Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Urban Infrastructure

1. Project Data:   
ICR Review Date Posted:
Project Name:
Urban Infrastructure
Project Costs(US $M)
 45.83  48.23
Loan/Credit (US $M)
 35  35.38
Sector, Major Sect.:
Irrigation and drainage, Central government administration, Sub-national government administration, Other social services, General transportation sector,
Agriculture fishing and forestry; Law and justice and public administration; Law and justice and public administration; Health and other social services; Transportation
Cofinancing (US $M)
 0  0
L/C Number:
Board Approval (FY)
Partners involved
Closing Date
06/30/2002 06/30/2005
Evaluator: Panel Reviewer: Division Manager: Division:  
Anna Amato
Ronald S. Parker Alain A. Barbu IEGSG

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
1. Improved provision and maintenance of priority urban infrastructure.

2. Increased income and employment for the poor.

b. Components (or Key Conditions in the case of Adjustment Loans):
CIVIL WORKS: (Appraisal: US$29.4 million; Actual: US$30.35 million) Rehabilitation of economic infrastructure and revenue earning projects in 7 cities Annual investment programs of sub-projects to be identified by municipalities in coordination with MINATV. Includes design and supervision.
EQUIPMENT (Appraisal: US$0.57 million; Actual: US$0.3 million): Machines to produce precast cement blocks for pavement; office and laboratory equipment.
CONSULTANCY SERVICES (Appraisal: US$2.4 million; Actual: US$2.78 million) - Assistance to municipalities and beneficiaries to formulate and evaluate Priority Investment Programs of Municipalities (PIPMs ) and to AGETIP(s) to conduct analysis and training for SMEs, to facilitate participatory seminars, to provide information services, and to finance technical and financial audits.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT COSTS (Appraisal: US$2.23 million; Actual: US$1.95 million) - Institution building management costs to be financed as a percentage of the value of contracts managed.

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates
Due to a political crisis in the country, and as a consequence of a program auditing all AGETIPs in Africa, the project underwent administrative changes and the deadline was extended by 3 years. The credit was fully disbursed.

3. Relevance of Objectives & Design:

The objectives of the project and its design were consistent with CAS priorities, and built upon knowledge gained by the previous AGETIP.

4. Achievement of Objectives (Efficacy) :

The project generally achieved its objectives and exceeded its numeric goals. The target for job creation goal (under Objective 2) was adjusted downward from 111,000 person months to 65,000 person months during the Mid-Term Review, due to community preferences for projects, such as markets and asphalted roads, that were less labor intensive than the previous projects selected. However, the readjusted goal was exceeded.

5. Efficiency:

For those activities for which an ERR was calculated, the ERR was generally on the higher end of the range projected in the SAR. The ERRs for these activities ranged between 17.8% and 48.87%.
6. M&E Design, Implementation, & Utilization:

The M&E was appropriate and complete, and included a beneficiary survey. However, the ERR analysis did not include information on how much of the project was covered by the calculated ERRs for individual subprojects. It was thus very difficult to know how efficient project efforts really were.
7. Other (Safeguards, Fiduciary, Unintended Impacts--Positive & Negative):

One unintended impact was that much of the project funds went to the larger and better off cities, as smaller cities had less capacity to mobilize counterpart funds.

8. Ratings:
ICR Review
Reason for Disagreement/Comments
Institutional Dev.: 
Bank Perf.: 
Borrower Perf.: 
Quality of ICR: 

- When insufficient information is provided by the Bank for IEG to arrive at a clear rating, IEG will downgrade the relevant ratings as warranted beginning July 1, 2006.
- ICR rating values flagged with ' * ' don't comply with OP/BP 13.55, but are listed for completeness.

9. Lessons:

The level of municipal contributions needs to be set after an evaluation of their capacity to mobilize funds is completed.
  • A labor-intensive approach is not always compatible with community preferences and infrastructure needs. Employment creation can be achieved through investment in local economic development.
  • Improving infrastructure requires a long-term commitment. Involving municipalities, extending the project to more cities, and shifting the focus from subprojects to Priority Investment Programs of Municipalities (PIPMs) generated interest from local officials to intensify investments in their cities. To confront issues of economic development and revenue enhancement, better asset management and a more aggressive capacity building agenda is necessary.
  • Improving infrastructure requires a concomitant effort to enhance municipal finances because maintaining infrastructure requires ongoing capacity and the money to purchase supplies, repair equipment, etc..

10. Assessment Recommended?  Yes

          Why?  The experience of AGETIPs in Africa is a varied one and it would be interesting and useful to do further evaluation of this type of World Bank intervention.

11. Comments on Quality of ICR:

Satisfactory overall. However, he first chart in Annex 2 of the ICR (Project Costs and Financing) has decimals incorrectly placed, so the numbers are all wrong.

© 2012 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions