has been put in place toensure proper channels for feedback betweenthe CBO and Maji na Ufanisi and to conductannual SWOT (Strength, Weaknesses,Opportunities, Threats) analyses. In addition,this project strategically aligns with the aims ofa number of government initiatives, and thecapacity of local government is well understoodby the CBO and Maji. However, the keygovernance issue related to the project is thelack of legitimacy of the slums, and, althoughunlikely, the government could theoreticallyevict residents from the settlement at any time.

EnvironmentThe project demonstrates consideration of theimpact on the local environment. In particular,sewage from the toilet facilities is disposed ofto a trunk sewer, as opposed to direct to a localriver, and there is now high awareness amongthe community about the sewage cycle andneed for proper block ventilation and sanitaryfacilities. During construction, the efficient useof raw materials prevented wastage andreduced costs, and measures were taken tolimit dust and particulate emissions into the airaccording to the Kenyan Building Act and EIArecommendations. Some issues identified bythe appraisal for further development includegreater consideration of renewable energies(e.g. use of methane as heat/energy source)and improvement of ambient air quality at thetoilet blocks.

EconomicsThe project performs strongly in terms ofeconomic viability as demonstrated by theraising of sufficient funds from the first projectfor the construction of four new blocks. Theproject has also led to important multipliereffects such as encouraging a variety of microenterprises and buying and leasing plots of landwithin the community, and the CBO has beenable to use project assets as collateral for bank

loans, increasing access to finance. Equity isalso a key theme, in that services at the kioskare affordable to local residents to ensureequitable access and that any financial benefitsare invested back into building more blocks forcommunity use. Areas which could be morefully addressed in the future include greaterconsideration of Health & Safety guidelines andthe incorporation of a structured riskmanagement strategy. However, the insecurityof land tenure on the site will remain anongoing threat to the overall viability of theproject.

SocietyThe approach of Maji na Ufanisi of identifyingthe key community needs and engaging withthe community from the project inception hasled to on-going community ownership andwider community cohesion on a range ofdifferent developmental issues beyond waterand sanitation provision. The project is alsogood example of cross-tribal cooperation,especially considering the post-election violencein 2008. Cultural preferences and beliefsregarding sanitation, such as clear genderseparation of facilities and outside water tapsfor Muslims, among others, were incorporatedinto the project to serve the widest possiblerange of needs in the community. Increasedlevels of community organisation andenterprise are helping to build a stronger casefor the formal and legal recognition of thesettlement by the local authorities. Whenscaling up such initiatives, however, greaterattention to the possible impacts of in-migration, as groups vie for access to theimproved services, should be paid, as this isalready an area of concern in the currentproject.

ASPIRE Assessment

MajiN

aU

fanisiC

om

mu

nity

Water

&San

itation

Project

Nairo

bi,K

enya


Sabre TrustKindergarten BuildingKEEA District, Ghana

Case Study:

Project Description

Arup has worked in partnership with the Sabre CharitableTrust and Davis Langdon LLP to develop and build anexemplary prototype kindergarten building for the Dwaborcommunity in the KEEA (Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abrem)District of Ghana. The intention is to design and constructa kindergarten for 180 children. A secondary function ofthe building is to act as a community centre outside schoolhours to provide space for a clinic or additional communityfacilities. The vision for the project is to make a meaningfuland measurable difference to the community users and,upon scaling up to a country-wide initiative, to the widerGhanaian education sector.

Start of construction phase of Kindergarten

ASPIRE Keystone

The ASPIRE assessment has beencarried out by members of theArup team with input from theSabre Trust.

An initial ASPIRE assessment wasconducted at the Identificationstage of the project life cycle asa Gap Analysis of the projectbrief. This output was tabled inthe stakeholders meeting andvarious team members used theassessment to provide data andaddress the gaps in the projectthrough the design phase. Asecond assessment was thencarried out during the Appraisalstage to review the design. Thekeystone shows the outputgenerated at the Appraisalstage.

Sour

ce:A

rup


InstitutionsOverall, the project performs well in theInstitutions quadrant. This is due to the focuson project replication and project-governmentcoordination through involving the appropriatelocal, regional and national governmentstakeholders, while also enhancing the role ofcivil society in the design and constructionphases. In addition, the project is linkingtogether the local community with aninternational NGO for ongoing support, andlinks have been established with the School ofArchitecture and Building Technology. Trainingof the local community on building design andconstruction will be conducted as necessary toensure that appropriate skills and capacity formaintenance are available at the local level.However, the ASPIRE assessment highlightedthe limited local government capacity forongoing financial support, which will need tobe addressed to ensure successful replication ofthe school building programme to the nationallevel.

EnvironmentStrengths of the project are notable in theEnvironment quadrant. The Water and Landthemes feature particularly strongly, owing tothe infiltration drainage system which will beused during the project’s lifetime, theVentilated Improved Pit (VIP) latrine facilitieswhich are designed to minimise any land orwater pollution from sewage, the potential forrainwater harvesting on site, and the use ofplanting around the site to prevent soil erosion.The other elements, including Energy andMaterials, also score fairly well, due to low-energy design parameters and the use ofrecycled materials for construction. However,the assessment revealed a gap in projectplanning in the Biodiversity theme, as there areno specific conservation practices or anenvironmental risk management plan in place.This highlights the tensions inherent inbalancing social and environmental concerns ofa small versus large infrastructure project. Whilethe biodiversity element may not have as largea role to play for this rural prototype, furtherconsideration is needed when scaling up to thenational level.

EconomicsThe kindergarten prototype is to be an exampleof best practice whilst aligning with all relevant

Ghanaian policies, legislation and guidelines foreducation provision, leading to a strongperformance in the Viability theme for its longterm integration into existing structures.However, one possible area of concern for thelong-term viability of the school is theEducation Authority’s responsibility formaintenance of the kindergarten and sanitationinfrastructure, as it is uncertain that sufficientfunds and capacity will continue to be availablefor successful management of the site. Otherstrengths include the equitable distribution ofbenefits to the community, in that the schoolprovides free kindergarten instruction tocommunity children, as well as the ongoingmaintenance and teaching posts which willenhance livelihood opportunities in the area.The Macro theme performs comparatively lesswell than others, mainly because some of theindicators evaluated, such as the potentialmultiplier effects on business and localproduction, have not yet been fully integrated,as they are more appropriate to the scaling upphase of the project rather than the prototypephase.

SocietyThe key strength of the Society theme isundoubtedly the project’s provision of free pre-primary educational and community facilitieswhere they did not previously exist.Additionally, the project provides greater accessto sanitary facilities and drinking water on site.All elements of the building are designed to becontext and technology appropriate for therural Ghanaian location, but an innovativedesign has addressed the structure to thespecific physical and learning needs of youngchildren in ways that traditional schools inGhana have not done in the past. Scores aresomewhat lower in the Population andStakeholder strands, however. This is mainlybecause, at the time of the initial assessment, aformal process for stakeholder identificationand community involvement in decision-making(outside of the school design) had not yet beenfully integrated into the project. Present andfuture population dynamics and possibledisplacement are not recognised in the currentanalysis, as this is only a small pilot project.However, it has been noted that furtherexploration of these issues is needed when theproject is scaled up to a national level schoolbuilding initiative.

ASPIRE Assessment

Sabre

Trust

Kin

derg

artenK

EEAD

istrict,Gh

ana


Belgian Red CrossTsunami Reconstruction Housing ProjectSri Lanka

Case Study:

Project Description

The Belgian Red Cross (CRB) has been engaged in aproject to construct approximately 450 houses in theKalutara district of Sri Lanka since early 2005, providingtechnical supervision throughout the construction phase.The houses are for people who lost their homes in thetsunami that hit the island on 26th December 2004. Inapproximately half of the cases, the beneficiaries own landoutside the new coastal buffer zone, a planninginstrument preventing construction close to the coastline.These beneficiaries’ houses have therefore beenconstructed on the site of their old house. For theremaining beneficiaries, the houses are constructed in‘new settlements’; on land donated by the government ina relocation site. The vast majority of the houses (all but52) were constructed following the ‘cash-for-housing’principal: beneficiaries are given cash grants to constructtheir homes in 7 installments and take responsibility forconstruction themselves. CRB provides technicalsupervision and control payments to ensure beneficiariesare completing each stage.

ASPIRE Keystone

ASPIRE evaluation of the housingreconstruction project was carriedout by the Belgian Red Cross.

The assessment was carried out atthe Evaluation stage of theproject life cycle, forming a post-project evaluation. ASPIREprovided a valuable compositeassessment of a housing schemein Sri Lanka. Feedback from theassessor suggested that ASPIREwould be particularly applicableat the initial stages of a similarproject, during the PolicyDevelopment and Identificationstages, as this would help toencourage implementers toinclude sustainability measureswhere not previously considered.

Sour

ce:B

elgi

anRe

dC

ross


InstitutionsScores varied across the Institutions quadrant,with a good performance in the Skills theme.This is because there was little civil societycapacity at the start in the new settlements, asthey were formed of people who had notpreviously lived together. The project hasworked with the beneficiaries to formCommunity Based Organisations (CBOs) in allof the new settlements, and these CBOs are inthe process of registering with the governmentand will play a central role in the maintenanceof facilities and livelihoods and educationprogrammes, thereby strengthening civil societyparticipation and project-governmentcoordination. However, the assessmentindicates that improvements could be made inthe Policies and Structures themes. Little healthand safety training was carried out for thosedoing the construction and there was littleanalysis of the rule of law and its impact on theproject. The team are now making an attemptto understand aspects of land rights law thatare important to the housing beneficiaries andcommunicate this information to them.

EnvironmentKey Environment strengths of the project lie inthe incorporation of landscaping to prevent soilerosion and the enhanced water availabilityprovided through connections to mains, tubewells and rainwater harvesting systems.However, Biodiversity was identified as a keyarea for improvement, as there was noenvironmental management plan in place, and,under the Water theme, the assessmenthighlighted that only one site had a sustainabledrainage system, whereas the other housingdevelopments actually increased risk offlooding to neighbouring areas due to the useof existing poorly maintained drains. There wasalso not sufficient consideration of energyefficiency or impacts on indoor or ambient airquality in terms of construction or design.However, given budgetary constraints and thefact that this was a 'cash for housing ' project(i.e. each beneficiary was responsible forpurchasing materials and managingimplementation themselves) this would havebeen difficult.

EconomicsThe ‘cash for housing’ project designmaximised local sourcing and local job creationas beneficiaries sought out the resources andlabour for the build themselves from thesurrounding communities. In addition, becausebeneficiaries are the primary builders, housingdesigns necessarily use appropriate localtechnology which can be cost effectivelymaintained using locally available skills, toolsand materials. These factors identified theLivelihoods, Equity, and Macro themes as areasof key project strengths. However, while theMacro theme was strong overall, theassessment revealed that Tsunami housingreconstruction significantly affected the moneysupply in the local economy and caused highlevels of inflation, but little consideration wasgiven to the impact this might have in the initialproject plans. Viability did not score as wellcompared to other strands evaluated due to alack of assessment of risks and the future costsof carbon associated with the project.

SocietyScores within the Society quadrant werenotably strong, particularly within the Healthand Services themes, as the project improvesthe quality of life for local communities throughenhanced access to water and sanitationinfrastructure. In particular, each house has anindoor toilet connected to a septic tank, eitherWestern or squatting style, depending onpeople's preferences. Solid waste workshopswill be carried out with the new communitiesto improve their understanding of how toseparate organic from non-organic waste, howto make compost and how to grow a homegarden. The Culture theme also scores relativelyhighly, owing to the amount of communityinfrastructure, such as community centres,children's play parks and libraries, that hasbeen provided, and the project ensures accessto both members of the new community andthe host community. ASPIRE also highlights thata potential threat to the project is its sensitivityto conflict, owing to the mixing of old and newcommunities, which sometimes causes tensionbetween groups. Given the high levels ofconflict in the country, a more detailed analysisof conflict would have been beneficial.

ASPIRE Assessment

Belg

ianR

edC

ross

Tsun

amiR

econ

structio

nH

ou

sing

Project

SriLanka


ArupAngwin Eco VillageCalifornia USA

Case Study:

Project Description

Angwin is located in the Napa Valley in California, USA. The vision behind the development of Angwin EcoVillage is to create a community with strong commitment to sustainability, social equity and environmentalpreservation. Currently at the master planning stage, proposals include 275 housing units and a 105-unitretirement/assisted living centre on land owned by Pacific Union College. The development will be built on 66.1acres of both green and brownfield land. In association with this development, Pacific Union College willpermanently preserve over 1,000 acres of agricultural and forest land and provide an additional 52 acres, whichwill effectively protect its land from any future housing development.

Artist Impression: Proposed Angwin Eco Village

ASPIRE Keystone

ASPIRE has been applied during theIdentification stage of the projectlife cycle, during the masterplanning process for the AngwinEco Village scheme. Overall, theAngwin Eco Village performs highlyin the integrated appraisalevaluation, although the developedcountry context means that theresults are somewhat distorted andthat comparisons with other projectresults should be treated withcaution. The assessor suggestedASPIRE would be valuable from theoutset and could be used as an‘actions’ tracker, to continuouslytrack performance throughout theproject’s longevity and life cycle,through to Evaluation.

Sour

ce:h

ttp:

//ww

w.a

ngw

in-e

covi

llage

.com

/ret

ail.h

tml

The ASPIRE assessment wascarried out by staff from the ArupSan Francisco team, who haveplayed a key role in theformulation and development ofthe Angwin master plan over thepast two years.


InstitutionsReporting, Skills and Structures scores arenotably high, owing to the effectivecommunication ethos developed forstakeholders, the innovative approach tocommunity planning, and the effectivegovernment-project coordination in the masterplanning phase. Extensive communication withstakeholders and members of the communityhas clearly been instrumental in thedevelopment of the scheme. For instance, inaddition to a number of consultation meetingson the planning and education aspects of theproject, an informative website has beencreated which provides non-technicalsummaries for the community, and projectplans involve the local community as keyparticipants in monitoring and evaluation of theproject after completion.

EnvironmentThe project also performs well within theEnvironment quadrant, particularly within theEnergy and Water themes, owing to provisionfor on-site energy generation and the use ofrecycled wastewater, spring water andrainwater to meet demand. Care has also beentaken to avoid negative impacts on the on-sitestream and local biodiversity during and afterconstruction. The re-use and development ofbrownfield land is also crucial in the highperformance within this strand, although this iscounteracted by the amount of greenfield land,including some forest areas, which will also bedeveloped.

EconomicsPerformance within the Economic quadranthighlights some gaps in the current planningfor the Angwin Eco Village project. Equitableaccess to economic benefits and the impact onthe livelihoods of the local community scorecomparatively low against the other themesevaluated by ASPIRE due to a lack of planningfor local sourcing and employment creation atthis stage. Also, although many aspects ofenvironmental and political risks have beenconsidered, the social risks associated witheconomic viability have not yet been fullyassessed. However, the project proponentexpects that these elements will be furtherexplored at later stages of the project cycle.

One area which is notably missing from thecurrent plans is a more thorough exploration ofthe potential for carbon offsetting as amechanism to enhance financial viability of thescheme.

SocietyThe project performs strongly against theSociety quadrant indicators. This scoring isparticularly high because the project is sensitiveto its impact on the community, particularly onvulnerable groups such as the elderly, andattempts to incorporate existing structures andpractices into the new design to promotecontinuity. Existing schools will receivesignificant upgrades as a result of the project,creating better linkages between the localcommunity and services, going beyond thetraditional project boundary. In addition, theoverall design process has been iterative andhas included extensive community consultationto mediate differing viewpoints and toaccommodate those whose homes and/orproperty will be affected by the plan. Areaswhich will require further consideration wouldbe the inclusion of the local Adventist religiouscommunity into the master plan and how theconstruction and post-construction wastestreams will be managed.

ASPIRE Assessment

Aru

pA

ng

win

EcoV

illage

Califo

rnia,U

SA


InfraCo AfricaChyanyana Irrigation Pilot ProjectKafue District, Zambia

Case Study:

Project DescriptionThe Chyanyana irrigation project serves as a joint venture between acommercial farming enterprise and small-scale farmers in the Kafuedistrict of Zambia. It has been developed by InfraCo Africa, a projectdevelopment company that aims to stimulate greater privateinvestment in African infrastructure development. Small farmers lackthe means to buy capital intensive irrigation equipment, and as aresult, they experience low yields and are limited to one annualgrowing season. Ten percent of the smallholders depend on WorldFood Programme aid as a result of insufficient income generationfrom farming. This pilot project seeks to combine the land resourcesof smallholders into a commercially viable co-operative society inwhich farmers get access to irrigation, technical support andagronomy advice in exchange for setting aside a majority of theirland for commercial farming. Irrigation will support two crops peryear and substantially higher yields per crop. The positive impacts ofthe project are expected to be greatly increased smallholder incomesas well as access to more plentiful and varied crops, which willimprove nutritional status, reduce dependency on existing food aid,and increase collective voice and bargaining power through thefarmers co-operative. The project has been under development since2007, and the first phase of the project is now under construction.

Chyanyana Co-operative Board Members

ASPIRE Keystone

This ASPIRE assessment hasbeen carried out by a DFID /Private InfrastructureDevelopment Group (PIDG)team in consultation withlocal stakeholders inZambia.

The assessment was carriedout at the Implementationstage of the project life cycleas a monitoring assessment.The indicators from theASPIRE assessment werediscussed by the PIDG teamin Zambia with localstakeholders, and theoutputs from the discussionwere used as a basis for theASPIRE assessment.

Sour

ce:P

IDG


InstitutionsThe project performs particularly strongly in theInstitutions quadrant, and notably within theStructures and Skills themes. The appropriatelocal government, private sector and civilsociety structures are in place to ensureeffective delivery of the project, and the projectis supporting the creation of a co-operative oflocal smallholder farmers to encourageparticipation and involving and buildingcapacity with local government officers.However, a few areas for improvement havebeen identified. Due to the early stage ofimplementation, no comprehensive health andsafety policy was in place, and it has beennoted that comprehensive monitoring andevaluation systems need to be put in place, asthe current system is mainly tracking financialperformance.

EnvironmentThe project scores fairly highly in theEnvironment quadrant, particularly in the Air,Land, and Energy strands. Renewable energysources have been incorporated into theproject, as hydroelectric power from thenational grid will be used to run the irrigationpivots, and a solar borehole will be used for theresettled colony. A full Environmental ImpactAssessment has been carried out to IFCstandards and has been peer reviewed by local,independent consultants. Environmentalmanagement is proceeding in accordance withthe recommendations set out in anEnvironmental Management Plan. TheMaterials theme scored comparatively lowerbecause the irrigation equipment needed forthe project cannot be locally sourced in Zambia,although regional suppliers in South Africahave been selected.

EconomicsStrengths identified within Economics includethe integration of robust financial viabilityanalysis since inception. There has been adetailed consideration of non-monetary costsand benefits, such as setup and running of theco-operative, and the project is a commerciallymanaged operation with a "for profit" motive.Sophisticated financial models, which arerefined and updated periodically, are used toevaluate the project, and all debt is

professionally managed. The weakerperformance in the Livelihoods theme points toa potential negative distortion to the futurelocal economy if there is increased in-migrationto the project area. This may result in increaseddemand for infrastructure, which has yet to beplanned.

SocietyThe project seeks to improve food security andnutrition of beneficiaries through increasingcrop yields and availability of a diversity offoods for smallholder consumption, resulting ina strong performance in the Health andVulnerability themes. As part of the EIA, aformal identification of all stakeholders wasmade, and each of the 126 members of the co-operative have been given formal land title fortheir small holdings, so local stakeholders alsoplayed a key part in project decisions. Theproject has been sensitive to socio-culturalissues in that smallholders decided where thepivots would be located and where therelocation site would be positioned inconjunction with the project team to avoiddisturbance of graves, provide areas forancestral spirits and areas to pray for rain,among others. Gender equity has also beenconsidered as women are wholly integratedwithin the co-operative structure, with 3women serving on the board. However, thereare still areas for improvement identified in theServices theme. In particular, the need toaddress communal meeting space and providebetter transport links has been noted. Atpresent, transport links are limited and mainlyrestricted to public mini-buses, which runinfrequently, or expensive, private vehicleservice.

ASPIRE Assessment

InfraC

oAfrica

Chyan

yanaIrrig

ationPilo

tPro

jectKafu

eDistrict,Zam

bia


ArupGreenfield SiteBristol, UK

Case Study:

Project Description

The site tested by ASPIRE is a ‘greenfield’ site, locatednorth of Bristol, in the UK. The site is owned by a privatedeveloper, although the identity of the client and exactproject location remains confidential. The proposeddevelopment is predominantly an office scheme, which issurrounded by small, mature, semi-rural existingcommunities. The scheme is looking to create new typesof employment in the local area and to create constructivelinks with the existing communities. The primary aim ofthe ASPIRE assessment was to test the applicability of thesoftware in a developed country context. An assessmentfor the potential of the site's contribution and impact hadpreviously been carried out using SPeAR, and whilst SPeARis a powerful tool for building assessments, it was felt thatASPIRE might be relevant for larger scale projects.

Greenfield Site, Bristol

ASPIRE Keystone

The ASPIRE assessment wascarried out by members ofthe Arup Sustainability teamin the Bristol office.

ASPIRE has been applied atthe Identification stage ofthe project life cycle, in theFeasibility stage of sitedevelopment. The ASPIREassessment demonstratesthe potential application ofthe tool in a developedcountry context. Povertyfocused themes such asEquity and Vulnerabilitywere useful in identifyingkey issues for this proposeddevelopment.

Sour

ce:A

rup

Bris

tol


InstitutionsThe project performs quite strongly in theInstitutions quadrant, as thorough monitoringand evaluation systems have been put in placewith open dissemination of information tostakeholders, and a range of media channelshave been used to ensure effectivecommunication. In terms of furtherimprovement, ASPIRE has highlighted thatthere is a potential gap in local governmentdelivery capacity associated with the project. Inaddition, there is scope to enhance innovationas a core value of the project design.

EnvironmentPerformance of the scheme within theEnvironment quadrant is variable, highlightingthe environmental issues associated withdeveloping an agricultural, greenfield site nextto a motorway. The project performs well in theenergy category owing to the integration ofonsite wind turbines and combined heat andpower (CHP) into the potential developmentdesign. Performance is also strong in the waterand biodiversity categories. Although thedevelopment site is within a floodplain,Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) willbe designed into the scheme to reduce the riskof flooding and run-off into the surroundingarea. Water quality targets have also beenestablished and consumption targets will beestablished and monitored. In terms of airquality, the site is next to a motorway, thereforeexisting air quality is poor, although it is madeclear that appropriate mitigation will besuggested. The land element of the schemescores low because it is a greenfield site in anarea adjacent to housing. The impact of thesefactors can therefore be monitored and re-evaluated using ASPIRE and potentialmitigation measures suggested during theDesign and Appraisal stages.

EconomicsThe macroeconomic theme scores highly,mainly owing to the scheme providingincreased opportunities for new localbusinesses and enhancement of the economicvitality of the local area. The economic viabilityof the project is also judged to be relativelystrong, due to an alignment with national andregional growth policies. In terms of Equity, the

project scores fairly well, but because the officedevelopment will mainly cater for skilledworkers and blue-chip companies, it has beennoted that the economic benefits, such asprovision of jobs for local people, may not beequally distributed to the surroundingcommunities. ASPIRE also highlights that littleconsideration has been given to the future costof carbon, although there is a detailedunderstanding of most of the costs andbenefits associated with the project over theentire lifecycle.

SocietyCertain strands of the Society quadrant scorerelatively highly, notably within the Vulnerabilityand Stakeholder themes, owing to a fullyresourced consultation scheme andconsideration of the physical vulnerabilitiesassociated with the scheme (e.g. flood risk).There are also strong elements of communityinvolvement associated with the development,although there is concern that local farmingpractices may be diminished. The lowerperformance in the Culture theme highlightsthe need for the project to take socioculturaldiversity, gender equity and local practices intogreater consideration in the project plans, asthese have not yet been fully addressed.

ASPIRE Assessment

Aru

pG

reenfield

SiteB

ristol,U

K

CIB & UNEP-IETC (2001) Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries.Pretoria: CIB.

Department for International Development (DFID) (2006) Eliminating World Poverty – MakingGovernance Work for the Poor. International Development White Paper. DFID, London.

DFID (2002) Making Connections: Infrastructure for Poverty Reduction. DFID, London.

Fenner, R A, Cruikshank, H J and Guthrie P M (2006)Widening engineering horizons: addressing thecomplexity of sustainable development. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,Engineering Sustainability 159, December 2006 Issue ES4 pp 145-154.

Hawkins, J, Herd, C and Wells, J (2006) Modifying infrastructure procurement to enhance socialdevelopment. Institution of Civil Engineers & Engineers Against Poverty, London.

International Finance Corporation (2007) Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook forCompanies Doing Business in Emerging Markets. IFC, Washington.

International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2003) Thematic Evaluation Report: Employment IntensiveInvestment and Poverty Alleviation. Committee on Technical Cooperation, ILO, Geneva.

International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) (2004) Project Sustainability Guidelines.FIDIC, Geneva.

Jahan, S. and McCleery, R. (2005) Making Infrastructure Work for the Poor: Synthesis Report of FourCountry Studies Bangladesh, Senegal, Thailand and Zambia. United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, New York.

Mileti, D.S. (1999) Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States.Joseph Henry Press. Washington D.C.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2006) Promoting Pro-PoorGrowth – Infrastructure. OECD, Paris.

OECD (2006) Practical Guide to Ex-ante Poverty Impact Assessment. OECD, Paris

Royal Academy of Engineering (2005) Engineering for Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles.Royal Academy of Engineering, London.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

The World Bank (2006) Infrastructure at the Crossroads – Lessons From 20 Years of World BankExperience. The World Bank, Washington.

World Commission on Dams (2000) Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making, the Report of the World Commission on Dams. Earthscan, Virginia.

WHO & UNICEF (2008) Progress in Drinking-water and Sanitation: special focus on sanitation.

World Bank - Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project:http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp

United Nations (1987) Our Common Future - Report of the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment. United Nations, New York.

United Nations (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg,South Africa, 26 August- 4 September 2002. United Nations, New York, 2002.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and The International Council for Research andInnovation in Building and Construction (CIB) (prepared by Du Plessis, C.) Agenda 21 for SustainableConstruction in Developing Countries. CSIR Building and Construction Technology, Pretoria.

PAGE 41


References

ASPIRE has been funded jointly by theInstitution of Civil Engineers Research & Development

Enabling Fund andArup’s Design Technical Fund

Research and Development - Engineers Against Poverty

Documents

Transcript of Research and Development - Engineers Against Poverty