Financier | Commitments |
---|---|
Borrower/Recipient | 22.35 |
Global Environment Facility (GEF) | 12.00 |
P085488
Closed
Catalina Marulanda
N/A
Central America
May 26, 2004
(as of board presentation)
June 13, 2006
November 22, 2006
US$ 34.35 million
N/A
2006
US$ 12.00 million
B
Not Applicable
December 15, 2012
BANK APPROVED
January 26, 2014
Financier | Commitments |
---|---|
Borrower/Recipient | 22.35 |
Global Environment Facility (GEF) | 12.00 |
Product Line | IBRD/IDA |
---|---|
IBRD Commitment | N/A |
IDA Commitment | N/A |
IBRD + IDA Commitment | N/A |
Lending Instrument | |
---|---|
Grant Amount | 12.00 |
Total Project Cost** | 34.35 |
Name | Review | Date |
---|---|---|
Procurement | Moderately Satisfactory | 2012-12-28 |
Project Management | Satisfactory | 2012-12-28 |
Financial Management | Moderately Unsatisfactory | 2012-12-28 |
Monitoring and Evaluation | Satisfactory | 2012-12-28 |
Overall Implementation Progress (IP) | Satisfactory | 2012-12-28 |
Summary Global Objective Rating | Satisfactory | 2012-12-28 |
Counterpart Funding | Satisfactory | 2012-12-28 |
INDICATOR | IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION & RESULTS REPORT: 12-12-2013 |
---|---|
Outcomes | Moderately Unsatisfactory |
Risk to Development Outcome | Substantial |
Bank Performance | Moderately Unsatisfactory |
Borrower Performance | Moderately Unsatisfactory |
Government Performance | Moderately Unsatisfactory |
Implementing Agency | Moderately Unsatisfactory |
INDICATOR | ICR REVIEW: 06-30-2014 | PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT: |
---|---|---|
Outcome Rating | Moderately Satisfactory | N/a |
Risk To Development Outcome | Significant | N/a |
Bank Performance | Moderately Satisfactory | N/a |
Borrower Performance | Unsatisfactory | N/a |
Government Performance | Unsatisfactory | N/a |
Implementing Agency | Unsatisfactory | N/a |
Icr Quality | Unsatisfactory | N/a |
M&e Quality | Modest | N/a |
INDICATOR | BASELINE | CURRENT | TARGET |
---|
INDICATOR | BASELINE | CURRENT | TARGET |
---|
Targeted protected areas (4) within CTBR more effectively managed for conservation outcomes, with a rating of 2 (Regular) as measured by PROARCA and GEF Tracking tools | Value | Nicaragua: Regular (56%) in RBBHonduras: Good (5 | Management effectiveness has improved in the four | Improved management effectiveness in the 4 protect |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Increased participation by 60% and 60% of local communities, in Nicaragua and Honduras respectively, engaging in sustainable conservation activities related to management plans in order to reduce pres | Value | 0% participation in Honduras and 0% participation | NI: 70%HN: 81% | Increased participation by 60% and 60% of local co |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment | Note that the indicator for HN was corrected downwards slightly (and remains over the target). This was done to account for somedouble counting of a few communities, which was discovered during a bi-national meeting organized precisely to review monitoringresults and to harmonize methodologies |
At least 8 institutionalized participatory management processes and policy instruments consistent with protected areas management plans developed in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively. | Value | Participatory management processes and policy inst | HN: 10NI: 8 | At least 8 participatory management processes in p |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Update of 1 and 3 management plans for Protected Areas within the CTBR in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively | Value | Management plans had not been updated for several | NI: 1HN: 4 | Completion, presentation, and dissemination of man |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
22 and 10 protected area management policies/instruments developed, updated or strengthened in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively | Value | No management policies or instruments developed or | NI: 22HN: 25 | 22 in Nicaragua and 10 in Honduras protected areas |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
1,600 and 1,000 hectares, in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively in the CTBR zone under rehabilitation/protection and sustainable use by local communities | Value | 0 hectares, in Nicaragua and Honduras, in the CTBR | NI: 3,090HN: 3,670 | 1,600 and 1,000 hectares, in Nicaragua and Hondura |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Regularization of 7 and 6 manuals for participatory management processes in protected areas in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively | Value | Participatory management processes in the reserve | NI: 7HN: 11 | Methodologies for participatory management approac |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Capacity building/ institutional strengthening/ consultation and consensus building measured through the 80 workshops for indigenous communities and 60 workshops in non-indigenous communities in Nicar | Value | No workshops given for indigenous or non-indigenou | NI: 140HN: 267 | Capacity building/ institutional strengthening/ co |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
At least 75 and 60 grants given to local individuals for study of conservation, environmental science, and protected areas management in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively | Value | No grants given to local individuals for study of | NI: 71HN: 117 | At least 75 and 60 grants given to local individua |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Overall effectiveness rating of the two National Protected Areas Systems (SINAPs) based on the annual country reports to CCAD#s Central America#s PROARCA system improves. | Value | CCAD is in the process of collecting this data fro | Rating of two SINAPs has improved | Overall effectiveness rating of the two National P |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Technical proposal for future recognition of CTBR by UNESCO elaborated, and endorsed by national governments and indigenous groups. | Value | Technical proposal not prepared or endorsed by gov | Proposal completed, endoresed and ready for submit | Technical proposal for future recognition of CTBR |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
In Nicaragua, % of field data from biological and socioeconomic monitoring programs that are integrated into coordinated and accessible database increases from 5% to 75% by end of project. | Value | 5% | NI: 95% | 75% of field data from biological and socioeconomi |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
In Honduras, establishment of a website with biodiversity data accessible to the public. | Value | No website or system to publish biodiversity data | Webpage is live and biodiversita data is available | Establishment of a website with biodiversity data |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Functioning of a Protected Areas Fund for Honduras, according to the guidelines set in the grant agreement, with a transfer of funds from GEF | Value | Protected Areas Fund for Honduras created in 2005. | Endowment Fund constituted and management arrangem | Completion of requirements to strengthen the funct |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Action Plan for the management of the future establishment of a Protected Areas Fund for Nicaragua developed and agreed with relevant authorities | Value | Protected Areas Fund for Nicaragua not established | Action Plan completed and disseminated | Agreement and development of next steps with othe |
Date | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | ||
Comment |
At least 1 and 3PAs strengthened management and protection with a rating of 2 (Regular) as measured by the PROARCA and GEF TrackingTools. in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively | Value | Nicaragua: Poor (56%) in RBB Honduras: Good (5 | Management effectiveness improved in all four prot | Improved management effectiveness in the 4 protect |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Rate of deforestation in the Bosawas Reserve estimated on an annual basis and results linked to activities of Management Plan | Value | No measurements of deforestation rate for Bosawas | 0.3% annual deforestation rate | Deforestation rate in Bosawas Reserve estimated on |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
At least 1,500 targeted families in Honduras, and 4,500 in Nicaragua prepare and successfully implement subprojects with conservation benefits in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively | Value | No families prepared or implemented subprojects wi | NI: 5,416HN: 6,999 | At least 1,500 targeted families in Honduras and 4 |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
At least 20% and 30% of women beneficiaries executing subprojects in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively. | Value | 0% of women beneficiaries executing subprojects in | NI: 54%HN: 34% | At least 20% and 30% of women beneficiaries execut |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
At least 85% and 50% indigenous communities benefiting from subprojects in Nicaragua and Honduras, respectively | Value | No indigenous communities benefiting from subproje | HN: 81%NI: 89% | At least 85% and 50% indigenous communities benefi |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment | Note that the indicator for HN was corrected downwards (and remains over the target). This was done to account for some doublecounting of a few communities, which was discovered during a bi-national meeting organized precisely to review monitoring resultsand toharmonize methodologies |
In Honduras, establishment of socioeconomic and biodiversity indicators for protected areas, to be monitored in the future. | Value | Indicators for protected areas have not been estab | Indicators established | Establishment of socioeconomic and biodiversity in |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
Populations of jaguars monitored in the CTBR in Nicaragua and Honduras as an indicator of ecological condition of the Reserve | Value | CCAD is in the process of gathering data from 2006 | Panther Foundation was ultimately not contracted b | Populations of jaguars monitored in the CTBR in Ni |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment |
At least 6 research studies on priority management issues in the CTBR conducted by CCAD in conjunction with academic and research institutes. | Value | 1 study on the #Knowledge of the Mayangna People, | 4 completed and 2 underway | At least 6 research studies on priority management |
Date | July 1, 2006 | December 12, 2012 | December 15, 2012 | |
Comment | Indicator updated in January 2012. | d |