General Information |
Project/Program |
Project |
Project Name |
Social Fund I Project |
Duration |
Board of Approval: June 8, 1995 Date of Closing (original): 12/31/99; (original): 06/30/2000 |
Donor |
World Bank |
Implementiong Organization |
Development Council |
Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Education |
Region |
Refer to Information on the World Bank Project Information site. |
Financing |
Total Project Cost: USD 22.2 million, the Government financing about USD 1.2 million dollars and the World Bank with a credit of USD 20 million was approved. |
Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
World Bank, Development Council, Royal Government of Cambodia, Social Fund Kingdom of Cambodia, Non-Governmental Organizations, Government Ministries (line ministries that engaged in the contracts: Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Water Resources, etc.), International Development Association, A Policy and Human Resources Development, civil society, contractors, consulting companies. |
Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
The project was rated "B," with no environmental issues over the course of the project. |
Gender |
Although the project did not have any specific focus on gender issues, the project was estimated to have a positive effect on a significant population of women. |
Impact Analysis |
The project aligns with the national development agency and World Bank's Country Assistance Strategy. According to the Implementation Completion Report, the project created short term employment opportunities that led to rehabilitation of economic infrastructure. |
Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
At the implementation level, partnership between the SFKC and other agencies created a synergy effect. The seven departments within the SFKC worked above the national public sector norms, and quickly responded to the demands of communities. However, at the Governmental level, the Board of Directors lacked the capacity to bring interaction between the SFKC and the coordination ministries and local governments. The Board did not attempt to improve any SFKC policy problems or procedures, neither did they intervene to undermine the project. In general, the implementing agencies were very responsive to the changing sector needs, being able to switch to different prioritizations from each sector. According to the completion report, community ownership was highly recommended to ensure sustainability, however the project did not set up this as a priority during appraisal. |
Rating |
3/5 |
Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
Bank's assistance in preparation for the project enable the implementing agency to be in accordance with the World Bank's policies. According to the completion report, coordination and cooperation among the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health were the most notable, where as only little interaction could be seen between the Ministry of Water Resources and local authorities. |
Rating |
4/5 |
Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
The World Bank planned to have 2 to 3 supervision missions of 20-30 staffs annually with a total of 8 supervision missions at the end of the project. Regular staff meetings were held in diverse matters to ensure transparency and avoiding favoritism. |
Rating |
3/5 |
Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
According to the Implementation Completion Report, World Bank was concerned with the probability of the Cambodian Government's misuse of public resources. However, World Bank managed to create a rigorous financial auditing framework, use of direct contracting procurement method, revised cost appraisals have alleviated these concerns. |
Rating |
4/5 |
Other Remarks |
The line ministries and SFKC lacked familiarity with the project cycles and procedures, overload of work, lack of resources, low salaries, few incentives to perform prevented effective contribution to the project. At appraisal, the project intended to divide resources to social infrastructure, economic infrastructure, and social services; however, at the project end, the 70 percent of the allocations had gone to education facilities (500 schools), followed by water supply and rural roads and transport, making agriculture with only 3 percent of the entire budget. |