| General Information |
Project/Program |
Project |
| Project Name |
Cambodia: Flood Emergency Rehabilitation Project |
| Duration |
Closing Date: 2005-6-30 |
| Donor |
World Bank |
| Implementiong Organization |
World Bank |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Irrigation and drainage |
| Region |
Cambodia |
| Financing |
37.50 US $M |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
World Bank; Central government administration, General education sector, Ministry of Agriculture fishing and forestry |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
|
| Gender |
|
| Impact Analysis |
The project clearly had a positive impact on a great many people. According to the ICR and a supporting analysis (Annex 8: Social and Poverty Impact Assessment) included in it, the project is estimated to have benefited directly some 5.92 million people in the provinces covered by the project. However, given that the flood damage assessment claimed that 3.4 million people were affected by these floods (the worst in 40 years), and that the population of Cambodia is 13.6 million, the ICR's estimate seems to stretch the definition of "benefit." |
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
Training of implementing agency staff in project management, procurement and financial management is critical for civil works restoration projects. |
| Rating |
3/5 |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
The second project objective was met as conceived by the Component e): a case study on disaster mitigation was completed which was helpful toward a national strategy and flood protection infrastructure and early warning systems were built or reconstructed. However, it seems this objective was given very little focus in the project. Mitigation planning in a flood-prone country such as Cambodia is a crucial activity. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
The ICR is rated satisfactory and was mostly complete and balanced and gave a good overview of the implementation of this project. A specific explanation for the one year extension could have been given. Conflicting numbers were given for the irrigation subprojects -- in some places it was 85 and in others it was 89. The number in the Technical Annex was 89, so that is what this review used. |
| Rating |
4/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
IDA financed a total of US$37.5 million compared to the US$35.0 million foreseen at appraisal, the
difference being the result of exchange rate movements with respect to the SDR. These additional funds
were reallocated to the components with pressing demand for sub-projects. The project was extended for one year, but no specific reason was given in the ICR, other than general comments about delays in procurement, hiring and greater-than-expected damage to the roads. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Other Remarks |
The sustainability of the project results and the status of the Water Users groups would be important to investigate as well as whether further mitigation measures recommended by the mitigation study were implemented. Also, a project that claims to impact almost half the population of a country is worth verifying. |
