Search

Displaying 1 - 6 of 6

Lesson
The absence of a financial cost-benefit evaluation for the toll revenue-generating motorway is a methodological weakness. The project completion report (PCR) did not explain why it did not conduct a financial cost-benefit evaluation for the toll revenue-generating motorway. This validation notes that the RRP too did not conduct such evaluation.

Project Number: 48402-001, 48402-002
Project Name: National Motorway M–4 Gojra–Shorkot Section Project and National Motorway M–4 Gojra–Shorkot–Khanewal Section Project - Additional Financing
Report Date:
Lesson
Specificity of intended outcome is essential to enable programming, innovation, and cycles of project improvement. The project’s outcomes were broadly defined and lacked clear pathways detailing how the outputs would interact with each other and achieve the outcomes. The vagueness is likely part of the reason that the design had significant gaps and flawed assumptions on how the activities would lead to the intended outcomes.

Project Number: 41509-013
Project Name: Rural Primary Health Services Delivery Project
Report Date:
Lesson
Sound identification and valuation of costs and benefits in the economic analysis can provide more realistic economic internal rates of return (EIRRs) to indicate a more accurate state of project viability. The economic analysis in the RRP and PCR underestimated the value of the project outputs, particularly the economic benefits of the solid waste management component, which led to a low EIRR. Willingness-to-pay $2 per month for solid waste removal seems too low and unreasonable considering the substantial health and environmental benefits that such removal likely provides.

Project Number: 45507-003
Project Name: Yunnan Chuxiong Urban Environment Improvement Project
Report Date:
Lesson
Targets need to be specific and evidence-based and indicators well-defined and measurable to enable a reliable assessment of implementation progress and project accomplishments and performance at completion. This project suffered from weaknesses in indicators and the results chain. Examples were inadequate links between intended outputs and outcome, lack of specific targets (output 1 and outcome), and poorly defined target (output 3). One impact target was misplaced (project staffing) and another was deemed unachievable (number of WUCSs confirming receipt of water services).

Project Number: 43253-023
Project Name: Karnataka Integrated and Sustainable Water Resources Management Investment Program - Project 1
Report Date:
Lesson
An adequate assessment is needed when setting targets. This project had a few design challenges that could not be addressed during implementation. For the target of serving 3,000 households with new water supply connections and 4,500 with improved ones, financing was not included in the approved project, so could never be achieved. The target of serving 25,000 households with sewer connections was ambitious, as only about 13,680 households would get these connections based on the final engineering designs.

Project Number: 36188-023
Project Name: Secondary Towns Integrated Urban Environmental Improvement Project
Report Date:
Lesson
Better data and information. A better use of more accurate data for planning and budgeting by newly trained personnel at the central, provincial, and district levels could have significantly improved allocative efficiency in the health sector, enabling better targeted policies and activities in operational and development plans.

Project Number: 47137-003, 47137-006
Project Name: Health Sector Governance Program (Subprograms 1 and 2)
Report Date: