Search

Displaying 1 - 13 of 13

Lesson
Technical assistance with a narrow focus, immediate policy relevance, and carried out with national champions with financial and/or planning authority was key to the successful integration of climate technologies in country investment plans. Careful and realistic planning is required for the production and dissemination of outputs, since this involves multiple institutions within a given timeframe.

Project Number: No PN
Project Name: Climate Change Fund, 2008–2019
Report Date:
Lesson
Institutional capacity development on climate change in ADB’s DMCs requires long-term engagement. Just over half of CCF resources went toward capacity development. The lack of basic climate data, technical expertise, and qualified local staff in many DMCs means that some processes, especially baseline studies, vulnerability assessments, and cost–benefit analysis of mitigation and adaptation measures, have to be adjusted to reflect realities on the ground.

Project Number: No PN
Project Name: Climate Change Fund, 2008–2019
Report Date:
Lesson
The strategic oversight of funds is enhanced when their governance structure includes some form of third-party engagement. The original Board paper outlined the governance structure of CCF and included at its apex ADB and external financing partners, whose function would be to provide strategic direction to the CCF and to meet ADB for annual consultations and to review progress, administration, and the annual work program. Since there are no external financing partners, ADB sits alone at the apex of the governance structure.

Project Number: No PN
Project Name: Climate Change Fund, 2008–2019
Report Date:
Lesson
Clear delineation of country activities with transparent funding allocations in cross-border RCI TA projects involving several countries helps smooth implementation and increase project success. The transaction costs in cross-border RCI TA projects tend to be high both in terms of resources and the time required to achieve agreement among stakeholders in the participating countries. It takes much longer to negotiate and agree to a common proposal in a cross-border RCI TA project than in a usual TA project.

Project Number: No PN
Project Name: Regional Cooperation and Integration Fund, 2007–2019
Report Date:
Lesson
Active engagement of national stakeholders and ADB resident missions from the outset helps improve ownership and project success. The likelihood of success is greater when an RCIF TA project is designed with genuine consultation with concerned line ministries, national agencies, the private sector (if relevant), and ADB resident missions. Active engagement of in-country stakeholders helps ADB to identify binding constraints and solutions, and to internalize implementation challenges at the TA design stage. This makes clear the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder.

Project Number: No PN
Project Name: Regional Cooperation and Integration Fund, 2007–2019
Report Date:
Lesson
Policy dialogue with the government is crucial for improving capacity in the areas of road asset management, road safety, and traffic monitoring. (i) If the road asset management tools developed under the project were used as envisaged, this would improve the performance of the road sector in the long term. (ii) It is essential that investment in road safety is based on knowledge of road safety conditions, which need to be measured so remedial actions can be proposed and assessed.

Project Number: 28261-023
Project Name: Fiji: Third Road Upgrading (Sector) Project
Report Date:
Lesson
A large amount of unused loan should be avoided. Although the actual cost for the civil works sections increased by about 50%, the project still ended with unused loan proceeds of $9.65 million (Loan 2205) and SDR1.40 million (Loan 2206). These were sufficient to finance the local roads, which were estimated to cost $3.8 million. A thorough fund disbursement analysis should have been conducted during project implementation.

Project Number: 35457-013
Project Name: East–West Highway Improvement Project
Report Date:
Lesson
Monitoring indicators should be carefully selected. Some indicators for impact and outcome are not readily available nor closely linked to the project. Since data are generally not readily available in Azerbaijan, sources for evaluation indicators should be identified in more detail at appraisal. Documents such as those prepared at appraisal and project completion should include sufficient data for subsequent verification and follow-up. Specific omissions were traffic data, unit benefits, and unit costs that were needed to fully comprehend the economic analysis.

Project Number: 35457-013
Project Name: East–West Highway Improvement Project
Report Date:
Lesson
ADB-financed project sections should be carefully selected. At appraisal, two sections were intended to be financed by ADB. The Yevlakh-Ganja section involves much higher traffic than the Gazakh–Georgian border section. Thus, the Yevlakh-Ganja section brought greater benefits and greater socioeconomic impact to the project area. If ADB had financed the Yevlakh-Ganja section instead of the Gazakh–Georgian border section, the project might have been rated efficient as the recalculated EIRR would have been higher than the threshold of economic viability.

Project Number: 35457-013
Project Name: East–West Highway Improvement Project
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:
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: