Login
Jump to page content
  • About
  • News & Events
  • Blog
  • Work With Us
Millennium Challenge Corporation; United States of America Millennium Challenge Corporation; United States of America
  • Where We Work
  • Our Impact
  • Sectors
  • Initiatives
  • Resources
Home › Evaluation Catalog › DDI-MCC-PHL-IDG-ROAD-2020-V01

Philippines - Roads

central
Reference ID DDI-MCC-PHL-IDG-ROAD-2020-v01
Year 2021
Country Philippines
Producer(s) International Development Group Advisory Services
Sponsor(s) Millennium Challenge Corporation - MCC -
Metadata PDF Documentation in PDF
Created on Jun 08, 2020
Last modified Jun 08, 2020
Page views 3353
Downloads 1569
  • Documentation
  • Study Description
  • Overview
  • Sampling
  • Data Collection
  • Data Access
  • Export Metadata
Overview
Identification
Country
Philippines
Evaluation Title
Roads

Evaluation Type
Independent Performance Evaluation
ID Number
DDI-MCC-PHL-IDG-ROAD-2020-v01
Version
Version Description
Not applicable to this evaluation; no quantitative data to be shared

Overview
Abstract
The evaluation will address the following evaluation areas:

Evaluation Area 0 examines whether the SNRDP was implemented according to plan. The analysis will focus on highlighting any ways that implementation deviated from the original Compact design to fully understand how the SNRDP was implemented. The evaluation team will review program documents to identify any changes made to the original design.

Evaluation Area 1 tests the economic viability of MCC-funded roads by conducting a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to estimate the economic rate of return (ERR) and net present value (NPV) of the roads. The CBA will employ the Highway Development and Management (HDM)-4 model, an analytical tool developed by the World Bank. The post-Compact CBA will re-evaluate the validity of the initial assumptions made prior to the Compact and the economic viability of the SNRDP.

Evaluation Area 2 will evaluate the road maintenance regime within the Philippines to test the sustainability of improvement in road infrastructure. Examining the political and economic factors shaping road maintenance decisions and practices will improve MCC's assumption on post-Compact maintenance and project-life assumptions about its infrastructure investments. In particular, Evaluation Area 2 will assess whether MCC's investment in improving maintenance practices were effective in improving the Philippines' maintenance practices.

Evaluation Area 3 is a study of road users to understand the type of beneficiaries from the SNRDP. The data collected for Evaluation Area 3 will inform the HDM-4 model. Information such as the cost and duration of trips and value of goods being transported will be analyzed. This evaluation area is also intended to understand any change over time in road users and their travel patterns before and after the road improvement and how they differ among the road users.

Evaluation Area 4 is an analysis of the transportation market structure. This evaluation area will analyze transportation market structure, both formal and informal, to understand how cost savings from road improvements have passed on to transport consumers who do not own their own vehicles. The analysis of the formal and informal institutions of the transportation market will inform whether vehicle operating cost (VOC) savings are passed on to road users who do not own their own vehicle, such as farmers transporting their goods to market and public transportation users.

Below are the key evaluation questions for each evaluation area:

Evaluation Area 0

0) Were there any deviations from the original project design? [Result: Road Rehabiltation, Construction and/or Improvement]

Evaluation Area 1

1) What is the economic return of the road investment? [Result: Time Savings and Lower Vehicle Operating Costs (modelled by HDM-4), and Reduced Road Maintenance Cost]

Evaluation Area 2

2A) What are the relevant road authority's current maintenance practices and what is the likelihood that MCC's investment will remain adequately maintained for the life of the investment? Specifically, what maintenance regime reflects current practices and will therefore be applied in HDM-4? What maintenance practices most influenced your selection of this regime? [Result: Assumption: Maintenance]

2B) In cases where MCC investments included targeted maintenance improvements, how were these implemented and what were the effects of those efforts? [Assumption: Maintenance]

Evaluation Area 3

3A) Who is traveling on the road, why, what they are transporting, what they are paying for transport, and how long does it take to move along key routes? [Reduced Transportation Costs (actual), Generated and Diverted Traffic] How does road usage vary by road-user's income and gender?

3B) Have road usage patterns changed, in terms of who is traveling on the road, why, what they are transporting, what they are paying for transport, and how long it takes to move along key routes? [Results: Reduced Transportation Costs (actual), Generated and Diverted Traffic]

Evaluation Area 4

4) Given the existing transportation market structure, what portion of VOC savings will be passed on to consumers of transportation services; and if not all savings are passed on, could this project have cost effectively addressed these inefficiencies? [Result: Reduced Transportation Costs (actual)]

Evaluation Methodology
Independent Ex-Post ERR and HDM-4
Units of Analysis
Individuals, administrative units

Kind of Data
Other

Geographic Coverage
Samar road crossing the provinces of Samar and Eastern Samar, beginning at the junction of Highway-Buray Wright to the town of Guiuan

Topics
TopicVocabularyURI
Transport MCC Sector
Capacity Building and Institutional Development MCC Sector
Keywords
Philippines, EDR, SNRDP, Philippines Secondary National Roads Development Project, HDM-4
Producers and Sponsors
Primary Investigator(s)
NameAffiliation
International Development Group Advisory Services
Funding
NameAbbreviationRole
Millennium Challenge Corporation MCC
Metadata Production
Metadata Produced By
NameAbbreviationRole
Millennium Challenge CorporationMCCReview of Metadata
International Development Group Advisory ServicesIDGDocumentation of the Study
Date Produced
2020-06-05
Metadata Version
Version 1.0 (June 2020): This is the original version.

Metadata ID Number
DDI-MCC-PHL-IDG-ROAD-2020-v01
MCC Compact and Program
Compact or Threshold
Philippines Compact
Program
MCC and the Government of Philippines (GOP) signed a five-year, US$434 million Compact on September 23, 2010, which entered into force on May 25, 2011. The Compact goal was “to reduce poverty through economic growth in the Philippines.” The Compact is composed of three projects: 1) Revenue Administration Reform Project (RARP) with a budget of US$54.3 million; 2) Kalahi-CIDSS Project (Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan - Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services) with a budget of US$120 million; and 3) Secondary National Roads Development Project (SNRDP) with a budget of US$214.4 million. The SNRDP consisted of the Samar Road Activity and did not include other activities at the time of Compact design. According to the Compact document, the objective of the SNRDP was to i) save time and ii) lower vehicle operating costs for those Filipinos living near the roads. MCC funding was intended to reconstruct and rehabilitate 220km of the Samar road crossing the provinces of Samar and Eastern Samar, of which approximately 180km will undergo reconstruction/major rehabilitation while 40 km will receive only minor rehabilitation, as well as the replacement or upgrading of associated structures, such as bridges and culverts, to eliminate flooding and improve road safety.
MCC Sector
Transport (Trans)
Program Logic
For the SNRDP, the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Samar Road will increase time savings and lower vehicle operating costs for road users. The combined impact of these outputs and outputs from other Projects will lead to the overall goal of poverty reduction through economic growth.
Program Participants
While the definition of project beneficiaries is not clearly stated, the Compact document refers to benefits accruing to Filipinos living near the roads from MCC's investment. However, MCC's Principles into Practice refutes this theory and suggests that road project beneficiaries should be defined as road users and not those living near the improved road segment. The evaluation refers to project beneficiaries as SNRDP road users.

Reducing Poverty Through Growth

  • Who We Fund
  • Open Data
  • Evaluation Catalog
  • Careers
  • Report Fraud
  • Contact Us
  • Compact Procurement Guidelines
  • Compact Development Guidance
  • Compact Implementation Guidance

Subscribe to:

You can also find us through
You can also find us on
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • RSS Feeds
  • Privacy Policy
  • USA.gov
  • Inspector General
  • Plugins
  • Open Government
  • No FEAR Act
  • FOIA
  • Whistleblower Protection
  • Powered by NADA 4.2 and DDI
Mailing Address

875 Fifteenth Street NW
Washington, DC
20005-2221
USA

Phone Numbers
  • Main: 202-521-3600
  • Legislative: 202-521-3880
  • Press: 202-521-3880