The outcome of the project is satisfactory, sustainability likely, though institutional development impacts are only modest. Lessons learned stipulate the following. By seeking funding of Gwangyang, rather than canceling funds not used for Dadaepo, Korea Container Terminal Authority (KCTA) and the Government were able to provide confidence to the markets for other bond placements. Although the Bank contribution was less than 6 percent of the cost of the project, its participation was viewed, especially during the financial crisis, as a sign of confidence in the Government's decision to proceed with the project. This experience suggests the possibility for the Bank to leverage its credibility effectively with relatively small investments. In dealing with opposition to the project, strategies could include the identification of, and working together with, supporters of the project to strengthen approval on the benefits of the projects, and, in addition, fair compensation for people negatively affected by the impact of the project should be fostered, sometimes possible, even beyond the entitlements formally approved by the Bank guidelines. Once again, it is reinforced to limit the number of components, to better manage project expenditures, particularly concerning project components not financed by the Bank - for instance rail and road links built to connect with port development.