Search

Displaying 1 - 13 of 13

Lesson
The MFF is a useful modality for providing the substantial financing required for infrastructure through successive tranches, but frequent policy dialogue between ADB and the executing agency would support the strategic long-term requirements of the sector. Implementation of the program demonstrated the flexibility and effectiveness of the MFF modality, for example when an additional tranche was approved to cover a section of the corridor that was originally not envisioned for ADB finance.

Project Number: 41121-023, 41121-033, 41121-043, 41121-053, 45150-001
Project Name: CAREC Transport Corridor 1 (Zhambyl Oblast Section) [Western Europe–Western People’s Republic of China International Transit Corridor] Investment Program and Taraz Bypass Project (Kazakhstan)
Report Date:
Lesson
Well-designed road facilities and the systematic monitoring and collection of the traffic accident and volume data are critical for transport policy and for safe and sustainable transport over the long term. Road investments alone cannot ensure that sustainability objectives are achieved; complementary measures are needed to offset the adverse impacts of infrastructure provision, but to support this, traffic accident and count data need to be accurately collected and monitored.

Project Number: 41121-023, 41121-033, 41121-043, 41121-053, 45150-001
Project Name: CAREC Transport Corridor 1 (Zhambyl Oblast Section) [Western Europe–Western People’s Republic of China International Transit Corridor] Investment Program and Taraz Bypass Project (Kazakhstan)
Report Date:
Lesson
Innovative technologies need to be carefully assessed and monitored to determine their efficacy and sustainability. As new technologies are made available through various projects, close monitoring of their application and performance and as well as best practices should be incorporated so they can contribute to the success of the program and projects. Accumulation of this knowledge and its proper dissemination within ADB will ensure that it can be applied to other projects in different locations.

Project Number: 41121-023, 41121-033, 41121-043, 41121-053, 45150-001
Project Name: CAREC Transport Corridor 1 (Zhambyl Oblast Section) [Western Europe–Western People’s Republic of China International Transit Corridor] Investment Program and Taraz Bypass Project (Kazakhstan)
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
Objective quantitative assessment of benefits and costs may help in the setting up a mechanism for fair distribution of costs across countries. The IEM economic analysis indicates that the net present value of the project for the Lao PDR could be made positive if higher grant elements were used in the financing by the PRC and Thailand.

Project Number: 34231-013
Project Name: Greater Mekong Subregion: Northern Economic Corridor Project in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Report Date:
Lesson
An agreement for collective maintenance is an essential element for the sustainability of subregional road projects, such as this project. A mechanism needs to be devised for the costs to be shared in proportion to the benefits received by the stakeholders.

Project Number: 34231-013
Project Name: Greater Mekong Subregion: Northern Economic Corridor Project in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Report Date:
Lesson
An effective project implementation entity is important when multiple financiers are involved, in order to ensure uniform standards in the construction of the project road. For the ADB-funded section of the road, the Lao PDR government could keep track of expenditures and verify if timelines and guidelines are followed. This was not the case with the PRC and Thailand financed sections. For example, the PRC used its own design standards for the road without conducting any dialogue with the Lao PDR government.

Project Number: 34231-013
Project Name: Greater Mekong Subregion: Northern Economic Corridor Project in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic
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:
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: