Search

Displaying 1 - 4 of 4

Lesson
Lack of baseline data hampered evaluation. Higher priority should have been given to ensuring that baseline data was collected and reported during project implementation. The data that should have been collected includes (i) benchmarking data, to provide MPAF management with objective reference points for impact evaluation corresponding with the needs of the port users and consumers; (ii) benefit monitoring data, to ensure that the project benefits actually accrue to the port users; and (iii) post-project performance evaluation data, to assess overall effectiveness of the project.

Project Number: 32525-013
Project Name: Fiji Ports Development Project (Loan 1902-FIJ)
Report Date:
Lesson
More rigorous risk assessment during project processing would have allowed for better monitoring of key assumptions during implementation. Related to the above lesson on better consultation, the project should have done a better risk assessment. A key impact assumption overlooked was elimination of the port service charge by shipping agents and companies.

Project Number: 32525-013
Project Name: Fiji Ports Development Project (Loan 1902-FIJ)
Report Date:
Lesson
More thorough stakeholder consultation during project processing could have led to a better project design. The project processing missions could have consulted the key project stakeholders more effectively. For example, a decrease in the port service charge by 50% in 2009 and its elimination by 2010 was cited as a project benefit, but this would have required agreement of the shipping agents and shipping companies to implement. The same applies to the Lautoka reclamation component, which should have been undertaken only after commitments by shipping companies and agents had been obtained.

Project Number: 32525-013
Project Name: Fiji Ports Development Project (Loan 1902-FIJ)
Report Date:
Lesson
The project could have benefited from more careful preparation. The project was prepared through a sequence of four processing missions, without the benefit of dedicated project preparatory TA. In retrospect, given the weaknesses in the DMF, the four departures from the original scope of work, and the methodological shortcomings in the EIRR calculation, the project could have benefited from more careful preparation.

Project Number: 32525-013
Project Name: Fiji Ports Development Project (Loan 1902-FIJ)
Report Date: