Search

Displaying 1 - 10 of 10

Lesson
The direct link between an output and outcome indicator has to be evident and any scope change affecting the output has to be assessed as this relates to the envisaged outcome target. Cancellation of a subproject during implementation could trigger a revisit of the related outcome indicators at midterm review.

Project Number: 42414-013, 42414-045
Project Name: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program (Tranche 5 and Multitranche Financing Facility)
Report Date:
Lesson
A design and monitoring framework, underpinned by a well though-out and robust theory of change, can help better articulate the output and outcome statements and formulate appropriate performance indicators for measuring results.

Project Number: 43405-024
Project Name: Urban Services Improvement Investment Program - Tranche 2
Report Date:
Lesson
Monitoring and continuous technical support is needed for effective continuation of reform because program impacts will be felt over the long term. The government has agreed to a postprogram engagement framework whose broad purpose is to ensure that policy reforms are not reversed and that Joint-Stock Company Georgian State Electrosystem stays on the path towards financial sustainability.

Project Number: 49006-003
Project Name: Electricity Transmission Sector Reforms Program
Report Date:
Lesson
A project specific DMF is key to reliably assessing the implementation progress and overall performance of each tranche project. The DMF for this project contained indicators that pertained to investments under other tranches of the multitranche financing facility (MFF). This made monitoring and evaluation of project progress and performance difficult, with results that hid the real picture and so prevented corrective measures from being undertaken during implementation.

Project Number: 42414-023
Project Name: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program - Tranche 1
Report Date:
Lesson
Robust project baseline data is needed to adequately assess complex projects with significant potential environmental and social impacts. In this project, baseline data on noise, vibration, vulnerable affected people, and river ecology were collected in accordance with contracts, applicable laws, regulations, and policies. This proved insufficient and led to questionable results particularly with the regard to the impact of vibration in several project-affected buildings. For future projects, more detailed studies and additional assessments need to be carried out.

Project Number: 42414-043
Project Name: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program - Tranche 3
Report Date:
Lesson
Projects could fail because of faulty impact assessments. The initial environmental examination (IEE) approved by ADB had to be revised as road vibration and noise impacts needed to be studied further. While public consultations were conducted, these did not generate enough buy-in from some of the stakeholders who raised formal complaints. Local people outside the project’s original area of influence opposed project implementation as well as the proposed remedial action plan (RAP), due to which the project could not be carried out within the original timeframe.

Project Number: 42414-043
Project Name: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program - Tranche 3
Report Date:
Lesson
Project impacts on vulnerable groups need focused attention. . The IEE had some shortcomings in identifying the project’s impacts on vulnerable groups in the project areas. Visually impaired people living in the area were to be affected by noise generated from the road layout. As a result, the project required a new round of consultations with visually impaired affected persons whose specific vulnerabilities and needs had not been factored into project design. In addition, more precise measurement of vibration impact on buildings occupied by affected persons needed to be developed.

Project Number: 42414-043
Project Name: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program - Tranche 3
Report Date:
Lesson
The design and monitoring framework (DMF) needs to be carefully formulated to adequately measure project achievements. The DMF contained indicators that were not entirely attributable to the project. The assumptions and data source behind the quantitative baselines and targets for several indicators were also not clearly explained. These weaknesses need to be addressed in future projects.

Project Number: 42414-043
Project Name: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program - Tranche 3
Report Date:
Lesson
Weaknesses in the design and monitoring framework (DMF) can lead to an inaccurate assessment of project achievements. The project DMF contained indicators that measured benefits that were not entirely attributable to the project, such as the number of tourist nights in Georgia rather than in the Batumi area. Some dimensions of the project’s outcome were omitted, such as the increased protection of coastal infrastructure assets. The reduction of storm-related damage should have been considered as part of project’s outcome performance indicators.

Project Number: 42414-044
Project Name: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program - Tranche 4
Report Date:
Lesson
The DMF was reasonably well-designed and the performance indicators—with the exception of the initial program impact indicators—targets, and baseline data were precise and generally easily measurable. However, the PCR assessed the program against the DMF prepared for subprogram 3, which, like subprogram 2 had no indicators to measure impact, although these were included for subprogram 1.

Project Number: 48044-001, 48044-004, 48044-005
Project Name: Improving Domestic Resource Mobilization for Inclusive Growth Program
Report Date: