| General Information |
Project/Program |
Project |
| Project Name |
Cambodia Road Improvement Project 30240 |
| Duration |
Board of Approval: 26-Nov.-2002 Closing Date: 30-June-2007(In loan agreement) 15-Sept.-2011(Actual) |
| Donor |
Asian Development Bank (ADB) |
| Implementiong Organization |
Ministry of Public Works and Transport |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Infrastructure |
| Region |
Refer to map (Completion Report 30240) |
| Financing |
Estimate during the appraisal was USD 77.5 million; actual costs were USD 86.97 million, ADB(USD 54.12 million, 62 percent) and co financiers (OFID 11.5 percent, USD 10million) financing 77.4 percent, USD60 million of the cost. |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
Asian Development Bank, Council of Ministers, Department of Planning, Interministerial Resettlement Committee, Ministry of Economy and Finance, Ministry of Public Works and Transport, OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID), Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Project Management Unit, civil community, non governmental organizations, affected people ( those living in the construction sites and those who will be affected before, during, after construction regardless of their living standards (whether it be near or far from the construction site) |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
Political disputes between Cambodia and Thailand led to cancellation of a component (the construction of a new cross boarder facility in Chhay Chhay Free Industrial Zone). In addition, Cambodia could not comply with the covenant on draft road law (which is further explained in the text). |
| Gender |
No gender related material is to be found in the ADB completion report. |
| Impact Analysis |
Project aligns with ADB's operational strategy (rural economic development), and Cambodia's development strategy (improving national and provincial road network and road sector sustainability to provide better access). In addition, project is also relevant with the 1994 high priority road projects in the sub regional transport sector study and the 10th Greater Mekong Sub region GMS Ministerial Conference in 2001. The impact of the project is expected to be greater than other previous road regions due to the World Heritage, Angkor Wat, in Siem Reap. |
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
No relevant information regarding participation and ownership for donor, recipient and related agencies. |
| Rating |
N.A. |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
There are no relevant information regarding the policy coherence with its co financiers (OFID and OPEC). However, the completion report explains ADB should have better teamwork between the operation support divisions ( e.g. consultant recruitment). |
| Rating |
N.A. |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
ADB had three separate mission leaders, providing assistance on preparation and bid documents, reallocation of loan proceeds, and disbursements. ADB monitored the overall project, assisted in recommending transport policies and had close budget coordination with the project management unit teams. However, had trouble with procurements leading to delays of design implementation and supervision consultant. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
Disbursements were delayed three times due to (1) selection of consulters, (2) implementation delays of civil work contracts, and (3) uncompleted remaining works accordingly. Most covenants were complied, with the exception of draft road law (covenant required the Governmental improvement for new road laws and transport policies), which was not feasible under the time constraint given for this project with the addition of inter-related jurisdiction problems for Ministry of Public Works and Transport, Ministry of Rural Development, and other agencies (which are in charge of road laws and road right of way (ROW) regulations in different regions and sectors). |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Other Remarks |
Resettlement issues were problematic; although the Ministry of Public Works and Transport updated and implemented the resettlement plan, it was not successful. The total cost of resettling affected people (2,888people) amounted up to USD 1.7 million ( USD 0.9 million for compenstation of loss land, property, and land use). The Ministry created three new markets for the affected people, but were attracted to only one specific venue becuase the relocation area was just outside of the corridor of impact which led to losing half of their income. In addition, only 5% of the affected people recieved vocational training. 11 people were not able to claim their compensation; 9 people could not be in contact despite efforts to reach them and the remaining two people were outside of the corridor of impact. Compensation was targeted for only privately owned own land; these affected people did not have ownership of land title of theior houses, shopes, and structures which was moved within the ROW. |
