The estimated cost of Montenegro’s planned fishing port at Cape Đeran in Ulcinj has more than doubled to €31.07 million, creating a financing gap for a project being developed under a World Bank-backed fisheries and agrifood investment programme.
The Agriculture Ministry’s latest implementation report puts the cost at €31.07 million, up from an earlier estimate of €14.6 million.
That is an increase of about €16.47 million, or 113%.
The main design has been completed and technically reviewed, while tender documentation is nearing completion.
Authorities plan to move next toward the construction permit and procurement of works.
The main constraint has therefore shifted from engineering preparation to financing.
The project forms part of Montenegro’s Climate Resilient Fisheries and Agrifood Sector Development programme, supported by a roughly €33 million World Bank loan.
That loan, however, finances a broader portfolio of fisheries and agricultural investments rather than the Ulcinj port alone.
Earlier programme planning allocated about €14.72 million to the Cape Đeran fishing-port component.
At a revised cost above €31 million, the project would require more than twice that amount unless its scope is reduced or additional financing is found.
That makes the increase commercially significant.
Montenegro now has a technically advanced project whose estimated cost is approaching the size of the World Bank loan supporting the entire wider programme.
The government will therefore need to determine whether to redirect funds, obtain additional borrowing or grants, divide construction into phases or revise the design.
Any of those options could affect the implementation timetable.
The port is intended to address a longstanding weakness in Montenegro’s fisheries infrastructure.
Ulcinj has an active fishing fleet but lacks a modern dedicated port providing secure berths, landing facilities, cold-chain infrastructure and other services required by a more organised commercial fishing industry.
Improved infrastructure could strengthen domestic fisheries while helping Montenegro align with EU food-safety, traceability and fisheries standards.
That becomes more important as accession progresses.
A modern fishing port is not simply a marina for fishing vessels.
It needs facilities for landing and handling catch, sanitary controls, fuel and maintenance, waste management and potentially refrigeration and processing.
Those requirements partly explain why costs can rise significantly as projects move from conceptual design into detailed engineering.
Construction costs have also increased materially across Montenegro in recent years.
Labour, steel, concrete, equipment and specialist marine works have all become more expensive.
Projects involving breakwaters, marine structures and coastal foundations are particularly exposed because engineering conditions can change significantly once detailed geotechnical work is completed.
But a 113% increase is large enough to change the financing structure, not merely the contingency budget.
The project therefore illustrates a broader risk across Montenegro’s infrastructure pipeline.
Many schemes were originally costed several years ago and are now reaching procurement in a substantially more expensive construction market.
EU and IFI financing commitments agreed on earlier estimates may no longer cover the full cost.
That can create financing gaps even when project preparation itself is successful.
For Ulcinj, the timing matters because the municipality is trying to position itself for larger tourism and infrastructure investment.
The planned fishing port is different from the large hotel and residential projects usually associated with the municipality, but it would diversify the local economy and provide formal infrastructure for a traditional industry.
It could also support restaurants, seafood processing and local supply chains.
A stronger fisheries sector could reduce some dependence on imported seafood and improve the traceability of domestic products.
But the project must remain economically proportionate.
At €31.07 million, policymakers will need to assess whether the expected economic and social benefits justify committing substantially more public or IFI funding than originally planned.
That does not necessarily mean the project is uneconomic.
Marine infrastructure typically has a long operating life and supports industries beyond direct port revenues.
But the revised cost raises the threshold for demonstrating value for money.
World Bank involvement should provide a stronger framework for that assessment.
Large cost revisions generally require updated procurement and financing analysis before construction proceeds.
The next step will therefore be more important than the completion of the design.
Montenegro needs to establish who will finance the additional €16 million-plus and whether the current scope remains intact.
Until that is resolved, Cape Đeran is technically closer to construction but financially further from certainty.
The project’s problem is no longer whether Ulcinj needs modern fisheries infrastructure.
It is whether Montenegro can close a financing gap created by a project cost that has more than doubled before the first major construction contract is awarded.
