Search

Displaying 1 - 13 of 13

Lesson
When doing the design and monitoring framework (DMF) exercise, outcomes should describe the immediate and direct benefits of the project. Outcome statements articulate the change the project is expected to achieve—in this case, the management of in-migration. No separate outcome statement or concept was included in the DMF.

Project Number: 38049-013
Project Name: Urban Infrastructure Development Project
Report Date:
Lesson
The choice of the MFF as a financing modality appears to decrease the level of due diligence and scrutiny employed when approving single tranches as compared to project-based lending. This needs to be considered as a downside of the MFF modality in general and a more thorough due diligence stage needs to be implemented before approving single tranches, not only at MFF appraisal level.

Project Number: 37139-043
Project Name: Uttarakhand Power Sector Investment Program–Tranche 3
Report Date:
Lesson
The choice of the MFF as a modality appears to decrease the level of due diligence and scrutiny employed when approving single tranches as compared to project-based lending. This needs to be considered as a downside of the MFF modality in general. A more thorough due diligence stage needs to be foreseen before approving single tranches, not only at the MFF appraisal level.

Project Number: 37139-033
Project Name: Uttarakhand Power Sector Investment Program–Tranche 2
Report Date:
Lesson
A number of the indicators in the DMF are framed inadequately. For example, the indicator related to road beneficiaries claimed that 4.5 million people would benefit. It was not clear how this was measured, as the area of the project itself is basically uninhabited. While it was also clear that some indicators were dropped during project implementation, such as the number of women expected to benefit from the project (para. 16).

Project Number: 42107-033
Project Name: Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Corridor 2 Road Investment Program (Tranche 2)
Report Date:
Lesson
The original forecasts for traffic intensity on the road section may have not warranted a four-lane road improvement (para. 13). While the PCR listed an economic downturn in Uzbekistan for this, the validation notes that the methodology followed for the estimation of traffic intensity at initial appraisal, contract completion, and reappraisal was poorly structured. Estimating traffic based upon extremely short surveys is known to introduce significant potential inaccuracies. This appears to be a common issue, with insufficient emphasis being placed upon traffic surveys.

Project Number: 42107-033
Project Name: Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Corridor 2 Road Investment Program (Tranche 2)
Report Date:
Lesson
Traffic forecasts could be more realistic considering the low traffic volumes in the XME’s and local roads’ initial years of operation. The PVR adds that stronger evaluation on economic efficiency aspects is needed to demonstrate the performance of the individual project components and how these contribute to the EIRR.

Project Number: 42018-013
Project Name: Anhui Integrated Transport Sector Improvement Project
Report Date:
Lesson
ADB needs to develop better techniques for forecasting traffic because the use of country-wide aggregates to forecast traffic on specific roads often leads to gross over-estimation.

Project Number: 41121-023, 41121-033, 41121-043, 41121-053
Project Name: MFF-CAREC Corridor 1 (Zhambyl Oblast Section) Investment Program
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:
Lesson
For greater effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation framework of the project, the overall logic and results chains as well as indicators need to be firmly established and tested before project effectiveness.

Project Number: 37287-013, 37287-022
Project Name: Tonle Sap Lowlands Rural Development Project
Report Date:
Lesson
ADB would need to identify more adequate indicators for power system reliability to appropriately capture the benefits of transmission projects. The formulation of specific DMFs for the different tranches of an MFF are essential to appropriately measure effectiveness and establish causality between outputs and outcomes. The indicators and targets in the DMF for future projects, prepared under the new guidelines should be closely aligned with project outcomes and outputs.

Project Number: 37192-033
Project Name: Power Transmission Enhancement Investment Program–Tranche 2
Report Date:
Lesson
Target dates for performance indicators should be sufficiently set long after the likely date of disbursement or policy action. This is to identify a plausible causal relationship between investments and actions taken by the program and a change in the performance indicators. This was not the case in the performance indicators under output 1.

Project Number: 49083-001
Project Name: Countercyclical Support
Report Date:
Lesson
It was inappropriate to change the original DMF targets because the progress was inadequate (para. 20). Instead, the reasons for the slow progress could have been mentioned and draw lessons from them.

Project Number: 41171-022
Project Name: Transport Sector Development Project
Report Date:
Lesson
Outcome indicator should be reflective of the policy actions and outputs delivered.

Project Number: 44251-013, 44251-034
Project Name: Financial Sector Deepening Program
Report Date: