No.

Ex-Post Monitoring Report ofJapanese ODA Loan Projects 2009
(Philippines)

October 2010

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY
PADECO Co., Ltd.

EVD
JR
10-65

Preface
Ex-post evaluation of ODA projects has been in place since 1975 and since then the coverage ofevaluation has expanded. Japan’s ODA charter revised in 2003 shows Japan’s commitment to
ODA evaluation, clearly stating under the section “Enhancement of Evaluation” that in order tomeasure, analyze and objectively evaluate the outcome of ODA, external evaluations conductedby experts shall be enhanced.
This volume shows the result of the ex-post monitoring for a Japanese ODA loan project thatwas completed seven years ago and was given ex-post evaluation five years ago. The ex-postmonitoring was entrusted to external evaluators to review the projects’ effectiveness, impact,
and sustainability, to follow up the recommendations made in the ex-post evaluation, and to
make further recommendations for future sustainability.
The lessons and recommendations drawn from these monitoring will be shared with JICA’s
stakeholders in order to apply to the planning and implementation of similar projects in the
future.
Lastly, deep appreciation is given to those who have cooperated and supported the creation ofthis volume of evaluations.

October 2010
Atsuo KURODA
Vice President
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

Disclaimer
This volume of evaluations shows the result of objective ex-post evaluations made by external
evaluators. The views and recommendations herein do not necessarily reflect the official views
and opinions of JICA.
No part of this report may be copied or reprinted without the consent of JICA.

The Republic of Philippines
Ex-post Monitoring of Completed ODA Loan Project“Metro Manila LRT Line 1 Capacity Expansion Project”
External Evaluator: Teruki Takahashi(PADECO Co., Ltd.)
Field Survey: July 2010
1. Project Description

BaguioManilaProject site

Philippines

Cebu City

Davao

Map of the project area

LRVs procured by this project

1.1 Project Objective
The objective of this project is to expand the transport capacity of Metro Manila Light RailTransit (LRT) Line 1 and to improve passengers’ comfort by procuring new rolling stock cars
and by improving existing facilities, thereby contributing to alleviation of traffic congestion andimprovement in the urban environment.
1.2 Outline of the Loan Agreement
Approved Amount /9,795 million yen/9,325 million yen

Disbursed Amount
Loan Agreement Signing Date/

December 1994/April 2002

Final Disbursement Date
Ex-post Evaluation

Japan Fiscal Year 20041

Executing Agency

Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA)

Main Contract

Marubeni Corporation (Japan), ABB Daimler-Benz

Main Consultant

Transportation (Sweden), ABB Power Inc. (Sweden), etc.
Katahira Engineering International (Japan), Nippon Koei
Co., Ltd. (Japan), Tonichi Engineering Consultants, Inc.
(Japan), De Leuw Cather International Limited (USA), etc.

1

The evaluation report is published on the Ex- Post Evaluation Report on ODA Loan Projects FY2005.
(http://www.jica.go.jp/english/operations/evaluation/oda_loan/post/2005/pdf/2-16_full.pdf)

11.3 Background of Ex-post Monitoring
Since 1990, passengers of LRT Line 1 were often forced to be left off during the morning
rush hour and the Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) were delayed on a daily basis. A surge in thenumber of vehicles resulted in increase of congestion on roads in Metro Manila, which led
economic losses and air pollution. Under such circumstances, this project was implemented forthe immediate provision of a safe, comfortable, inexpensive and punctual mass transportsystem.
At the timing of the ex-post evaluation, the project effect was not maximized since thepassenger volume was decreasing due to the low operation rate of LRVs and development ofanother competing line. Also, there were concerns on the project sustainability since
procurement procedures for spare parts were delayed and LRTA faced severe financial situation.
Thus it was recommended necessity of the governmental financial support and improvement on
profitability. Therefore, this project was selected for the ex-post monitoring and reviewed undereach criterion with the findings from the field survey and other research activities with a final
conclusion being drawn.
2. Monitoring Results
2.1 Effectiveness (Impact)
Considering Line 1 as a whole, the passenger volume and fare revenue is increasing andoperation rate of LRVs has been improved. The congestion rate is at the appropriate level. Thus
the effectiveness has been improved since implementation of the ex-post evaluation. Though thepassenger volume is still behind the target of 2 years after the project completion set in the
ex-post evaluation, there are potential needs for Line 1. Although the transit capacity isdiminished since part of LRVs procured in this project is not operated, the passenger volume
and fare revenue is expected to increase if the operation situation of LRVs is improved. Also,
passenger comfort has been kept at the appropriate level after implementation of the ex-post
evaluation, and there can be observed that this project contributes to alleviate traffic congestion,
air pollution and traffic noise.
2.1.1 Quantitative Effects
2.1.1.1 Operation and Effect Indicators(1) Transit Capacity Expansions
Maximum passenger capacity (one-way) increased from 18,000 passengers/hour, which
was before the project implementation, to 27,000 passengers/hour when this project wascompleted and to 40,000 passengers/hour when LRT Line 1 Capacity Expansion Project phase 2(Phase 2 project) was completed in 2008. LRV Km run is steadily increasing after the ex-post
evaluation. The operation rate of LRVs is also improved and remains over 70%. LRVs runningduring peak hour are around 70 to 100 with headway of 3 minutes.

2

Table 1: LRV Km run and Operation rate of LRVs
Year

LRV Km LRVs running LRVs running Target
run

duringOperation

peak during

peak achievement

rate of LRVs

1)

2)

(%)3)

hour actual

hour target

rate (%)

2001

6,348,872

66

69

95.7%

72.5%

2002

6,057,719

67

72

93.1%

73.6%

2003

5,384,250

61

72

84.7%

67.0%

2004

5,552,754

62

72

86.4%

68.1%

2005

6,024,420

68

72

94.4%

74.7%

2006

6,274,364

71

72

98.6%

78.0%

2007

7,786,792

98

93

105.4%

70.5%

2008

9,271,683

104

101

103.0%

74.8%

2009

8,967,208

101

101

100.0%

72.7%

Source: LRTA
1) The number of LRVs is 91from 2001 to 2006 and 139 after 2007.
2) It is LRTA’s own target.
3) Operation rate=Available LRVs during peak hour / total LRVs x 100
Passenger volume increase, which was stagnant until 2005, has exceeded more than 6%
since 2005. Though it exceeds the target of LRTA and has reached 149,440 thousand passengers,
it is still at 73.1% of the target of 2 years after the project completion set in the ex-post evaluation,
which is 244,000 thousand ones.
Table 2: Passenger volume (Thousand)
2001
ActualIncrease
rate
LRTA
Target

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

109,943 107,003 107,249 96,844 104,768 111,801 119,120 138,040 149,440
7.3%

-2.6%

0.2%

-9.7%

8.2%

6.0%

7.2%

15.9%

8.3%

111,197 118,798 105,730 100,006 103,266 112,022 114,437 125,312 147,013

Source: LRTA
Main factors of passenger volume increase are improvement of railway network throughdevelopment of Line 2 in 2005 and increase of available LRVs in Line 1 through the completionof Phase 2 project in 2008. Also there are several factors of increase including improvement ofrailway tickets2, extension of the operation hour, and improvement of convenience such as
connection to the shopping malls. Also, LRTA is now conducting the Line 1 extension project2

Passengers can enter the LRT paid areas with either a single journey or stored value ticket or a Flash Pass. Stored
value tickets are usable on either Line 1 or 2 with discount fare rate. Flash Passes are usable on all the LRT Line 1and
2, and MRT Line 3 with 1 week unlimited ride on above lines with initial cost of PHP 250.

3

from Monumento Station to North Avenue Station which connects to MRT Line 3. When Line 7,
which extends to northern area from North Avenue Station, is developed, it is expected toincrease the passenger volume for Line 1 and MRT Line 3, which is around 55 thousand in total.

Figure 1 Map of LRT Line 1, 2 and MRT Line 3
Main factors of stagnant passenger volume increase in 2002 to 2004 are decrease intransportation capacity caused by deteriorated LRV operation situation with unavailability ofspare parts and fare rate increase in December 2003.
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
passenger (million)

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

109.9

107.0

107.2

96.84

104.77111.08119.12138.04149.44

LRVs running during peak hour

66

67

61

62

68

71

98

104

101

load factor (%)

70.38

76.42

87.64

81.76

80.09

79.32

66.48

62.42

67.87

120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

Figure 2: Passenger volume, LRVs running during peak hour and load factor3
Source: LRTA

3

Load Factor=Passenger Peak Load / (Passenger Load Capacity of LRV x Number of LRV Trips Per Hour) x 100

4

(2) Improved Passenger Comfort
LRTA sets the target for the load factor between 65% and 80% to maintain passenger
comfort. As shown in Figure 2, it sometimes exceeds 80% since available LRVs are limited
until 2006. After new LRVs were introduced in 2007, load factor has decreased and passenger
comfort has been kept at the appropriate level.
(3) Fare revenue
Though the fare revenue from Line 1 has been steadily increasing and reached PHP
2,105.75 million, it is still at 65% of the target of 2 years after the project completion set in the
ex-post evaluation, which is PHP 3,237.57 million4.
2,500

16.00%
14.00%PHP in million

2,000

12.00%
10.00%

1,500

8.00%
1,000

6.00%
4.00%

500

2.00%
0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0.00%

Fare revenue 1,147 1,212 1,228 1,387 1,497 1,590 1,703 1,957 2,106
Increase rate 3.78% 5.70% 1.30% 13.00% 7.90% 6.20% 7.10% 14.90% 7.60%

Figure 3

Fare revenue from Line 1 operation

Source: LRTA
Fare rate of LRT is set to cover the operation cost including the maintenance cost and thepersonnel cost with considering fare rate of other transportation modes. According to
Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), there has not been significant
change on the number of buses and geepneys along with Line 1 since 2000. Also fare rate of
LRT is smaller than that of them. Thus, fare increase of LRT would not affect the passenger
volume of LRT. Passenger satisfaction survey results on fare increase are shown as follows;
Table 3

Fare rate comparison of public transportation modes(Unit: PHP)

Distance

Line 1 average

GeepneyBus

Bus with Air
Conditioner

9km

14.5

14.5

4

16.40

19.8

This amount reflects the inflation on the target of 2 years after the project completion, which is PHP 1,430.80
million (Consumer Price Index in 2009 is 2.38 times as large as that in 1994 according to Philippines National
Statistics Office).

5

14km

21.5

26.55

31.8

Source; LRTA for 9km and Ex-post evaluation report of Line 2 in 2009 for 14 km
Table 4 Passenger satisfaction survey results on fare increase
PHP 2

PHP 5

PHP 10

PHP 15increaseincreaseincreaseincrease

Continue to use

70.7%

36.0%

6.7%

6.7%

Maybe

1.3%

5.9%

11.7%

5.4%

Not to use

28.0%

57.7%

80.3%

86.6%

It is necessary for fare rate change to be approved by the committee consist of LRTA,
Department of Finance, National Economic and Development Authority, Department of Budget
and Management, Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, Department of
Public Works and Highways, Metro Manila Development Authority, and etc. under the chairman
of DOTC secretary.
2.1.1.2 Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR)
FIRR for this project becomes 1.4% at the timing of the ex-post monitoring with considering theconstant fare rate increase5 which is lower than 1.7% calculated at the timing of ex-post
evaluation. Main factors are increase in the operation and maintenance (OM) cost and stagnant
increase of fare revenue.
2.1.2 Qualitative Effects
2.1.2.1 Passenger Satisfaction
Several measures contribute to improvement of passenger satisfaction including installation of
air conditioner to all the LRVs and special seats for the elderly and persons with disabilities, andintroduction of women-only cars. According to the beneficiary survey conducted to 241
passengers at Monumento, Carriedo and EDSA station, satisfaction of passengers has been
maintained since implementation of the ex-post evaluation.
z

53% satisfied or highly satisfied with the service provided by Line 1.

z

67% considers service has been improved since 2001.

z

70% feels more comfortable than before.

z

89% agrees with the efforts of LRTA such as priority seats for the elderly and persons withdisabilities and women only LRVs.

5

It is expected PHP 1 increase for 2010-2015 and PHP 0.5 increase from 2016.

61%Student

18%
24%

Employee (private)
Employee (public)

5%

Self-employed5%

Own business
Unemployed

4%

Others43%

Figure 4 Survey interviewees categorized by occupation
2.1.3 Impact
2.1.3.1 Alleviation of Traffic Congestion
It can be summarized that Line 1 contributes to alleviation of traffic congestion. Traffic
volume on Taft Avenue and Rizal Avenue which are along with Line 1 exceeds 15,000 PCU/day
and these avenues are crowded with passengers often stop by nearby shopping malls. Number ofLine 1 passengers exceeds 410,000 person/day and travel time of Line 1 is less than a third ofthat of roads along with Line 1. According to the beneficiary survey result, 63% considers thatLine 1 contributes to alleviation of traffic congestion and 88% considers travel time is decreased
because of Line 1.
Table 5 Passenger volume and travel time survey result(Surveyed on July 15th, 2010 from 6 am to 20 pm)
Private car, Geepneytaxi
Number

Cargo

Bus

Truck

etc

Tricycle

Other

Total

etc

4000

5567

497

86

91

3984

41

14266

4000

8350.5

745.5

215

182

1992

41

15526

of vehicle
PCU1)

Road
Line 1

SectionTravel Time

Baclaran→Monumento

96 minutes

Monumento→Baclaran

115 minutes

Baclaran-Monumento

30 minutes

1) Passenger Car Unit
2.1.3.2 Mitigation of Air Pollution/Traffic Noise Level
Though there is no department in charge of the environmental monitoring, Engineering
Department, if necessary, conducts surveys by utilizing external consultants. Total suspended

7

particulate (TSP) concentrations6 and the beneficiary survey result show that Line 1 contributes
to mitigate the air pollution and traffic noise.
Table 6 TSP concentrations (ug/Ncm)7
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Valenzuela (North part of Line 1)

222

206

256

220

169

180

146

Pasay (Sauth part of Line 1)

136

166

196

143

143

166

140

Source: National Center for Transport Studies
Table 7 Result of beneficiary survey
2004

2009

Congestion is highly or relatively improved-76%

Air pollution is highly or relatively reduced

55.6%

72%

Traffic Noise Level is improved

46.9％

51%

2.2 Sustainability
Financial status has not improved since implementation of the ex-post evaluation. It isnecessary to strengthen the balance sheet and improve the profitability on the rail revenue since
there is limited potential on the non-rail revenue. Also, main cause of decrease in operation rateof LRVs is unavailability of spare parts. This issue which was raised in the ex-post evaluation
still needs to be solved.
2.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Agency
2.2.1.1 Structural Aspects of Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance is outsourced to CB&T-PMP-GRAS (CPG) joint venture and LRTA
supervises it. There are 380 staff members in LRTA. Among them, 42 members are allocated toEngineering Department and 20 members are allocated for Line 1. There are around 500 staff
member in CPG joint venture. Among them, 210 members are allocated to Rolling Stock
Department, 161 members are allocated Infrastructure Department and 94 members areallocated Electronics Department. LRTA appropriately supervises CPG joint venture in thefollowing way; LRTA prepares the check list to monitor the performance of CPG joint venture
and requests it to periodically submit reports on maintenance activities according to procedureson the engineering and maintenance activity monitoring.
2.2.1.2 Technical Aspects of Operation and Maintenance
LRTA has prepared the manuals for appropriate OM and implemented trainings in
6Standard for TSP concentrations in the Philippines is 230 ug/Ncm.
Though Tayuman and Libertad Station were selected to review the TSP concentrations in the ex-post evaluation,
Valenzuela and Pasay city was selected in the ex-post monitoring because of unavailability of data.
78

accordance with them and held the examinations annually or semi-annually to review the
proficiency level. Also selection process of CPG joint venture was subject to competitive
bidding and the maintenance plan and budget projection were reviewed at the timing of bidding.
There are not significant issues on way of checking technical aspects of OM.
2.2.1.3 Financial Aspects of Operation and Maintenance(1) Balance Sheet
The amount of liability in 2009 has reached as large as 2.6 times that in 2001. Thoughannual paid in capital is around PHP 3 billion it only covers 5% of long term liability which is
PHP 59.385 billion in 2009.
The capital expansion law which was indicated in the ex-post evaluation has not yet passed
through the congress. However, the financial restructuring committee was formulated asrecommended in the JBIC study on LRTA Financial Restructuring and Management
Improvement 2007, and it submitted the recommendation to move part of the liabilities from
LRTA to Department of Finance (DOF) in 2010. According to LRTA, DOF is currently
considering the recommendation. If Secretary of Finance approves it, LRTA can forward theprocedures to transfer the liabilities without the law. Immediate actions needs to be taken since
financial situation of LRTA has gone down caused primarily by foreign exchange loss in 2008.
Table 8 Balance sheet of LRTA (PHP in million)
Year

CapitalsLiabilities

Assets2001

18,691

23,593-4,901

2002

26,52233,399-6,877

2003

38,67040,287-1,617

2004

42,78145,828-3,047

2005

41,165

44,157-2,992

2006

45,98945,027962

2007

46,34944,141

2,208

2008

51,17660,827-9,651

2009

56,471

67,582-11,111

Source: LRTA
(2) Income Statement
The operating profit is constantly in deficit since the fare rate which is set to cover theoperation cost is relatively low. The share of non-rail revenue which includes rental, advertising,interest income etc remains 2% to 4% since 2001 and it is 3.2% in 2009. It is because LRTA
minimized the amount of land acquisition to minimize the project cost on Line 1. Therefore thepotential of non rail revenue is limited.

9

Table 9 Income Statement of LRTA (PHP in million)
Year

Total

Cash flow

Operating

Revenue

Farebox Ratio1)

Net Income

Profit2001

1,197.6

160.6-206.4-967.2116%

2002

1,211.9214.3-156.2-1,529.3

121%

2)

2003

1,256.7

228.6-269.4

5,448.1

109%

2004

1,659.8

452.6

-55.4

-1,463.6

130%

2005

2,057.9486.6-118.0

114.4

135%

485.5

3)

400.4

132%

3)

1,058.2

127%

4)

2006
2007

2,230.5
2,449.6-2,271.3

496.4-1,727.1

2008

2,769.8

628.7-657.9-11,882.3

133%

2009

2,940.8

582.5-463.4-894.4127%

Source: LRTA
1) Farebox Ratio=Total Revenue/Rail Operating Cost (Excluding depreciation)2) The government injected PHP 7,794.7 million of subsidies.
3) Cost of depreciation, amortization and etc. was increased.
4) There was foreign exchange loss of PHP 10,257.5 million.
(3) Governmental Support
The government of the Philippines supports LRTA through tax subsidies, subsidies from
DOTC and etc. It supports stable operation of LRTA.
9,000.00
8,000.00

PHP in million

7,000.00
6,000.00
5,000.00
4,000.00
3,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
0.00

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Total Subsidies 1,202.4

658.8

7,794.7

231.3

244.5

1,128.5 1,853.2 1,727.5 6,445.8

Figure 5

2007

2008

2009

Amount of governmental support

Source: LRTA
2.2.2 Current Status of Operation and MaintenanceAir conditioners of LRVs procured in this project (7 trains with 4 LRVs) are being
exchanged by the additional works of Phase 2 project and it is expected to complete in10

December 2011. Currently 4 LRVs out of 28 ones are under operation and 20 ones except
derailed 4 ones will be re-operated when procurement of spare parts and additional works arecompleted8.
Inspection of LRVs is periodically implemented. Database on spare parts has beendeveloped and LRTA and CPG joint venture can manage the inventory, supplier, cost and etc.
There is no significant problem on inspection and information control. The main issue is
procurement of spare parts.
Procurement for the spare parts of the LRVs introduced in this project was delayed becauseof 3 times of bidding failure. According to LRTA, currently it can directly select the supplierand sign the contract. It expects that first batch of shipment will be arrived soon9. It is important
to clarify actions to take, division of roles among the relevant departments and staff for prompt
procurement of spare parts and re-operation of LRVs. Also it is necessary to take the actions torealize the above mentioned plans.
There are several causes of bidding failure including 1) suppliers hedge the investment
risks with considering the financial situation of LRTA and 2) suppliers bid in the unexpectedly
high unit price, which causes failure of price negotiation. In this project, the main cause of
procurement failure is that limited suppliers produce part of spare parts on the electrical system
for the LRVs and they are not widely distributed in the market, which caused single bidding andfailure of negotiation on the amount and the price of parts. It is affected by the merger of ABB
Daimler-Benz Transportation (Adtranz), which is the supplier of the LRVs for this project with
Hyundai Rotem, by Bombardia. There are 3 generations of LRVs in Line 1. However, thespecification of each generation is quite different. For instance, 2nd generation LRVs which areones introduced in this project and 3rd generation ones share only around 20% of parts. It results
in increase of time and effort for procurement and failure of bidding. It is also a cause ofmaintenance cost increase. Figure 6 shows that unit cost of maintenance increased in 2001-02
when this project was completed and in 2008-09 when Phase 2 project was completed. Thus it isappropriate to consider carefully the specification of spare parts such as availability in themarket and commonality with other generations in the contract agreement for the future similar
projects.

8

According to LRTA, it determined after the implementation of the field survey of the ex-post monitoring toschedule to install the air conditioners by December 2010 and to restore the LRVs with defective electronic parts by
January 2011.
9
According to LRTA, the first batch of shipment was arrived on August 2010.

11

160

12

140

10

120
8

100
80

6

60

4

40
2

20
0

2000

2001

2002

89.8

134

136.5 150.8 135.6 136.3 146.1 125.2 115.3 137.2

Maintenance cost/LRV
5.63(Million)

9.35

9.09

Maintenance cost/km

2003

8.92

2004

8.28

2005

9.02

2006

10.07

2007

7.02

2008

7.69

2009

0

8.85

Figure 6 Unit cost for maintenance10
Source: The evaluator calculated based on the data from LRTA
3. Conclusion, Lessons Learned and Recommendations
3.1 Conclusion
Considering the operation of Line 1 as a whole, passenger volume is increasing andoperation rate of LRVs has been improved, and effectiveness has been improved since
implementation the ex-post evaluation. However, operation ratio of LRVs procured in thisproject is deteriorated. Therefore, the contribution of this project for Line 1 is limited. Maincause of deteriorated operation ratio is unavailability of spare parts, and the issue raised in the
ex-post evaluation still remains. Financial status has not improved. It is important to strengthen
the balance sheet and improve the profitability.
Though LRTA is coping with these issues, it is necessary to vigorously promote theprogress.
3.2 Lessons Learned
Contractor agreement: When the procurement process of LRVs has been decided into
several phases like the project, it is preferable to carefully consider the specification of spareparts that can be commonly used across the phases and that are widely available in the market.
3.3 Recommendations
Procurement of spare parts (for LRTA): It is important to clarify actions to take, division ofroles among the relevant departments and staff for prompt procurement of spare parts andre-operation of LRVs. Based on the above mentioned plans, LRTA should take appropriate
actions.
10

Maintenance cost per LRVs are calculated based only on the cost of LRVs without civil engineering facilities, rails,
lights, electricity, communications and etc.

12

Financial restructuring (for LRTA): It is important to clarify actions to take, division ofroles among the relevant departments and staff to promptly transfer the long term liabilities
from LRTA to MOF. Based on the above mentioned plans, LRTA should take appropriate
actions.

13

Comparison of Original and Actual Scope
Item
Planned(1) Outputs
1. Procurement
32 cars: additional cars withofrolling
identical spec to existing 2-car
stock cars
trains for each of the currently
operable 32 trains
2.

Upgrading ofexisting
facilities

3. Consulting services

Actual28 cars: 7 new 4-car trains

Capacity: 1,122 passengers/train

Capacity: 1,358 passengers/train

Electrical equipment
Storage track
Electric overhead lines
Signaling/telecommunicatio
ns equipment
・ Station buildings/rollingstock cars depot

・
・
・
・

・
・
・
・

・ Bidding assistance・ Work management
・ Technical assistance for
O&M(Foreign consultants: 65M/M;
local consultants: 82M/M)

As planned
As planned
As planned
As planned

Platform extensions
Additional replacement ofballast (paving stones)・ As planned・ As planned・ As planned(Foreign consultants: 81M/M,
local consultants: 82.68M/M)
・・(2) Project period
Dec. 1994 – Dec. 1999
(61 months)(3) Project costs
Foreign currency
Local currency
Total
ODA loan portion
Exchange rate

9,795 million yen
644 million yen(171 million pesos)
10,439 million yen
9,795 million yen
1 peso = 3.76 yen(January 1994)

14

Dec. 1994 – Mar. 2002
(88 months)
9,325 million yen
858 million yen(254 million pesos)
10,183 million yen
9,325 million yen
1 peso = 3.38 yen(1994-2002 average)