Document of The World Bank Report No: 30755-PA IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (SCL-41580 PPFB-P3060) ON A LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF 22.5 US$ MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA FOR A RURAL POVERTY AND NATURAL RESOURCES PROJECT December 26, 2004 CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective October 30, 2004) Currency Unit = Balboas 1 = US$ 1 FISCAL YEAR January 1 ­ December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABC Atlantic Biological Corridor AMI Agricultural Marketing Institute BC Biodiversity Conservation CAP Community Action Plan CAS Country Assistance Strategy CDD Community Demand Driven Comarca Indigenous Administrative District Corregimiento Smallest Administrative Division in Panama CTC Corregimiento Technical Committee FES/FIS Social Emergency Fund (Fondo de Emergencia Social) FUSARD Fund for Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development GEF Global Environmental Facility GOP Government of Panama IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICB International Competitive Bidding ICR Implementation Completion Report IDA International Development Association IDB Inter-American Development Bank IDIAP Agricultural Research Institute (Instituto de Investigación Agropecuaria) IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IICA Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Development INRENARE Institute for Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto de Recursos Naturales Renovables) IO Implementing Organization IPDP Indigenous Peoples Development Plan LIB Limited International Bidding M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MBC Mesoamerican Biological Corridor MEDUC Ministry of Education MIDA Ministry of Agricultural Development (Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario) MINSA Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) MOP Ministry of Public Works (Ministerio de Obras Publicas) NAPAS National Protected Area System NCB National Competitive Bidding NGO Non Governmental Organization PA Protected Area PAMBC Panama Atlantic Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project PCU Project Coordinating Unit PPF Project Preparation Facility PRONAT Panama Land Administration Project PTC Provincial Technical Committee RUTA Regional Unit for Technical Assistance in Agriculture in Central America SA Special Account SDC Sustainable Rural Development Committee SINAP National Protected Areas System (Sistema Nacional de Área Protegidas) SOE Statement of Expenses SRD Sustainable Rural Development SAR Staff Appraisal Report UNDP United Nations Development Programme Vice President: David de Ferranti Country Director Jane Armitage Sector Manager John Redwood Task Team Leader Mark Austin PANAMA RURAL POVERTY AND NATURAL RESOURCES PROJECT CONTENTS Page No. 1. Project Data 1 2. Principal Performance Ratings 1 3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 2 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4 5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 12 6. Sustainability 15 7. Bank and Borrower Performance 16 8. Lessons Learned 18 9. Partner Comments 19 10. Additional Information 19 Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 21 Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 27 Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 29 Annex 4. Bank Inputs 32 Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 32 Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 35 Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 36 Annex 8. Borrower Implementation Completion Report Summary 37 9. Partner Comments (a) Borrower/implementing agency: MIDA Dec. 10 2004 Ltr.pdfANAM Dec. 16 2004 Ltr.pdf (b) Cofinanciers: (c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector): Project ID: P007847 Project Name: Rural Poverty & Natural Resources Team Leader: Mark A. Austin TL Unit: LCSER ICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: December 27, 2004 1. Project Data Name: Rural Poverty & Natural Resources L/C/TF Number: SCL-41580; PPFB-P3060 Country/Department: PANAMA Region: Latin America and the Caribbean Region Sector/subsector: Other social services (46%); Central government administration (28%); General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (26%) Theme: Biodiversity (P); Participation and civic engagement (P); Other rural development (P); Rural policies and institutions (S) KEY DATES Original Revised/Actual PCD: 06/06/1995 Effective: 03/09/1998 03/31/1998 Appraisal: 10/06/1996 MTR: 11/01/2000 12/08/2000 Approval: 05/08/1997 Closing: 06/30/2002 06/30/2004 Borrower/Implementing Agency: REPUBLIC OF PANAMA/MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE/INSTIT. FOR RENEWABLE NATURAL RES. Other Partners: STAFF Current At Appraisal Vice President: David de Ferranti Shahid Javed Burki Country Director: Jane Armitage Donna Dowsett-Coirolo Sector Manager: Mark E. Cackler Michael Baxter Team Leader at ICR: Mark Austin ICR Primary Author: A team composed of Andres Lopez; Hernando Garzon; Alejandro Deeb; Teresa Roncal; Samuel Taffesse; and Mark Austin 2. Principal Performance Ratings (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=Highly Unlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible) Outcome: S Sustainability: L Institutional Development Impact: SU Bank Performance: S Borrower Performance: S QAG (if available) ICR Quality at Entry: S Project at Risk at Any Time: Yes 3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 3.1 Original Objective: The project objectives, as defined in the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR), were to: (i) apply, on a pilot basis, methodologies that would channel financial resources to rural communities to assist them in promoting sustainable productive systems, and thereby reduce rural poverty, the degradation of natural resources and migration; and (ii) promote the sustainable use and conservation of selected priority biodiversity areas. Special emphasis was to be placed on gender and indigenous aspects. More specifically, operational goals included: (a) creating capacity at the local community level to organize, self-diagnose problems, plan activities through participatory means, seek out and negotiate assistance, and act in pursuit of resolving priority quality of life issues; (b) establishing a demand-driven financing mechanism that operates in high poverty areas and provides matching grants to communities for activities that help reduce rural poverty, improve the quality of life, and offer alternatives for sustainable natural resource management and livelihood; (c) promoting the long term conservation and sustainable use of Panama's biodiversity resources, including the biological corridor that passes through the Atlantic watershed. The project development objectives were fully consistent with the Bank's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) which identifies reviving sustainable growth and poverty alleviation as two key objectives of the 1 Bank's program in Panama. The project focused on the rural indigenous and non-indigenous who were included in the most vulnerable sectors of the population as defined by national household surveys. The project relied on a decentralized approach to implementation. The number of communities and NGOs responsible for implementation, and the self interest of these groups as beneficiaries, reduced risks and increased the favorable outcomes. The project also directly supported the Government of Panama's (GOP) efforts for alleviating poverty and inequality and fulfilling the mandate for conservation and management of renewable resources. 1. Country Assistance Strategy for Panama (Report No. 13846-PAN), December 28, 1994. Discussed at the Board on February 7, 1995. 3.2 Revised Objective: No revision to the original objective was made. 3.3 Original Components: To meet these objectives, the project financed three closely related broad components: (a) Sustainable Rural Development (SRD). Implemented by the Ministry of Agricultural Development (MIDA), NGOs, and private community organizations. This component was designed to: (i) - 2 - promote community training and organizational assistance to communities to identify their needs, in activities related to production technology, production support, community organization and rural development, and to prepare community development or action plans (CAPs) using participatory methodologies; and (ii) establish a demand-driven Fund for Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development (FUSARD) that was to provide matching grants to communities to help finance these plans in whole or in part (other sources of funds were to be used when available). Investments were supposed to include agricultural system research, agricultural extension, technical assistance, training and productive infrastructure, including mini-irrigation schemes, processing facilities, reforestation and rehabilitation of rural roads. (b) Biodiversity Conservation (BC). Implemented by the National Environmental Authority (ANAM) formerly the Institute for Renewable Natural Resources (INRENARE) and NGOs, this component supported activities in selected areas in the Pacific Zone and the Atlantic Biological Corridor (ABC) (the ABC became a separate stand along project financed by GEF). The component financed: (i) biodiversity research and planning, including baseline studies, management plans, and environmental impact assessment and monitoring; (ii) capacity building for relevant actors in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, including modernization of protected areas management and institutional strengthening in environmental impact assessment process; and (iii) activities that contribute to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, including protected areas delimitation and infrastructure, and environmental subprojects. (c) Project Coordination. The above two components were to be coordinated by a Project Coordinating Unit (PCU), to be formed mostly by seconded staff from the two lead institutions, MIDA and ANAM. Through this component, the project was also supposed to finance technical assistance and studies agreed with the Bank for these and other areas related to rural development and natural resources management. The project's components were directly related to achievement of the project objectives. The two technical components, SRD and BC were reasonably related. Part of the focus of the SRD Component was to invest in the high poverty areas of the Pacific Region as an attempt to stabilize rural population and attempt to reduce the migration to the high priority protected areas in the ABC. 3.4 Revised Components: There were no changes in the project's original components. Component; Cost; Rating SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT; $23,600,000.00; S BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; $11,600,000.00; S PROJECT COORDINATION; $3,800,000.00; S 3.5 Quality at Entry: - 3 - Performance rating for this aspect was satisfactory. The project objectives were consistent with the CAS, the donor program, and government priorities, which emphasized: (i) sustainable growth, (ii) poverty reduction and (iii) environmental conservation. The Bank's safeguard policies were properly considered. Project design was satisfactory and the assumptions about relevant external factors proved mostly reasonable. A critical key assumption was that communities would be able to operate in identification, prioritization, decision-making, execution, monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of their subprojects, as they did. This assumption was key for the remarkable success of the SDCs. However, the project design implicitly assumed that there would be a large demand for the financing of `productive' (income-generating) subprojects. The design was assuming that the main constraint was perhaps lack of financing (investment capital), and technical assistance and support. However, the actual demand of subprojects suggests that there were other more important community needs such as the provision of basic economic and social infrastructure. This is consistent with the results of other recently completed CDD projects and the Drivers of Rural Growth Study carried out in Nicaragua and Honduras in 2004, that show that first communities need social and productive infrastructure, i.e. basic needs, and then after these needs are met they are in a position to pursue productive activities. In assessing the design of the development objective it must be recognized that although the SAR clearly specify that the project... "would channel financial resources to rural communities to assist them in promoting sustainable productive systems", it is also stated in the same paragraph that the project's ..."operational goals include: (b) Establishing a demand-driven financing mechanism that operates in high poverty areas and provide matching grants to communities for activities that help reduce rural poverty, improve the quality of life, and offer alternatives to sustainable natural resource management and livelihood." Given this goal the project was wide open to any type of subprojects that could "reduce rural poverty" and, as such, the design in itself was bound, in principle and in practice to compromise to some extent "promoting sustainable productive system", since the implementing agency in the allocation of funds and community resources would need to chose between more or less resources for "productive subproject", or other types of subprojects, such as "economic and social infrastructure", as in fact was the case. From this perspective many of the performance indicators, while indicative, became less relevant and additional new indicators were agreed upon. The project was designed so that other institutions like the Social Fund (FES/FIS), Ministries of Public Works (MOP), Education (MEDUC) and Health (MINSA), would finance and support community execution of non-productive related subprojects and Ministry of Agricultural Development (MIDA) and National Environmental Authority (ANAM), the two project executing agencies, would focus on productive and natural resource subprojects. The reality was that these other entities did not have the operational and administrative capacity to work in a decentralized way with community organizations in project execution directly in the field including transferring money directly to communities. These necessary trade-offs and the possibility that the other sectoral agencies were not in a position to directly support non-productive subprojects were not highlighted from the outset in the design of the project. From this perspective the design of the project created some tension in the implementing agency as to what to favor. As a result, a decision was made early on in project implementation by both the Bank and the Borrower that the project would directly support community execution of both productive and social infrastructure types of subprojects defined as priorities by the communities. In retrospect it seems that FUSARD could have been designed as a separate component versus subcomponent in order to enhance its institutional role as it financed subprojects from both the SRD and BC Components. - 4 - Project design considered the relevant lessons learned from previous Bank operations in the sectors, incorporating them into each of the components. Specifically, lessons learned included in project design were: i) activities to strengthen community organization and establishment of Sustainable Rural Development Committees (SDCs); ii) piloting of a participatory planning methodology to assist communities to identify, prioritize, prepare and execute community investments improving ownership and sustainability of subprojects; iii) training activities to strengthen community organization and participatory planning; iv) strengthening and supporting community capacity, i.e. building social and human capital and assets, to execute subprojects identified as high priority development initiatives of the communities; v) technical support for investment planning and execution; vi) establishment of an investment fund to finance high priority community rural investments ensuring poor people access to financial and technical resources, to improve small farmer social and productive infrastructure and production; v) biodiversity capacity building, research, planning, conservation and sustainable use and investments. 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective: The overall outcome of the project is rated Satisfactory. The project has achieved its major development objectives. It contributed to the broad objectives of sustainable rural development, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation. The project benefited 296,434 rural dwellers (originally estimated to be 100,000) including 59,286 families in the project area of 2,028 communities and supported the creation and functioning of the 75 SDCs which facilitated successful community executed of subprojects, with the support of NGOs, as pilot interventions. The project has also established a community participatory planning and investment model that may be replicated to the rest of the Panamanian rural sector. The agriculture and environmental sectors are already taking advantage of the lessons learned, among other aspects, on: community organization, training (2,088 training events),2 participation in all the phases of the subprojects cycle, community decision-making, inclusion and empowerment of women (thirty-five percent of the Board of Directors of the SDCs are women) and youth (twenty-five percent of participants) and indigenous groups (eight of the SDCs are located in the indigenous comarca of "Ngobe Bugle"). Social capital was increased in terms of community organization, trust and creation of networks. These experiences have substantially increased the communities own human resources and physical assets. Additionally, with respects to the environment, the project facilitated the modernization and strengthening of the National Protected Areas System (SINAP) by: establishing the legal mechanisms for decentralization and management of protected areas; guidelines for developing management plans; regulations on the use and conservation of Silvestre species; training of park wardens; and, the strengthening of the local institutional capacities for shared park management. Also, an environmental awareness program was designed for children and adults to augment their understanding of the importance of conserving the protected areas and welfare that it provides the communities and thus reduce the pressure on the protected areas. Ecotourism norms were established for protected areas and infrastructure constructed (visitors centers and visitor housing). The Biodiversity Conservation component executed eighty-four subprojects of which 67 were productive and represented 83% of all subproject funds for this component. These subprojects directly benefited 12, 608 people who live within or on the perimeter of the protected areas. Similarly, institutional capacity has been developed in operational processes, such as: allocating limited financial resources, investment planning and programming, management, monitoring and control. The operational goal of building social capital through a community participatory demand driven mechanism was met. Many of the local communities were able for the first time to choose their projects, contribute in their design, co-manage and co-finance them. The project also promoted the creation of the Federation of SDCs to share and disseminate experiences through a stable and lasting association, in order to enhance - 5 - and consolidate the sustainability of the objectives of the project and facilitate the dialogue with central government institutions. In one of the few quantitative analysis of CDD projects, an Economic Sector Work study which included this project, "Does Community Participation Improve Project Outcomes, Direct Investment Cost and Project Sustainability? Experiences of Panama Small Rural Investments" showed that the community participation approach used by the project reduces direct subproject costs, improves the quality of the constructed works, contributes to the achievement of social goals and is inferred to promote long-term sustainability of the subproject. Many of the project targets were exceeded and good progress was made in the inclusion of women, youth and indigenous peoples. The first broad objective of applying "on a pilot basis, methodologies that would channel financial resources to rural communities to assist them in promoting sustainable productive systems, and thereby reduce rural poverty, the degradation of natural resources and migration" was satisfactorily achieved. The project indeed was able to channel financial resources even to the most remote communities. However, the achievement of direct sustainable productive (income generating) systems was less than expected; this was a result of the communities prioritizing social infrastructure (rural roads and bridge amount to 235 subprojects and seventy percent of the executed projects refer to some type of physical infrastructure) over productive systems (216 subprojects in productive infrastructure, 163 productive subprojects and 25 subprojects in production training). This ability of the communities to set their own priorities is in itself a result of the project achieving its overall operational objectives, which was to promote a community demand driven development, supported by a financing mechanism. This created an operational capacity at the local community level to organize, self-diagnose problems, plan activities through participatory means, seek out and negotiate assistance, and act in pursuit of resolving priority quality of life issues. The reduction in poverty as a result of the communities implementing economic and social infrastructure subprojects and productive systems (income generating) has been reflected in the communities' own assessment of their livelihoods after project completion. The communities' labor productivity and income earning potential have been improved through: the implementation of educational production farms system (GRAPAS), which have improvement daily diets; access to markets and health services (through bridges and road rehabilitation), which has increased commerce; and through the social infrastructure projects in schools, latrines and many other subprojects and activities; which have developed social capital formation. Each of these has strengthened productivity and income earning capacity among community members. However, it should be noted that there was no minimal baseline established at the onset of the project, therefore it is difficult to quantify the net effect on poverty reduction. As such, there is no information about the state of the local economy before the roads were rehabilitated or about the morbidity rate before the water systems and latrines were built. Overall migration from the Pacific Region has not reduced significantly. Though the level of migration out of the Pacific Region (i.e., Provinces of Herrera, Los Santos and Veraguas) has dropped, in comparison to the decades of the 70s and 80s, its current level is still significant. This region is characterized for its flight of poor rural peasants that migrate to the Northern regions of Darien and Bocas del Toro where colonization is significant. For instance, in 1996, in Herrera province the population growth rate was negative ­8.29% and during the last five years it has dropped to negative ­8.11%. A similar situation has been found in Veraguas Province where the population growth rate has marginally decreased from negative ­13.48 in year 1996 to negative ­13.22% in year 2000. In contrast, in Los Santos Province the growth rate has slightly increased from negative ­9.51 to negative ­9.55, in the same time period. - 6 - The second broad objective of promoting "long term sustainable use and conservation of selected priority biodiversity areas" is rated satisfactory. In order to meet this objective the project focused its efforts in 3 nine4 high priority protected areas in the Pacific Region. These areas were selected not only because the high priority biodiversity conservation purpose, but also because the high concentration of extreme poverty and, therefore, the highest risk in the unsustainable use and degradation of natural resources and their specific environmental effects. In order to reduce the pressure on the natural resources, the project created 2 SDC associated with Protected Areas (PA) that along with other 27 SAC executed a total of 84 pilot-subprojects in their areas and benefited 96 communities. The subprojects were co-financed by FUSARD. The subprojects implemented comprise a wide range of pilot subprojects, most of them in agro-forestry and the reproduction of specific wildlife species, which have contributed to reduce poverty and the degradation of natural resources. As part of the overall strategy, the National System of Protected Areas (SINAP) was strengthened with the implementation of one PA management plan. Through an extensive environmental-awareness program in cooperation with the MEDUC the project was able to reach students throughout the country. This message was sent via diverse forms of media and public events. The greatest achievement of these activities was the establishment of environmental education as one of the subjects in the schools' curriculum, benefiting all students in Panama. Main project accomplishments could be summarized by the perceptions on project impacts offered by the presidents of the SDCs. A beneficiary survey was conducted in June 2004 of the 75 Sustainable Development Committees (SDC) presidents, which shows extraordinarily positive results and their perceptions on the high sustainability of project activities. The results showed: · eighty-six percent felt that the project improved life for the community; · ninety-eight percent felt that they learned useful skills to improve their quality of life; · seventy-three percent felt that project reached its objective; · ninety-four percent felt that the specific investments the project financed were well selected; · one hundred percent were satisfied with the project and their communities involvement in it; · ninety-six percent felt that they were sufficiently consulted and were able to provide their opinions on both the selection and planning of community investments; · eighty percent felt they received sufficient technical support from the government or others for investment execution; · eighty-nine percent felt they received sufficient administrative support for contracting and management of investments; · thirty percent felt that their SDC, created by the project, could not continue financially without external support in the near future; · fifty-five percent felt they had received support from other institutions/externally to finance new subprojects; and, · sixty-five percent felt they had developed a sufficient asset base (human capital) to participate in productive income generating activities. 2. The project carried out 2,088 training events (1,975 MIDA, 113 ANAM) that benefited 54, 269 rural dwellers (51,344 MIDA, 2925 ANAM). 3. It is important to note that the activities in the biological corridor that passes through the Atlantic watershed were transferred to the Panama Atlantic Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project (PAMBC), therefore their achievement is not considered in this report. However, it may be noted that the global environment objective of the PAMBC project is to contribute to the long-term conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Panamanian portion of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. - 7 - 4. The PAs include: Montuoso, Veraguas, Isla Canas, Los Santos, La Tronosa, Isla Iguana, Taboga, Canasas. 4.2 Outputs by components: Component A: Sustainable Rural Development (MIDA). The overall achievement of this Component is rated Satisfactory. This component is composed of two subcomponents: (i) Institutional and Community Training, Organization, and Planning, and (ii) Rural Subprojects through the FUSARD. Subcomponent (i): Institutional and Community Training, Organization, and Planning. This subcomponent is rated satisfactory. This subcomponent's objectives were to provide (a) training and establish and strengthen rural organization, (b) technical assistance to rural communities in production technology development, and (c) production support. (a) Training and Rural Organization. Under the project, 75 (73 MIDA and 2 ANAM) sustainable development communities (SDCs), and 14 District (municipal) Technical Committees were created. The project was able to incorporate 2,028 communities, or 928 more communities than originally planned in the SAR. The project increased the number of communities that benefited directly to 556 from 440 original planned. The project downscaled the number of SDCs from 220 (as proposed in the SAR) to 75. The change in number of SDC was made based on the experience of the 28 SDCs established and ratified during the implementation of the Project Preparation Facility (PPF). The level of effort needed to establish and train the SDC was significant for just one community. It was decided to establish the SDC at the Corregimiento level, which on average included 8 communities. The project had a significant impact in developing local technical capacity and formation of human capital. Knowledge, skills, and attitudes of many segments of Panama's poorest rural populations have improved through training and capacity-building programs, internships (or on the job-training), and exchange of successful experiences. The project has increased the capacity of communities at the local level. Specifically, it has increased their ability to manage investment of subprojects and improved financial-administrative capacity. Because poverty, and particularly extreme poverty, is more severe in remote rural areas, building local capacity has been essential for increasing the participation of rural communities in their own development. This training was matched with subproject investments financed under the FUSARD subcomponent. 1,864 training events were financed, and 50,285 rural dwellers benefited (47,882 community members; 2,400 technical specialists). The training events were financed by NGOs (1,569 events) and by FUSARD (73 events). Of those beneficiaries trained by NGOs, 10,651 are women or 35%. The above results are greater than the SAR indicators, in which 30 technical specialists and 440 community members would be trained during the course of project implementation. Specific actions to improve family incomes and meet basic needs were 254 training events of a total number of 1,183 trainings addressed capacity building in the area of income generation (productive projects), or 21% and 35% when this number includes productive infrastructure. Training for basic needs (social infrastructure) is equivalent to 65%. Some of the changes in priorities were due to changes in community demand. As such, 797 out of 1, 334 subprojects were executed including school renovations, latrines, and SDC centers. (b) Technical assistance to rural communities in production technology development. A total of 167 productive subprojects have been carried out which support the generation of family income among the rural poor. Technical assistance in productive technology development also included non-agricultural rural activities, which generated employment for women, as was the case with the small-business garment shops. These activities contributed to increasing rural incomes by providing new opportunities (agricultural and non-agricultural) to rural dwellers and improving overall quality of life. The direct financing of small income-generating subprojects or productive subprojects, has further enhanced rural income potential. - 8 - Original indicators estimated credit for productive subprojects operations to be 1,000 micro-credit operations, while indicators for small irrigation projects were projected at 150. These operations did not receive funds from FUSARD. In contrast, the SAR projects preparation and approval of 12 subprojects in reforestation activities, while communities ended up demanding and preparing 20 subprojects. In addition, the productive workshops for technical productive subprojects, the majority non-agricultural in nature, were not contemplated in the project's original design. The results reflect the needs of rural populations, their priorities, and management and operational capacity of productive activities. The main weaknesses in technical assistance to rural communities in production technology development included: (i) productive projects that support development and change in technology showed greater emphasis on the production side; while other aspects such as marketing (demand aspects) of agricultural and agro forestry products were inadequately addressed; (ii) little emphasis was put on providing farmers with pricing policies and negotiation skills; (iii) limitations were identified in some productive subprojects with respect to availability of equipment (small investments that could be shared among members of a farm); (iv) micro-credit (support for production with respect to changes in technology) was not available through the project; and (v) to address some of the limitations it is important that beneficiaries involved in productive activities be provided with expertise in microeconomics and marketing (i.e. via Territorial Coordinators). The economic results from this activity were mixed. Some of the sustainable farms sampled had an economic rate of return of 42% to the total investment while some production modules sampled had a negative economic rate of return (Veraguas, La Canal Blanca, production module for example, had an economic rate of return of approximately negative 2%.). The mixed results may be indicative of wide differences in the capacity of those providing technical assistance (MIDA technicians, technicians hired by the community, NGOs). This lack of capacity was identified by both the ANAM and MIDA coordinating units. (c)Production support. This activity was marginally satisfactory. Production support, as proposed in the SAR was to cover the following areas: (i) marketing and agrarian commercialization; (ii) rural agro-industry; and (iii) rehabilitation of rural roads. The project financed both productive and social infrastructure. Productive infrastructure refers to physical capital that specifically supports the generation of income and commerce. These include: rehabilitation of rural roads, bridges, and fords (bridges and fords were not specifically mentioned in the SAR). Social infrastructure refers to works that address immediate social needs or benefits, including: improvement of schools, latrines, and environmental parks, among others. Project experience has shown that once communities have satisfied a minimum level of basic social and productive infrastructure and developed a minimum level of social and human capital; they start to request support for productive (income generating) investments. The project financed a total of 216 productive infrastructure subprojects, 149 productive subprojects and 25 training subprojects (organic agriculture, food processing, small-enterprise and credit access, marketing and post harvest) that benefited a total of 127,146 rural dwellers. NGOs provided 160 training and internships with resources from the subcomponent on Community Organization. This offered TA in areas such as marketing agro industry, maintenance of roads, among others. While productive subprojects had a rigorous TA component on production (15% to 20% of project costs) integrated into the overall subproject budget, these were not supported with accompanying marketing and commercialization expertise. Marketing was offered through training (although limited in comparison with TA component on production). A survey of training offered show that only 20 events (with 615 beneficiaries) were offered in marketing and commercialization of products. Buyers' directory, information on prices and markets, - 9 - identification of marketable offers, and development of master plans were not carried out by the project. With assistance from the Agricultural Marketing Institute (AMI), producers organizations were provided training in 31 field visits, 2 contracts for assistance with buying and selling, organization of 86 Sustainable Productive Farms, establishment of 34 farmers fairs (23 local, 11 municipal), facilitation of the participation of 188 organizations in the fairs, development of 3 Municipal Master Plans, design for 1 municipal public market, and trained 14 mayors in municipal agriculture planning. The SAR indicators projected more assistance in purchasing and sale contracts (total of 40 contracts), classification standards, directories per district, and general training in the area of marketing and commercialization. In practice, the role of AMI was limited to providing technical comments to investments. Aim's main weaknesses, as a public institution, included limited resources and area coverage, and lack of technical expertise to offer systematic and up-to-date information. The project has shown good results in the rehabilitation of rural roads as was originally foreseen. Approximately 502 Km of roads were rehabilitated, in contrast to the 408 Km projected in the SAR. The economic impact of road rehabilitation goes beyond the kilometers per se as it often links otherwise isolated communities and facilitates commerce. Subprojects for road rehabilitation included funds assigned for maintenance, tools, and specific TA. Project funds have gone beyond what was originally proposed in the SAR and have financed other infrastructure considered productive in nature, such as: bridges, fords, workshops (artisans, wood made supplies, etc), responding to community demand and benefiting 107,162 rural dwellers. The total demand for productive infrastructure amounted to US$4.3 M (including counterpart funds and 31% of total funds offered by FUSARD). Subcomponent (ii): Rural Subprojects through the Fund for Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development (FUSARD). This subcomponent is rated satisfactory. The objective of this subcomponent was to create a demand-driven financing mechanism for sustainable development (FUSARD) to operate in high poverty areas in the Pacific and provide matching grants to communities for activities that help reduce rural poverty, improve the quality of life, and offer alternatives for sustainable natural resources management and livelihood. The Fund assisted in establishing the following physical capital: 1,334 infrastructure, productive and natural resource management subprojects (Component's A and B ­ both MIDA and ANAM supported subprojects). These works have been achieved at unit costs, which were 5 generally lower than those supported by other agencies in the same period and in the same areas and their future maintenance has been made more sustainable due to local communities involvement. Investment and execution of funds implemented by communities reach a total of US$ 14.1 M (FUSARD committed US$10.6 M, community counterpart funding was US$3.4 M by and other sources of funding from bilateral and multilateral donors, government matching funds was US$1.1 M). These projects directly or indirectly benefited 296,434 rural dwellers living in the poorest Corregimientos in Panama. The SAR contemplated that FUSARD would finance 2,444 sub projects for US$15.5 M. The SAR proposed 2,200 productive sub projects with an average investment of US$1,300. The 148 subprojects approved under the same category represent an average investment of US$ 19,630. This makes it difficult to compare the initial projection of 2,444 sub projects with the actual number of subprojects financed at 1,334. The average subproject cost was USD$11,574 compared to the original projected US$6,342 in the SAR. Actual community counterpart funding was 24.5% compared to original projections were 21.5%. Communities favored both basic social and productive infrastructure (73% of all investments financed by FUSARD). Infrastructure projects have contributed to increase the marketability of local products as well as the productivity in human capital formation. Experience shows that new markets and productivity gains - 10 - have generally translated into greater local/rural income earning capacity. In this sense the project has indirectly enabled communities to increase their income. These results are further supported through the financing of small income-generating subprojects, or productive investments, which have increase rural potential and actual income. It can be concluded that investments such as electrification, rehabilitation of roads, and waterways will benefit the same segments of the population given the communal nature of these interventions. Communities have given these investments high priority to those projects that have a higher coverage per area. The numbers show that rural dwellers have been benefited with more than one project, although it is unclear if all the target population has been benefited. Component B: Biodiversity Conservation This component is rated Satisfactory. The key activity included under this component was the Pacific 6 Zone Protected Area Management. The environmental component was satisfactorily executed and was especially successful in the area of environmental education, public awareness campaigns, community outreach efforts, and in establishing legal and planning instruments that elicited community participation in the decentralization process of protected areas management and in strengthening the SINAP. The project utilized the synergies in the national efforts of ANAM and the Panama Atlantic Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project that augmented the impact of their educational and community participation through sustainable development subproject initiatives. On the other hand, the development of the potential for ecotourism in the protected areas was moderate. The BC Component had five subcomponents: i) Modernization of the National Protected Areas System (SINAP); ii) Strengthening of Priority Protected Areas; iii) Reduction of Pressure on Protected Areas; iv) Ecotourism Development; and, v) Subproject Financing. The ANAM team has used a varied strategy in the annual planning of the use of the component's resources: monitoring of cost tables; selection of activities consistent with objectives; and submission of detailed POAs each year for Bank no objection. In addition to this, performance and impact indicators are detailed in the SAR Annexes and Annex 1 of this ICR. For some subcomponents, unique information tools were developed which ANAM used to carry out the corresponding monitoring. Component B funds have been well used, executed and have had an important impact. Subcomponent i): Modernization of the National Protected Areas System (SINAP): This subcomponent financed various efforts to strengthen the planning of SINAP such as the preparation of management plans and annual operating plans in priority protected areas; support for updating the regulatory framework; and the design and start-up of a national training program for staff involved in the management of SINAP. As part of the regulatory framework, forest fire prevention and water monitoring and strengthening of the PAs, Law 24 of June 7 of 1995 that regulates wildlife use and management was validated and developed. The respective rules and regulation of this Law were also prepared and approved. Subcomponent ii): Strengthening of Priority Protected Areas: This subcomponent focused on six protected areas with major economic value and biological diversity, through the minimum allocation of needed infrastructure (in order to provide visitors and local inhabitants of the PA´s with appropriate settings to participate of the environmental education program established by Component BC and, thereby, enhance public visitation to these areas and increase parks revenues), equipment and maintenance for surveillance, control and protection of protected areas; and purchase of equipment for forest fire control and prevention. Five sets of equipment were put in place for forest fire protection, 25 rivers were monitored and one management plan was implemented. - 11 - Subcomponent iii): Reduction of Pressure on Protected Areas: This was carried out by means of the promotion of Sustainable Development Committees (SDCs); the establishment of an environmental education program; and the titling and demarcation of farms located on park boundaries (transferred to PRONAT). This activity included the demarcation of boundaries for two forestry reserves. The most important of these was the demarcation of 53.7 kms of boundaries of the Montuoso Forest Reserve. Also, Executive Decree No. 210 of September 20, 2,000 was approved, which allows for land titling regularization within protected areas and, as a result, 96 farming parcels received property titles to assist in the consolidation of their operations. Of particular success was the environmental education program developed in which a total of 113 training events were developed (seminars/workshops (32), workshops (24), seminars (18) community exchanges (23) and others hands on practices (16)). These activities benefited 2,925 rural dwellers. Subcomponent iv): Ecotourism Development: The project developed a regulatory frameworks and studies for: regulation on administrative concessions of protected areas; guidelines for ecotourism development in protected areas of the Azuero peninsula and Taboga Island; and diagnostic of the feasibility of providing public services in various protected areas of the Azuero peninsula and Taboga Island, for the purpose of allowing the creation of local and foreign ecotourism companies in protected areas. Subprojects promoted the improvement of tourism infrastructure managed by community groups (CDS or local cooperatives). In addition, eight visitor and environmental education centers have been built in protected areas for the purpose of increasing the services that may be provided to visitors. Of particular importance is the Tourist Center built in RVS Island Iguana. Likewise, various interpretative trails are being constructed in the project's buffer areas. However, the development of the ecotourism potential of the protected areas was moderate. In the implementation of this activity both promotion and advertisement activities received less focus, as well as limited coordination with the Panamanian Institute for Tourism (IPAT). Subcomponent v): Subproject Financing: ANAM has financed a wide range of subprojects through 29 SDCs, including its two SDCs. The Biodiversity Component has facilitated the formulation and approval of a total of 84 community Sustainable Development subprojects totaling USD$1.2 M in protected areas and directly benefiting 12,608 people, of which 4,486 were men (36%), 4,300 youth (34%), and 3,775 were women (30%). Of these, 73 subprojects are focused on environmental issues such as agro-forestry, reforestation, animal breeding, artisan fishing, environmental education, watershed management and solid waste management while the 10 remaining subprojects are concentrated on initiatives for institutional strengthening and the construction of latrines and aqueducts. An analysis of the social, environmental and economic impact of 57 of the 84 community sustainable development subprojects established that 67% and 20 % of them had high to moderate impact, respectively, in improving rural dwellers quality of life, as well as community sustainable use of natural resources in and around protected areas. Component C: Project Coordination The performance of this component is rated Satisfactory. Component C was design as a separate component due to: the project's main objectives required to work with two central government sectoral institutions (MIDA and INRENARE/ ANAM) that work fairly independently due to their specializations; a natural need to bridge these two institution through a neutral sectoral Project Coordination unit; the design took into account the Bank's experience in other projects, which points out to the institutional constraints and risks, and highlights the benefits of operating in this fashion. These reasons seemed to justify the design of the PCU as one of the project's components. However, because the technical and operational coordination council never functioned, MIDA effectively controlled the PCU and project budget including the BC Component executed by ANAM. As such, the PCU was never implemented as planned and in March 2000, MIDA, ANAM and the Bank decided to assign executing functions for Component B - 12 - exclusively to the Coordination Unit (UCP) of the Panama Atlantic Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project in ANAM and Component A to the MIDA PCU and divide the resources assigned to Component C, Project Administration between Components A and B. This allowed each institution to better achieve their component and the project objectives. The operation of each of these units in the project area was satisfactory. They executed project activities through their respective regional offices and the coordination between the technical team, at the national level, with the staff and consultants at the local level. The technical assistance for Component B was given by ANAM's technical staff through its regional offices, with the support of specialist in the ANAM PCU, as well as by technicians hired directly by communities through the community SDC. Similar arrangements were made through MIDA's technical staff in its regional offices, as was needed by the beneficiaries in their specific subprojects. Throughout project implementation, MIDA experienced problems with the financial agent, Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Development (IICA), in their timeliness of processing contracts and payments, in interfering in technical issues and changing the standard consultant contract, which had the Bank's no objection. IICA's unilaterally changed the standard consultant contract that was used for both MIDA and ANAM contracts. IICA was contractually obligated to a standard contact with Bank no objection under their contract with MIDA and ANAM and under the Bank's Guidelines. The Bank in various missions recommended the corresponding corrective actions but they were never implemented. During project implementation Component B demonstrated a high level of capacity in public relations and communication regarding accomplishments of project outcomes. Regarding Component A, MIDA executed, there had been a lack of performance communications and public relations. In the last 18 months of the project, a communications consultant was hired and communications started to marginally improve. The project had unsatisfactory to marginally satisfactory performance in monitoring and evaluation (M&E). ANAM had provided accurate and timely information on a consistent bases to the Bank but MIDA had difficultly providing timely information and most missions invested a significant amount of time mining for project implementation data. Numerous attempts to install an M&E system did not produce adequate results. M&E poor performance had been flagged various times during project implementation, and the M&E rating was downgraded a number of times when the situation deteriorated to unacceptable. Overall, the ANAM PCU enjoyed more stability throughout project implementation than the MIDA PCU because of steadiness in its own directive and because of the less frequent changes in the leadership of its main sectoral institution. During project execution, ANAM had one change in both the General Administrator and component coordinator. MIDA had four changes of ministers, and 4 component coordinators. The ANAM PCU also maintained most of its technical team while the MIDA PCU suffered changes in project personnel for political reasons. For the MIDA PCU, the last eighteen months of project execution where characterized by a high level political influence and involvement in the presidential political campaign. 5. 229 rural roads, bridges and fords, 216 schools, 197 latrines, 183 aqueducts, 127 farms, 67 SDC offices, 60 training, 40 solar panels, 30 agro-forestry, 20 productive community -infrastructure, 18 reforestation, 17 plant nurseries, 16 animal nurseries, 15 health center, 13 community production equipment, 13 training in SDC, 16 studies and pre-investment, 7 electrification, 6 others, 6 agricultural/forestry/ pasture, 6 solid waste management and installation of latrines, 6 tree nurseries, 4 urban enhancement, 4 turtle hatchery and sea farming, 3 fisheries, 3 handicrafts, 3 natural resources management, 2 power generation, 2 community transportation, 2 artisan fishing, 2 - 13 - solar energy product, and 1 playground. 6. This rating is only in reference to the Pacific Zone Protected Area Management; the Atlantic Biological Corridor is now part of an ongoing separate project and would be evaluated in a future ICR 4.3 Net Present Value/Economic rate of return: A financial analysis was carried out for 12 probable revenue-generating types of investments (timber seed processing, nurseries, lumber, coffee, fruit plantation and processing, cheese, and others) the results indicated positive rates of return that fluctuated between 13 and 24 percent. The actual results from productive projects indicate a wide variance. Some of the sustainable farms sampled had an economic rate of return of 42%, while some production modules for example had an ERR of approximately negative 2%. This mixed results may be indicative not only of differences in profitability of various investment, but also for those cases with similar productive activities, it may be due to broad differences in actual productive (and marketing) capacity of community member, as well as the quality of the technical assistance being provided. 4.4 Financial rate of return: After project completion, a sample of subprojects was taken to evaluate their actual financial rates of return. The sample examined 21 executed subprojects, used a discount rate of 12% to estimate their NPV and respective rates of return for projects with an average life expand of a twenty-year period. The random sample included subprojects of the following types: productive, environmental, and productive-infrastructure. The results of the financial evaluation have estimated that the financial internal rate of return (FIRR) of the productive and environmental subprojects yields on average an annual financial net benefit of US$19.7 per beneficiary; a financial return of US$3.87 per day per employed person and a FIRR of 6%. In contrast, it was also estimated that the same productive and environmental subprojects yield on average an annual economic net benefit of US$35.8 per beneficiary; and economic return of US$7.26 per day per employed person and an EIRR of 17%. The reason for the greater economic versus the financial net benefits is because the economic analysis by definition takes into account other factors, such as, the economic value of non monetary benefits, including free family labor, as well as the implicit economic benefit of the farming products for own consumption among farming families, as well as the implicit benefits of the subprojects on physical infrastructure, such as roads and bridges and environmental conservation subprojects which also generate substantial benefits. Comparing the FERR before and after the project it may be concluded that the actual FIRR of 6% in the sampled subprojects falls substantially below the wide range of FIRR (12.5% to 49%) that was computed as indicative for the productive subprojects during project preparation. However, for the broad project's objective, of poverty reduction, the actual EIRR of 17%, which is much greater than the FIRR and a better indicator of the subprojects' actual impact on poverty reduction. 4.5 Institutional development impact: The project's institutional development impact is rated as Substantial. The project succeeded in setting up a SDC for each of the 75 Corregimientos in the project area. Eight of these SDC are actually operating in the project's indigenous areas, and no less than one third of the SDC board members are women and youth. The subprojects implemented were chosen and co-financed directly by community members and supported by SDCs and NGOs. Not only was the project effective in building this local institutional capacity, but it also strengthened their national institutional counterparts: MIDA and ANAM. In the case of ANAM, the project contributed to the strengthening of the National Protected Areas System (NAPA) achieving tangible results in norms and regulations, information systems, area management and operations plans, staff training, infrastructure and equipment (1 executive decree, 2 CDS organized, 84 subprojects, 113 training events benefiting 2,925 people-28% women, 96 land property titles, monitoring systems in 25 rivers, 2 boundaries for forestry reserves, 5 sets of equipment for fire prevention in forests). Through MIDA's PCU, - 14 - the project executed 20 contracts with local NGOs and 8 inter-institutional agreements to technically assist the SDC in the development of their local capacities. Throughout the project's implementation these two institutions together with the SDC gained new knowledge and increased their respective technical capabilities. They also improved their ability to reach out to the poorer and more isolated communities, both technically and financially. There have been tangible institutional changes in the local and central capacities of MIDA and ANAM in terms of allocating limited financial resources and negotiating skills (including co-financing arrangements) and operational, administrative and executing capacities in the project cycle, which have led to a more effective use of human and financial resources. 5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 5.1 Factors outside the control of government or implementing agency: One major factor inside the control of government but outside the control of the implementing agencies was that during the project implementation period, Panama had two administrations. Each administration had influenced personnel changes in the project and in the contracting of NGOs and termination of their contracts. This resulted in the loss of trained and experience technical and administrative staff and caused implementation delays. It is estimated that over 30 person years worth of experience had been removed from the project for non-technical reasons. 5.2 Factors generally subject to government control: Government influenced project implementation through direct political intervention of the MIDA PCU. This influence caused implementation delays, significant at times, and resulted in US$500,000 being cancelled from the loan. These resources were to directly support community subprojects. The MIDA PCU was designed to work with 12 staff, however not every position was filled and there was relatively high rotation7 among key PCU staff. During the final year and a half of the project, a critical factor that affected project implementation was the apparent weak cooperation and support from the MIDA authorities. This lack of cooperation was seen as a reaction to Bank's procurement procedures which presented challenges to GOP's ad hoc decision to change project personnel. During this time period the Ministry was unsupportive of the project team and the MIDA PCU, chose not to sign aid memoirs, drastically reduced access to projects telecommunication8 equipment, and the fired several project team members on the closing day of a supervision mission.9 The preparation of this report was affected by the MIDA's resistance to pay wages to the already extremely weakened10 PCU's team, left to bring all the activities to a close. The establishment of the PCU was another factor subject to government control that affected project implementation. Following the common practice of creating a local team composed of consultants and not necessarily affiliated with the two main institutions (MIDA and ANAM), these consultants, generally independent of the respective ministries, were expected to work closely with them as was the case in ANAM PCU. As expected, some members the PCU's team were somewhat more stable, more politically independent, better paid, more motivated, and more insulated from changes in the government environment, 11which allowed for a more focused and experienced group of professionals. However, in MIDA, these differences resulted in frictions and jealousy from the less paid12 and equipped government counterparts, and led to a reduced willingness of cooperation by some MIDA staff. Nevertheless, despite these difficulties in coordinating with key stakeholders in the government the consultants/MIDA PCU performed well. Another less important, though relevant factor under government control was the performance of the - 15 - institution in charge of the administration of the project's financial resources. This role was given to the IICA who exhibited poor financial management. The contract between MIDA/ANAM and IICA established that the communication between these two institutions for the purposes of project execution was to be through PCU Coordinators, and not directly, in top-down fashion, from MIDA or ANAM to IICA. The minister of MIDA established a direct relationship with IICA which affected the performance of IICA in the project's financial management and slowed projected implementation. 7. In about a six-year period 29 staffs have worked for the MIDA PCU. 8. The project team was forced to use cell-phones as a result. 9. The Task Manager was later able to get them reinstated by appealing to the minister's superiors. 10. The positions for the PCU financial administrator and the accountant were vacant in the closing phase of the project, which was undoubtedly critical for project completion reporting and evaluation. 11. This is not to say that this was necessarily achieved, the project team for component A was indeed greatly affected by government inference making changes to the team. And some of the team members did have their own political agendas. However, without this insulating practice the outcome most likely would have been fairly low. 12. The PCU tended to have more specialized professional, which were better paid than their government counterparts. 5.3 Factors generally subject to implementing agency control: The implementing agencies (MIDA and ANAM) executed the project satisfactorily based on the Indicative General Plan (PIG), the Annual Operational Plans (POAs). Both MIDA and ANAM concurred that their technical specialist did not have sufficient training to undertake all the tasks that they were expected to perform. In addition, there was lack of both experience and technical expertise of some of the NGOs working in project implementation. This was especially true with the specialists working with the small-scale productive units (GRAPAS). Furthermore, despite urgings from the Bank, the MIDA team did not consistently maintain adequate records on quantitative project indicators (targets). However, this was partially a result of frequent changes in some MIDA's team members, which did not have sufficient time to both familiarize themselves with the project and learn how to monitor and maintain more adequate operations. The monitoring and evaluation component had a slow start and lacked adequate management by the MIDA PCU. It seems that the Bank's supervision missions should have been more thorough with respect to MIDA's and ANAM's actual use of performance indicators, especially on the earliest months of the project. Nevertheless, and despite these difficulties, the implementing agencies were able to exceed expectations primarily on social capital formation and social and productive infrastructure subprojects. 5.4 Costs and financing: Total actual project costs were US$41.0 million or 105% of the total project costs estimated at appraisal. The total project cost were greater than projected due to increased community counterpart contributions. Additionally, US$550,000 of the loan was cancelled from the SRD Component as it was not committed by the closing date of the project (most of these resources were allocated for subprojects). Expenditures under Component C were 35% of estimate and resources were applied to community training, organization, planning activities and subprojects and biodiversity conservation in the Pacific. Communities receiving investments grants exceeded the projections of counterpart-financing from 21.5% to 24.5%. The project's financing plan is shown in Annex 2. Counterpart funds provided by GOP amounted to US$4.5 million, or 100% of the appraisal estimate. The actual versus estimate disbursement represented a 12 to 18 month lag. Two extensions were given for a total of 24 months. 6. Sustainability - 16 - 6.1 Rationale for sustainability rating: The project's sustainability is rated as Likely. The project has three main outputs: (i) Social capital building through Sustainable Rural Development Committees (SDCs), (ii) Social physical assets in infrastructure and productive subprojects, and (iii) Environmental conservation through Education-awareness and protected areas management mechanisms. According to the MIDA PCU, approximately fifty or about 70% of the SDCs will be able to continue their operations in the future. This estimate is corroborated by the results of the survey given out to the SDCs' presidents during the ICR mission. The survey found that 68% of the Committees' presidents believe that the SDCs will continue operating after project completion. The survey also found that 55% of the SDCs have obtained additional financing from other sources different from project' funds. This ability to benefit from outside financing is vital for SDCs' sustainability. The major reasons given for the inability of some of these committees to gain financial support were: the remoteness of their communities, the lack of trained personnel, and the insufficiency of their own economic resources. However, the prospect of the SDC' sustainability will be greatly improved by the recent formation of a Confederation of SDCs. In regard to the physical infrastructure subprojects, their expected sustainability varies. One out of the six rehabilitated surveyed roads (17%) was problem free, three of them (50%) were highly susceptible to rains and two (33%) lacked the funding to maintain them. One road had an internal economic rate of return of 4% and a second sampled road the IRR was 15%. In contrast, nine out of the twelve sampled sustainable farms (75%) were problem free; the other three (25%) had some financial difficulties. Their economic rate of return was as low as 4% and as high as 26% (an average 12%) for a sample of seven sustainable farms. The Agro-forestry production modules appear to be fairly sustainable; both sampled modules had no operational problems and had an internal economic rate of return of 17% and 22% respectively. In contrast, only two out of six sampled aqueducts were free of operational problems. The latrines faired better with 5 out of the 8 sampled being free of problems. The most noteworthy of the subprojects sampled was the tortoise nursery, which was free of operational problems and had an economic rate of return of 42%. With respect to biodiversity conservation component the sustainability of the environmental education-awareness system is likely. Other than the sustainable productive subprojects, the implementing agencies worked to promote environmental awareness/education through the media, workshops and the Ministry of Education. Although there is not quantitative data, community participation both in ANAM´s protected areas management activities, public participation events, and environmental consultation committees, as well as in SDC, supports the fact that Component BC developed a successful public awareness program, which has been internalized by rural poor. The message continues to be disseminated through schools as a main component of the educational curriculum. It seems critical for the sustainability of the SDCs to find a stable financial mechanism to insure that the investments, among others, including training of local human resources, as well as the investments in social capital, are fully capitalized. Therefore, the roles of central government institution in support of the CDD approach (i.e., the SDCs) are vital. Sectoral ministries in particular, may play and important role in their support of the SDCs. Also, the SDCs coordination with the local government entities (i.e., the Corregimientos and the municipalities) is vital since they manage the local fiscal resources, including the fiscal transfers from the Finance Ministry. 6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations: It is worth noting that both MIDA's and ANAM's Project Implementation Reports have expressed some concern regarding the Sustainability of some SDCs, not with standing the fact that several of the SDC have already obtained financial funds from other sources. MIDA has streamlined technical support to the SDC - 17 - through the ministry's Rural Development Department and ANAM through the National Protected Areas Department. GOP has expressed interest in a follow-up operation and is 85% finished with the project preparation. 7. Bank and Borrower Performance Bank 7.1 Lending: The Bank's overall performance in project identification, preparation and appraisal is rated Satisfactory. The project was focused on the development needs of the most vulnerable sectors of the population and in the most sensitive areas of environmental protection and conservation. In these respects it was highly consistent with the CAS emphasis and GOP priorities on poverty alleviation and environmental protection. The CDD approach challenged the conventional approach to sectoral development, still prevalent in Panama, of a centralized top-down type of decision-making. It was a ground-braking attempt to use local human resources to identify, prioritize, decide and implement their own subprojects based on their community needs and priorities, including indigenous communities, women and youth. The willingness of the GOP (MIDA and ANAM) and local society to follow this approach was properly recognized by the identification team as a unique opportunity to address local development issues in a completely new context. Bank management recognized the unconventional aspects of the project concept and assigned the region's most qualified staff and consultants, with the emphasis on social and environmental skills. The project design and preparation moved forward with the dichotomy of a CDD approach with emphasis on productive (revenue-generating) subprojects. Nevertheless, the lessons learned from previous projects on the importance of beneficiary participation became the essence of project implementation. A Project Preparation Facility were used to finance a pilot to establish SDCs and subprojects to develop the concepts and procedures which would prove successful during project implementation. As a result project preparation took 22 months. The project followed applicable Bank safeguard policies and all financial management and procurement requirements were met. Performance indicators were designed for most activities as part of project preparation, placing emphasis on the productive (revenue generation) type of subprojects. While the appraisal correctly analyzed the issues and challenges for each component, it seems it underestimated the need for greater human resource development and a minimal level of physical infrastructure availability in order to make the productive subprojects more viable. Though the appraisal could not have foreseen all the potential constraints, the project reliance on the CDD approach for implementation, permitted it to succeed. 7.2 Supervision: The performance of the Bank is rated Satisfactory. The Bank carried out on average two supervision visits per year for a total of 12 supervision missions and two performance evaluations, one in November of 2000 and the other in January of 2003. Implementation progress was monitored on a continuing basis. Bank supervision allowed the GOP and the Bank to guide the CDD approach and assure that community investments were based on community demand and well executed. Based on the findings of these missions it was concluded that project execution was satisfactory in its progress to achieve the development objectives. Based on the project status reports (PSRs) as well as the aid memoirs, the project's financial assistance, economic performance, social performance, institutional development and social capital formation, as well as project's sustainability are all considered satisfactory or likely. - 18 - There were some inherent tensions in the project design between `targeted investments' (i.e., productive/income-generating subprojects) and a `practically open-community-demand-driven approach' that were supposed to coexist together during project implementation, despite the fact that these two types of subprojects had to compete for the same pool of financial resources. Further more, there was the assumption, that some preexisting condition regarding human resources and social capital were already in place and were sufficient to make the income-generating subprojects feasible. However, the results, despite the technical assistance and training seem to suggest that this was not the case. This tension was resolved by letting the CDD approach guide the project direction. While the SAR states that project indicators were indicative and would depend on the priorities defined in the demand-driven CAPs, an effort to respond to real community demand was made and the Borrower and the Bank agreed upon additional project indicators that reflected a more open subproject menu and to better guide technical and operational support, implementation, monitoring, supervision and project evaluation. Realism of PSR ratings was satisfactory. Supervision demonstrated weaknesses in: a) officially revising indicators (amendment on project indicators); b) ensuring an M&E system was established; and, c) improving cooperation between executing agencies. 7.3 Overall Bank performance: The overall performance of the Bank is rated satisfactory. Borrower 7.4 Preparation: The Borrower's performance in project preparation is rated Satisfactory. GOP's priority for the project and its commitment to project objectives was strong from the beginning, despite the need and associated difficulties of inter-institutional coordination between the two leading sectoral institutions, MIDA and ANAM. These two institutions played a key role in identifying the project through out an organized series of workshops to prepare an initial project proposal. Despite the inherent difficulties of inter-institutional coordination, GOP always supported a participatory preparation process. This created a sense of ownership among stakeholders, which insured the project's implementation process. These institutions selected a quality team of local consultants for preparation work. Based on the pioneering approach for Panama of a CDD type of project, it requested a PPF and undertook a series of potentially pilot subprojects to assess their financial and economic impact on poverty alleviation and environmental conservation. Project preparation also developed and evaluated the procedures for efficient community participation. These arrangements allowed for the project to get off to a reasonable start in subproject identification, prioritization and community decision-making. The model of assisting already existing farming activities to move them gradually from an infant stage of economic activity to a sort of micro-enterprise was consider as a "paternalistic" approach and therefore disregarded as an option. In contrast the approach of starting with some type of productive microenterprise, although more attractive in theory, was less viable in practice. Lastly, project preparation in dealing with the financial, procurement, social and environmental elements of the project was satisfactory. 7.5 Government implementation performance: Government's performance during implementation is rated Satisfactory. The two leading central government institutions were able to reach the most remote communities in the project area. They both were also successful in reaching indigenous communities and gave significant participation to indigenous community members, women and youth in the direction and decision-making processes of their rural SDCs. GOP successfully implemented the PPF on a reasonable time frame. Though there were significant delays - 19 - in project implementation, and changes in the leadership of the two implementing agencies, as well and changes in the PCU staff, the project's objectives, design, and components remained the same until project completion. 7.6 Implementing Agency: The PCU MIDA and PCU ANAM performance in implementation is rated Satisfactory. Management and staff shared the project vision and its emphasis in a community demand-driven development process. The PCUs complied with the Bank's Safeguard policies, and maintained accounts in its regional offices that were consolidated at headquarters and audited following Bank rules. There could have been a closer and better coordination and cooperation between the two leading institutions (MIDA and ANAM) and between the MIDA authorities and the MIDA PCU. As the latter was staffed with consultants, the MIDA PCU tried to protect its prerogatives from encroachment by the superior authority. This situation caused friction and in specific time periods it delayed project implementation. 7.7 Overall Borrower performance: The overall performance of the Borrower is rated Satisfactory. 8. Lessons Learned The project has contributed with several important lessons, as follows: · CDD projects involve a long process to create social and human capital which can be used as a basis for productive activities. This project proved that a CDD approach require years of accompaniment in order to train and coach the communities to generate social and human capital and engage actively in productive activities that will increase rural family incomes. Considering the need for a foundation of human capital as a platform for productive activities, these projects should be well thought out with the assistance of local promoters. · CDD approach creates voice for the silent poor. Due to its CDD approach, the project has resulted in communities gaining hope for a better community and better living conditions. Most importantly it has developed confidence among its residents, and a stronger interest to demand a plan for local development. It was evident in some ICR meetings with the presidents of the SDC, during the mission, that community members were not any more "the silent poor" that they were before project preparation. · Investments financed by communities increase likelihood of better subproject maintenance. From the community driven development (CDD) project approach in this project, the rural communities not only gained the know-how to implement and finance future subprojects, but most importantly, they learned to diagnose their needs and wants, set priorities and chose what to do first. Also, because the subprojects actually executed were chosen by them they have also had strong incentives to contribute to their maintenance. Furthermore, communities have also learned that demands could not automatically translate into supply, since the community together with the government both needed to take into consideration their limited financial resources. Communities, through their participation in the SDCs, have learned to differentiate their "wants" from their actual "needs". · A project designed with CDD approach should have a dynamic M&E system that will be updated as new subprojects are introduced into project implementation. In case of this project, although the project design identified a set of subprojects and associated indicators, they soon became less relevant once the type of projects selected by beneficiaries was found to be different. The project has to struggle throughout its implementation in adjusting this indicators. The project also demonstrated the critical importance of baselines, targets and indicators. Had a baseline been established, both project execution Dino Frencescutti, FAO, in his evaluation recommended the incorporation basic criteria to be used in the design of the subprojects: An effective ex-ante technical and economic evaluation; a realistic evaluation of demand; and an - 20 - evaluation of individuals, groups and institutions capacities. , reporting on its completion, and its own assessment would have been more easily facilitated. A baseline would have made it easier to gauge advancement. · It is crucial to insulate the PCU from political interference. The project demonstrated the wisdom of creating coordination units (PCU) that provided some insulation from political influence and governmental political changes. Had it not been for this insulation, the project would have suffered substantially more political interference and personnel changes than it did. This was especially true during the last year and a half of the project. · The follow-on project in preparation should have a much stronger emphasis on income generating subprojects and the marketing of their products, in areas where there has been a significant development of social and human capital and assets created by this project. · Clarify the specific role of other sectoral institutions (such as, MOP, MINSA, MEDUC, FIS) in project implementation. Both the role and institutional capacity (administrative and operational) needed to work to support community organizations (SDCs) and communities in subproject execution directly in the field need to be defined and assessed and formal commitments from each institution on their role in the project. · Design FUSARD as a separate component versus subcomponent in order to enhance its institutional role as it financed subprojects from both the SRD and BC Components. · MIDA and ANAM need to have had a higher level of technical cooperation to exploit each institutions comparative advantage in relation to support each others project activities. · A CDD approach would benefit from closer coordination with local authorities for potential fiscal support for both capital and recurrent expenditures. The former as potential local co-financing and the latter to assist in operation and maintenance of the corresponding subprojects. This relationship between local authorities and communities can be made mutually beneficial without compromising the CDD approach or the role of the local governments (i.e., the municipalities and the corregimientos). 10. Additional Information - 21 - Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix COMPONENT A: SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMPONENT: COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION (Rural Training and Rural Organization) Outcome/Impact Indicators: Projected in SAR/PAD Actual/Latest Estimate 8/04 a. Number of beneficiaries (SDC, independent 220 SDCs 75 SDCs with 8,496 Members producers or other type of beneficiaries) who have Beneficiaries: 59,286 families received strengthening from the RPNR Project. 15000 families 296,434 people 75000 people b. Relation between beneficiaries who have received strengthening and those who have submitted project proposals. - 100% c. Relation between beneficiaries who have received strengthening and those whose projects and donations or credits have been approved. - 100% d. Relation between beneficiaries who have received 20 contracts were signed with NGOs to assist strengthening and those who have undertaken 65Corregimientos/SDCs. contracts with NGOs, technical assistance service - enterprises. f. Participants per event and 71 Training Courses 1,975 training events usefulness. 51,344 participants g. Number of trained technicians and 30 Technicians/SAR The project trained in total 2400 Technicians. implementation of activities in which they have 440 Promoters/SAR 500 Community leaders. received training. 250 Community leaders. 95 MIDA Technicians. 120 MIDA Technicians. h. Family income level, labor use, net earning levels Income, earnings, labor productivity, and and satisfaction of basic needs of RPNR Project satisfaction of basic needs have increased; beneficiary families. however there is no baseline available to compare. i. Relation between women who were organized to 40% Women in SDCs 35% Women in SDCs benefit from the RPNR Project and total potential 30% young participants 25% young participants beneficiaries. j. Relation between women who have received organizational support and the number of 100% consolidated groups. k. Relation between the number of organized 40% of Committees 35% Women woman and donations or credits granted. Board of Directors 8 Indigenous SDCs with are women 162 subprojects l. Relation between the number of organized women The GOP and the Bank agreed not to implement (groups) and repayment of credits granted or revolving funds. Only counterparts and matching fulfillment of commitments related to donations. grants were used. m. Economic result of projects implemented by Highly successful (e.g. in confections and women groups. garments the financial rate of return is 31%) COMPONENT A: SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMPONENT: PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (Agricultural and Agro-forestry Production System; Mini-Irrigation; Social Reforestation) Indicator Projected in SAR/PAD Actual/Latest Estimate a. Degree of Adoption of production systems. Indicative: 1,100 productive projects; and 1,334 subprojects total, based on demand-driven 4,000 wood product plantations subject to CAPs. Of which, 163 were productive actual priorities defined in the demand-driven subprojects; 80 small farms, and 84 Community Action Plans (CAPs) environmental subprojects (of which 30 in agro-forestry and 67 productive subprojects) b. Adoption rate of key technologies. 100% in actual subprojects c. Land covered and farms adopting systems and/or 163 income-generating subprojects; 80 key technologies. productive farms; 30 agro-forestry; total number of hectares not available. d. Production per farm/systems and economic 20 Sustainable small farms with new 163 income-generating subprojects and 83 results for beneficiaries (SDC, independent technologies benefiting at least 50% of sustainable small farms, 26 community producers or other type of beneficiaries). producers didactive farms. New technologies benefiting at least 50% of producers e. Production increases per farm. - Though increases are significant in most of - 22 - them; there is no baseline to compare f. Investments carried out at the farm level. - US$3.1 million in productive subprojects, while investment in agro-forestry and tree nursing was US$0.6 million g. Number of participant beneficiaries. - Productive systems: 18,626 beneficiaries. Reforestation: 3,866 beneficiaries h. Number of beneficiaries per production and/or - MIDA's report estimates that the project as a technology system. whole, has benefited more than 296,434 people. COMPONENT A: SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMPONENT: PRODUCTION SUPPORT (Marketing; Agro-industries; Feeder Roads) Indicator Projected in SAR/PAD Actual/Latest Estimate a. Number of commercial and agro-industrial 2,000 small subprojects 1,250 non-commercial nor agro-industrial projects implemented by beneficiaries supported Population project area: Subprojects. by the RPNR Project. 75,000 inhabitants 163 Income-generating. Beneficiaries: 296, 434 b. Adoption degree of technical recommendations in - Demand-driven CAPs did not prioritized commercialization and agro-industry. agroindustry subprojects; only 6 subproject of this type were built c. Number of beneficiaries (SDCs, independent N.A. producers or other type of beneficiaries) who commercialize or have developed agro-industrial projects. d. Number of small enterprises. 6 small activities e. Increase in the volume of agro-transformed at the N.A. farm level. f. Number of participant beneficiaries. Communities 720 Beneficiaries 82,972 g. Kilometers rehabilitated. 400 Km 242 subprojects in rural road rehabilitation and bridges covered 605 Km. h. Communities and producers benefited. MIDA's report estimates that the project. as a whole, has benefited more than 296, 434 people. i. Increase in transported production. No baseline was required j. Reduction of transport costs. No baseline was required k. Irrigated area. 50 Community irrigations 181 water supply subprojects for human 100 Small irrigations. consumption were built. Though specific irrigation subprojects were not a priority, 31.5 ha were irrigated COMPONENT A: SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT (FUSARD) Indicator Projected in SAR/PAD Actual/Latest Estimate a. Grant or credit beneficiaries. 305,476 total beneficiaries b. Grant or credit women beneficiaries. 305,476 total beneficiaries of which about 35% are women c. Sub-projects financed or donated in agricultural 31.5 ha of irrigation. production systems, small irrigation works and social reforestation; area covered. d. Sub-projects financed or donated in 6 commercial agro-industrial subprojects. commercialization, agro-industry and communal infrastructure. f. Payment delay situations Credit was not requested; only matching grants were given g. Payment delay causes. No credit was given h. Revolving funds operating. None COMPONENT B: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT SUBCOMPONENTS: (i) Strengthening of the National Protected Area System (NAPAS); (ii) Strengthening of Priority Protected Areas (PAs); (iii) Buffer Zone Development; (iv) Ecotourism. Indicator Projected in SAR/PAD Actual/Latest Estimate a. Kms of PA boundaries, which are clearly and 53.7 km in el Montuoso Forest Reserve, properly demarcated. transferred to PRONAT - 23 - b. Mitigation of degradation effects in protected Exec decree No. 210 of Sept. 20th 2000, forest areas. fire prevention & water monitoring, strengthening of PAs c. Recommendations on the conservation of 2 SDCs were organized and 84 subprojects were protected areas included and executed in individual executed. production plans. 4,500 Beneficiaries d. Increases in soil surface with conservation and Soil conservation measures for 12% of 650,000 recovery measures. ha e. Increases in soil fertility, improved and N.A. recovered. f. Number of ecotourism projects implemented by 1 tourist center was built beneficiaries (SDC, independent producers or other type of beneficiaries) supported by the RPNR Project. g. Adoption rate of technical recommendations on 9 Ecotourism subprojects have been financed by ecotourism. the Atlantic Biological Corridor Project, which has benefited 15,940 people. h. Number of small ecotouristic enterprises in 1 tourist Center was built in RVS Isla Iguana by operation. the Project. Also see above. End of Outcome/Impact Indicators Output Indicators: PA RPNR ICR Output Indicators.doc - 24 - Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage of Estimate Estimate Appraisal Component US$ million US$ million 1. Sustainable Rural Development 1.1 Institutional and Community Training, Organization 7.9 11.6 14% and Planning 1.2 Fund for Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development 15.7 15.4 98% Subtotal 23.6 27 114% 2. Biodiversity Conservation 2.1 Pacific Zone Protected Area Management 0.9 2.0 250% 2.2 Atlantic Biological Corridor 10.8 10.8 100% Subtotal 11.7 12.8 109% 3. Project Coordinating Unit 3.7 1.2 35% Total Project Costs 39.0 41.0 105% Total Financing Required 39.0 41.0 105% Procurement Method1 Expenditure Category ICB NCB Other2 N.B.F. Total Cost 1. Works 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.00 1.30 (0.00) (0.20) (0.10) (0.00) (0.30) 2. Equipment 0.90 0.50 0.40 0.00 1.90 (0.30) (0.20) (0.10) (0.00) (0.60) 2. Vehicles 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.00 1.40 (0.00) (0.00) (0.90) (0.00) (0.90) 3. Consultant Services 0.00 0.00 11.10 0.00 11.10 (0.00) (0.00) (5.10) (0.00) (5.10) 4. Training 0.00 0.00 1.90 0.00 1.90 (0.00) (0.00) (1.30) (0.00) (1.30) 5. Rural Development and 0.00 0.00 15.20 0.00 15.20 Biodiversity Subproject (0.00) (0.00) (11.10) (0.00) (11.10) 6. Recurrent Costs 0.00 0.00 3.20 1.90 05.10 (0.00) (0.00) (2.00) (0.00) (2.00) 7. Project Preparation Facility 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 1.20 (0.00) (0.00) (1.20) (0.00) (1.20) Total 0.90 1.50 34.70 21.90 39.00 (0.30) (0.40) (21.80) (0.00) (22.50) 1 Procurement Method Expenditure Category ICB NCB 2 Total Cost Other N.B.F. 1. Works 0.00 119,102 162,482 0.00 0.00 - 25 - (0.00) (95,282) (132,386) (0.00) (0.00) 2. Goods 0.36 470,007 655,554 0.00 0.58 (0.36) (470,007) (534,963) (0.00) (0.4 7) 3. Services 0.00 0.00 6,767,946 0.00 14.1 4 (0.00) (0.00) (6,767,946) (0.00) (1.5 7) 4. Training 0.00 0.00 555,911 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (555,911) (0.00) (0.0 0) 5. Operating cost 0.00 0.00 5,255,633 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (944,825) (0.00) (0.0 0) 6. Auditoria 0.00 0.00 57,572 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (57,572) (0.00) (0.0 0) 7. Subproyectos 0.00 0.00 15,357,362 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (11,656,377) (0.00) 0.00 8. PPF-306 (0.0 0.00 0.00 765,794 0.00 0) (0.00) (0.00) (765,794) (0.00) 0.00 (0.00 ) Total 0.00 589,109 29,578,254 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (565,288) (21,415,774) (0.00) (0.0 0) 1/ Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Loan. All costs include contingencies. 2/ Includes civil works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of contracted staff of the project management office, training, technical assistance services, and incremental operating costs related to (i) managing the project, and (ii) re-lending project funds to local government units. Component Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest Estimate Percentage of Appraisal Bank Govt. CoF. Bank Govt. CoF. Bank Govt. CoF. 1. Sustainable Rural Development (a) - 26 - 1.1 Institutional and 5.6 2.3 0.0 7.5 4.0 0 134% 174% Community Training, Organization and Planning 1.2 Fund for Sustainable 11.6 0.8 3.4 11.7 3.7 100% 109% Agricultural and Rural Development Subtotal 17.2 3.1 3.4 19.2 4.0 3.7 112% 129% 2. Biodiversity Conservation 2.1 Pacific Zone Protected 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.7 0.4 243% 200% Area Management 2.2 Atlantic Biological 1.8 0.6 8.3 0 0.6 8.3 100% 100% Corridor Subtotal 2.5 0.8 8.3 1.7 1.0 8.3 68% 125% 100% 3. Project Coordinating Unit 2.9 0.6 0.2 1.1 .09 38% 15% TOTAL COSTS 22.5 4.5 11.9 22.0 4.89 12.0 98% 109% 101% - 27 - Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits Economic rate of return: the largest component of the project is the demand driven fund, which was expected to benefit 1,100 families. This component actually benefited 95,224 rural dwellers (about 19,000 families) living in the poorest Corregimientos of Panama. It was not possible to determine ahead of time the type and quantity of subprojects, their cost and community counterparts. However, the participatory diagnostic carried out during project preparation gave an idea of the sorts of productive investments the communities were most interested in. Financial analysis was carried out for 12 probable revenue-generating types of investments (timber seed processing, nurseries, lumber, coffee, fruit plantation and processing, cheese, and others) the results indicated positive rates of return that fluctuated between 13 and 24 percent. The results of this work are provided at the end of this annex. Actual results from productive projects indicate a wide variance. Some of the sustainable farms sampled had an economic rate of return of 42%, while some production modules for example had an ERR of approximately negative 2%. This mixed results may be indicative not only of differences in profitability of various investment, but also for those cases with similar productive activities, it may be due to broad differences in actual productive (and marketing) capacity of community member, as well as the quality of the technical assistance being provided. It should be noted that in some cases the community co-financed with up to 40% of the total investment. In balance, the ERRs on average were somewhat similar to those estimated for productive projects. However, since most of the resources actually were demanded for productive economic and social infrastructure, there are not ERRs computed for the physical and social infrastructure. Nevertheless, there is no reason to expected that the ERRs for these subprojects might have been any different from their typical rates of return, which are generally high, in particular for rural road rehabilitation, schools and latrines. The appraisal (SAR) also provided economic and financial analysis for the Biodiversity Conservation component. The SAR estimated that the environmental benefits alone would be considerable taking into account that the project would benefit 913,000 ha, which corresponds to 52% of the National Protected Areas (NAPAS) and 12% of the national territory. The biodiversity in these areas is of national, regional and global importance. Though, it was acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify the various environmental benefits, for illustrative purposes specific calculations were made for soil conservation and mangroves. The Sustainable Development area contains approximately 650,000 ha of land under agricultural activity. A conservative calculation estimated that the project would improve soil conservation measures in about 12 percent of the area. Taking a weighted average of the soil loses that can realistically be expected under the typical land uses, the project, was argued, could reduce loses by 62 percent, equivalent to 2.4 million tons of non-sustainable soil losses/year, which is valued annually at approximately $220,000 or a net present value of $1.6 million over 20 years. The Sustainable Development component area on the pacific is upriver from the largest mangroves in Panama at Golfo de Montijo and Golfo de Parrita. The SAR estimated that soil conservation and reforestation, which would reduced the level of contamination and sedimentation carried by the rivers, would protect 20% of the mangrove's area (about 7,000 ha) that would otherwise disappear, and using a low value estimate, the 20 year NPV would equal $11.4 million. It is expected that the investments in the Pacific contributed to some demographic stabilization in this area in activities that indirectly and directly contributed to soil conservation and non-deforestation, which may have contributed to capture some of the benefits discussed in the SAR. However, in this case, it also has to be discounted for the negative effects of the continuous annual lose in primary and secondary forest. However, no quantification of these two effects has been made. - 28 - EVALUACION ECONOMICA ICR PA RPNR.doc - 29 - Annex 4. Bank Inputs (a) Missions: Stage of Project Cycle No. of Persons and Specialty Performance Rating (e.g. 2 Economists, 1 FMS, etc.) Implementation Development Month/Year Count Specialty Progress Objective Identification/Preparation 12/13/94 1 Natural Resources Specialist 02/02/95 2 Natural Resources Specialists/Consultants 04/26/95 1 Natural Resources Specialist 05/27/95 1 Natural Resources Specialist 11/17/95 1 Natural Resources Specialist 02/15/96 2 Natural Resources Specialists/Consultants 03/10/96 4 Task Manager Natural Resources Specialist Environmental Specialist Project Assistant 06/10/96 3 Task Manager Environmental Economist Procurement Assistant 08/20/96 3 Task Manager Environmental Economist Procurement Assistant Appraisal/Negotiation 10/10/96 3 Task Manager Biodiversity Specialist, Social Specialist 12/12/96 2 Task Manager, Agriculturalist 01/20/97 1 Biodiversity Specialist 03/18/97 6 Task Manager Lawyer Disbursement Officer Environmental Specialist Agricultural Economist Loan Officer Supervision 11/13/1997 5 SECTOR LEADER (1); RURAL U S DEV. EXPERT (1); PROCUREMENT ASSISTANT (1); AGRICULTURIST (1); CONSULTANT (1) 06/26/1998 4 TASK MANAGER (1); S S INSITUTIONAL DEV. (1); PROCUREMENT AND DISBUR (1); PROCUREMENT (1) 10/21/1998 5 TASK MANAGER (1); S S ENVIRONMENTAL - 30 - ECONOMIS (1); PROCUREMENT (1); PROJECT MANAGEMENT (1); FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (1) 03/09/1999 6 TASK MANAGER (1); S S AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST (1); PROCUREMENT (1); PROJECT MANAGEMENT (1); ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIS (1); FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (1) 10/21/1999 4 TEAM LEADER (1); TEAM S S ASSISTANT (1); PROJECT MONITORING (1); AGRICULTURIST (1) 03/29/2000 1 TASK MANAGER (1) S S 04/01/2001 2 TASK MANAGER (1); S S PROCUREMENT (1) 06/23/2001 4 TASK MANAGER (1); S S ENGINEER (1); PARTICIPATION (1); COMMUNICATIONS (1) 06/23/2001 3 TASK MANAGER (1); S S PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST (1); ENGINEER (1) 2/14/2002 2 TASK MANAGER (2) S S 05/31/2002 8 TASK MANAGER (1); S S CONSULTANT (6); PROJECT ASSISTANT (1) 01/12/2003 12 TTL (1); NRM/MUNICIPAL ENV (1); INST. SPECIALIST (1); NRM (2); SOCIAL (1); COMMUNICATIONS (2); FMS (1); FINANCIAL ECONOMIST (1); MUNICIPAL SPEC. (1); OPERATIONS (1) 06/19/2003 1 TASK MANAGER U S 12/8/2003 1 TASK MANAGER S S ICR 06/25/2004 4 TTL (1); ECONOMIST (1); S S AG ECONOMIST (1); INSITUTIONAL SPECIALIST (1) (b) Staff: - 31 - Stage of Project Cycle Actual/Latest Estimate No. Staff weeks US$ ('000) Identification/Preparation 33 78.2 Appraisal/Negotiation 39 109.9 Supervision 107 288.7 ICR 5 13.5 Total 184 490.3 - 32 - Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components (H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible, NA=Not Applicable) Rating Macro policies H SU M N NA Sector Policies H SU M N NA Physical H SU M N NA Financial H SU M N NA Institutional Development H SU M N NA Environmental H SU M N NA Social Poverty Reduction H SU M N NA Gender H SU M N NA Other (Please specify) H SU M N NA Private sector development H SU M N NA Public sector management H SU M N NA Other (Please specify) H SU M N NA - 33 - Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory) 6.1 Bank performance Rating Lending HS S U HU Supervision HS S U HU Overall HS S U HU 6.2 Borrower performance Rating Preparation HS S U HU Government implementation performance HS S U HU Implementation agency performance HS S U HU Overall HS S U HU - 34 - Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 1. The World Bank, SAR, Rural poverty and Natural Resources Project, April 14,1997. Report No. 16090-PA. 2. Republica de Panamá, MIDA, "Informe de Evaluación Final del Proyecto. (Préstamo IBRD 41580 ­ PA). Agosto de 2004. 3. Republica de Panamá, ANAM, Informe Final de la Ejecución Técnica y Financiera de las Actividades Propuestas por el Componente B Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica del PPRRN. Junio 2004. 4. World Bank Aid Memoirs Supervision Missions and Project Status Reports. 5. World Bank, Mid-term Evaluation Reports, November 2000 and January 2003. 6. Panamá, "Does Community Participation Improve Project Outcomes, Direct Investment, Cost, and Project Sustainability? Experiences of Panama Small Rural Investments". December 17, 2003. 7. Republica de Panamá, MIDA-ANAM, "La Experiencia del Proyecto Pobreza Rural y Recursos Naturales" Panamá 1998-2002. Santiago de Veraguas 2003. 8. The World Bank. (Draft) `Panama: Second Rural Poverty and Natural Resources" (undated). 9. The World Bank, PRPNR Legal Agreement. Republica de Panamá, "Informe Final: Proyecto de Pobreza Rural y Recursos Naturales (Documento Principal). Panamá, 20 de Julio de 1966. - 35 - Additional Annex 8. Borrower Implementation Completion Report Summary REPÚBLICA DE PANAMÁ - 36 - PROYECTO: "POBREZA RURAL Y RECURSOS NATURALES" -.- PPRRN -.- INFORME DE EVALUACIÓN DEL PROYECTO (Préstamo IBRD 4158 / PAN) Informe de Evaluación Final Panamá, Noviembre - 2004 - 37 - INDICE I. RESUMEN EJECUTIVO 1 II. INTRODUCCION 3 III. JUSTIFICACIÓN DEL PROYECTO 3 IV. METODOLOGÍA DE LA EVALUACIÓN 4 V. OBJETIVOS, DISEÑO E IMPLEMENTACION 5 VI. RESULTADOS CUANTITATIVOS Y CUALITATIVOS 5 VII. FACTORES EXTERNOS QUE AFECTARON LA 7 IMPLEMENTACION VIII. EL PAPEL DEL BANCO MUNDIAL 8 IX. PAPEL DEL PRESTATARIO 8 X. ASPECTOS DE EQUIDAD DE GENERO E INDÍGENAS XI . LOGROS MAS SIGNIFICATIVOS 9 XI. CONCLUSIONES FINALES 10 XII. RECOMENDACIONES 10 I. RESUMEN EJECUTIVO Panamá, con una superficie terrestre de 75517 km² y 2.8 millones de personas, no es en esencia un país agropecuario, aunque el 38% de su población vive en áreas rurales, las cuales albergan el 64% de la población pobre del país. De acuerdo con el Informe de Desarrollo Humano del 2002, se estima que 40.5% de la población panameña vive en pobreza y 26.5% en pobreza extrema. Esta situación, expuesta geográficamente, implica que de los 68 distritos que conforman el país, 42 se ubican como pobres y donde el 40% más pobre recibe solo el 8% de la riqueza nacional. Así; para el sector rural se evidencien tres grandes problemas: i) Bajo crecimiento del sector agropecuario como principal actividad económica de las áreas rurales; ii) Alto ritmo de deterioro de los recursos naturales y del ambiente; iii) Deterioro del nivel de vida de la población campesina rural e indígena. Lo anterior determinó que, en junio de 1997, el Gobierno de Panamá, a través del Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario (MIDA) y la Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM), iniciara la puesta en marcha del Proyecto Pobreza Rural y Recursos Naturales (PPRRN), co-financiado por el Banco Internacional para la Reconstrucción y Fomento (BIRF), conocido como Banco Mundial (BM). Esta acción del Gobierno de Panamá estuvo dirigida a desarrollar y ejecutar mecanismos para promover el desarrollo rural en beneficio de las comunidades más pobres, que permitieran mejorar la calidad de vida de la población rural, con acciones, por un lado, de carácter social y, por el otro, con programas de desarrollo rural, promoviéndose, paralelamente, una cultura hacia la conservación y el manejo sostenible de los recursos naturales. - 38 - El PPRRN tuvo una ejecución de seis años, finalizando en junio 2004, luego de dos extensiones que se dieron a partir de junio del 2002. El Documento de Proyecto o Staff Appraisal Report (SAR), describe los objetivos, metas e indicadores de impacto del PPRRN. El Proyecto tiene dos componentes principales: el de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible (DRS), ejecutado por el MIDA, y el de Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica, ejecutado por la ANAM. Con respecto al Componente de DRS, éste contó con el apoyo de las Organizaciones No Gubernamentales (ONG´s) y fue ejecutado en dos etapas sucesivas: la primera comprendía la capacitación y la asistencia para la organización de las comunidades beneficiarias en Comités de Desarrollo Sostenible (CDS´s), con el objetivo de fortalecer sus capacidades de autogestión y descentralización en cuanto a la identificación, formulación y ejecución de los subproyectos productivos y sociales específicos, a través de los Planes de Acción Comunal (PAC´s). Estos Planes de Acción permitieron: · Vincular las estrategias locales con las necesidades prácticas · Intervención de los actores clave en los diferentes procesos, así como sus responsabilidades y la identificación de los mecanismos de coordinación y control que se necesitaron en la implementación. · Lograr la participación equitativa de todos los grupos sociales y culturales del área, con equidad de género, en todas las actividades del Proyecto, principalmente en la implementación de la organización comunitaria, capacitación de los actores y priorización de los subproyectos, principalmente productivo. · Lograr la articulación y complementariedad de acciones con otros programas y proyectos públicos y privados mediante la canalización de las demandas comunitarias que no estuvieran dentro del área de atención del PPRRN. La segunda etapa de ejecución del Componente DRS comprendió la asistencia técnica y el financiamiento, a través del Fondo Agrícola para el Desarrollo Rural Sostenible (FADERS), de los proyectos priorizados en los PAC´s. La UEP/DRS se estructuró en tres subcomponentes: (i) Organización y Capacitación Rural, que fortaleció la autogestión comunitaria, constituyendo un proceso clave para el éxito del Proyecto; (ii)Validación e Innovación de Aspectos Tecnológico-Productivos, que facilitó procesos y/o opciones tecnológicas para pequeñas familias y, (iii) Servicios de Apoyo a la Producción, para reforzar la base productiva mediante una mayor participación del productor en el mercado, en el procesamiento de productos y el mejoramiento de infraestructura productiva. El FADERS, si bien no estuvo estructurado como un componente, en la práctica así fue, siendo operativizado en función de la demanda de las comunidades, luego de un proceso de Planificación Estratégica Participativo (PEP) por corregimiento. Dichos subproyectos serían canalizados por la UEP/DRS, a través de los fondos no reembolsables. Contempló, además, subproyectos productivos comunitarios. Adicionalmente, los CDS´s promovieron obtención de aportes de otras fuentes. El fondo reembolsable del FADERS no se operativizó, las razones fueron diversas, principalmente producto de escepticismo en el manejo y reembolso del capital semilla. El BM en gran medida apoyo ésta decisión. Las acciones del Componente de Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica estuvieron - 39 - centradas en aplicar, sobre una base piloto, metodologías que canalizaran recursos financieros a comunidades rurales para apoyarles en la generación de sistemas productivos sostenibles y, de ésta forma, reducir la pobreza rural, el deterioro de los recursos naturales y la migración, promoviendo el uso sostenible y la conservación de las áreas protegidas. Este objetivo se llevó a cabo mediante la ejecución de los siguientes subcomponentes: (i) Modernización del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (SINAP); (ii) Fortalecimiento de las áreas protegidas; (iii) Reducción de la presión sobre las áreas protegidas; (iv) Desarrollo de ecoturismo; y (v) Subproyectos. El área de acción del PPRRN correspondió a 73 corregimientos de 14 distritos pobres de Veraguas (11), Herrera (11) y Los Santos (10). No obstante, para el caso del Componente de Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica, las acciones estaban dirigidas a aquellas comunidades ubicadas aledañas y dentro de las áreas protegidas en éstas provincias, como son: Parque Nacional Cerro Hoya, Reserva Forestal el Montuoso, Refugio de Vida Silvestre Isla Iguana, Reserva Forestal La Tronosa y Refugio de Vida Silvestre Isla Caña. También se incluyen las comunidades aledañas al Refugio de Vida Silvestre Taboga y Urabá, en la provincia de Panamá. Los resultados de la evaluación indican una ejecución satisfactoria, en el cumplimiento de los objetivos de desarrollo y el alcance de las metas operacionales, aunque se dieron limitaciones, que se reflejaron en algunos de los resultados de la implementación. Entre las limitaciones está el aspecto de los indicadores que se establecieron inicialmente en el SAR, los cuales no contaban con una línea base que permitiera medir los cambios, a partir de la implementación del PPRRN. Esto hizo necesario, en el caso del Componente A, de una reprogramación, sin que se perdiera la búsqueda de los objetivos. Pese a esta situación, destacamos los principales logros: (i) aumento de las capacidades organizativas de los CDS´s, integrando y comprometiendo a las instituciones ejecutoras y otros actores clave, potencializado así un cambio de actitud y, obteniendo también, un sentido de apropiación de las iniciativas, haciendo énfasis en el surgimiento de las redes de colaboración. Lo anterior significa que se logrado un cambio fundamental en el área de acción del Proyecto, expresado en su Capital Social, siendo este el logro más importante del PPRRN. II. INTRODUCCIÓN El PPRRN se ejecuta en las comunidades rurales de los corregimientos con el mayor índice de pobreza, principalmente en las provincias de Herrera, Veraguas y Los Santos, su costo ascendió a $ 39.0 millones, de los cuales $ 22.5 millones son financiados por el BM, más una donación de $ 8.0 millones del Fondo Mundial del Ambiente (GEF), $ 4.5 millones como aporte del Gobierno y $ 4.0 millones como aporte de las comunidades. El Proyecto, diseñado bajo los lineamientos del MIDA y la ANAM, establecidos en el documento de préstamo: IBRD 41580 - PA, se integra a las estrategias sectoriales e institucionales del Plan de Gobierno que permitían la consolidación y fortalecimiento de la sociedad rural panameña. El documento del Proyecto señala entre las metas de la implementación la mejora de las condiciones de vida de casi 75,000 personas pobres y marginadas, a través de inversiones en subproyectos priorizados por los miembros de las comunidades, así como la realización de procesos de organización y capacitación, con el fin de fortalecer las redes de colaboración, a partir de la participación de los actores locales en la solución de sus problemas. En el marco del convenio de préstamo entre el Gobierno de Panamá y el BM, es necesario - 40 - realizar una evaluación de efectos e impactos de la implementación del Proyecto. Para tal efecto, el PPRRN ha realizado la evaluación de sus componentes en forma separada. Para los resultados de esta evaluación se tuvieron en cuenta, en primer lugar el contexto en que se ejecutó el PPRRN, para luego realizar una explicación de cada uno de los propósitos y metodologías emprendidas. En otro aspecto, se realiza una síntesis del diseño e implementación de cada uno de los componentes y finalmente, se exponen resultados alcanzados, los cuales permiten identificar conclusiones y recomendaciones. III. JUSTIFICACIÓN DEL PROYECTO La visión del Proyecto se fundamenta en la interrelación de dos procesos críticos para la economía y la sociedad panameña: el empobrecimiento de la población rural y el deterioro del medio ambiente, así como la necesidad de lograr un desarrollo sostenible. Esto se lograría a través de una serie de actividades económicas, agrícolas y no agrícolas, con una participación en los mercados internos, buscando la sostenibilidad y la interacción apropiada con los recursos naturales existentes en estas zonas. 3.1. Alcance: El PPRRN es un Proyecto "piloto" que promovió el auto desarrollo sostenible de las comunidades pobres en la región central del país, a través de las siguientes acciones: · Aplicación de metodologías sencillas que permitan canalizar recursos hacia las comunidades rurales. · Asistencia en la promoción de sistemas productivas sustentables, que conlleven a reducir la pobreza rural, disminuir la degradación de los recursos naturales y evitar la migración de la población hacia los centros urbanos. · Fomento del uso sostenible de los recursos agua y suelo, así como la conservación de la diversidad biológica en las áreas de impacto del Proyecto. · Especial énfasis en el apoyo de las comunidades indígenas involucradas. · Equidad de género en las actividades del Proyecto. · Contratación de Organizaciones No gubernamentales (ONG's) para desarrollar servicios de acompañamiento en los corregimientos de cobertura (auto y cogestionarias). En este marco, el Proyecto estableció su enfoque de: Cobertura, Desarrollo Económico-Productivo y Aspectos Rurales, enmarcados dentro de estrategias de desarrollo nacional, en interrelación con las estrategias locales, ejecutándose éstos en atención a las necesidades de los contextos territoriales. 3.2. Actores Clave El Proyecto identificó 72 aliados tanto gubernamentales como no gubernamentales y de la sociedad civil, los cuales se clasificaron en cinco grupos: · Instituciones Ejecutoras: El MIDA y la ANAM, cuyo rol es servir de instancia normadora y coordinadora de las directrices de la política gubernamental, con la correspondiente asistencia técnica; · Instituciones Aliadas: Tienen el propósito de optimizar los recursos y acciones hacia las - 41 - comunidades beneficiarias del Proyecto; · Autoridades Locales: Su participación conlleva a mejorar los mecanismos de gestión y aprobación de acciones en las comunidades, expresadas en los diferentes mecanismos de gobierno local; · Sociedad Civil: Su participación se dio a través de contratación de ONG´s para realizar los procesos auto y cogestionarios con los CDS´s; y · Comités de Desarrollo Sostenibles: Los CDS se han constituido en los líderes en planificación estratégica para atender las demandas de las comunidades, siendo el resultado y el instrumento más importante de las acciones desarrolladas por el Proyecto, lo que constituye una parte importante del Capital Social desarrollado; o sea, constituyen, simultáneamente, la causa y efecto del PPRRN para la realización de los subproyectos (capital físico). IV. METODOLOGÍA DE LA EVALUACION En el caso del componente de DRS, el objetivo de la evaluación fue medir los resultados e impacto que ha generado el Proyecto durante su ejecución, con respecto a sus metas generales, mencionadas en el Plan Indicativo General (PIG) y por ende en el SAR. La evaluación se sustentó en mecanismos de control, tales como: Indicadores del SAR, percepción de Actores Clave, Revisión de POA´s y los reportes de misión del BM, dado que todos en conjunto han incidido en la determinación de los resultados cualitativos y cuantitativos. Las características del proceso metodológico utilizado para la evaluación del Componente de DRS fueron: · Valorar basándose en los objetivos e indicadores propuestos en el SAR: Se priorizaron los indicadores que a juicio del equipo técnico pudieran haber tenido importancia en función de la acción desarrollada. · Determinar la calificación de objetivos y resultados de las Metas Operativas, tomando como indicativo el marco estratégico y las actividades principales, así como las metas contempladas en el PIG. Igualmente, el taller de visión estratégica de percepciones. · Considerar todos los procesos de monitoreo y evaluación efectuados durante su ejecución por parte del MIDA, a través de sus Planes Operativos, Banco Mundial y otros actores clave (CDS´s, Instituciones aliadas, autoridades locales, etc). La escala de valoración fue: Muy Satisfactorio, Satisfactorio, Regular y Mal de satisfactorio. En el caso del componente de Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica, la evaluación se realizó a partir de la metodología que sugiere POARCA/CAPAS/AID, desarrollada por Robles y Luna, utilizando en lo posible los indicadores del SAR, todo esto desde una perspectiva cualitativa, con base a la información recopilada y, una validación realizada mediante un taller desarrollado para tal fin, el cual contó con la participación de los actores más importantes en la ejecución del componente de Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica.: Las escalas de medición establecidas fueron: Altamente Satisfactorio, Satisfactorio, Moderadamente satisfactorio, Insatisfactorio y Altamente Insatisfactorio. - 42 - V. OBJETIVOS, DISEÑO E IMPLEMENTACION Los objetivos según el SAR fueron: i) Aplicar, en forma "piloto", la metodología que canalizaría los recursos financieros a las comunidades rurales para asistir en la promoción sostenible de sistemas productivos, y así, reducir la pobreza rural, la degradación de los recursos naturales y la migración, y, ii) Promover el uso sostenible y la conservación de ciertas áreas elegidas, que son prioritarias por su diversidad biológica, haciendo énfasis en los aspectos de equidad de género y de participación de todos los grupos culturales asociados al Proyecto, entre ellos los indígenas. Luego de la implementación del Proyecto, se alcanzaron los objetivos de desarrollo en forma satisfactoria; sobre todo, el fortalecimiento de las capacidades de autogestión de las comunidades, bajo el esquema de los CDS´s. Este mecanismo permitió que las comunidades, a nivel de corregimiento, identificaran necesidades, definieran sus prioridades, elaboraran propuestas, administraran los recursos asignados, todo enmarcado en un proceso de planificación y acción participativa de las comunidades y los tomadores de decisión. El diseño del Proyecto se enfocó en dos ámbitos: i) los aspectos de la pobreza rural, y ii) los recursos naturales. Los mismos fueron muy acertados en varios aspectos: a) Buscar la coordinación y ejecución institucional e interinstitucional, a través del MIDA y ANAM; b) Considerar los procesos de planificación, administración y evaluación comunitaria en forma participativa y con responsabilidades compartidas; c) Promover las metodologías de "Aprender a hacer"; d) Impulsar la organización comunitaria como un mecanismo de consolidación de tareas y resultados; e) Impulsar un plan de capacitación de acuerdo a los actores e identificación de necesidades; f) Impulsar acciones de autoestima, liderazgo y sostenibilidad de los beneficiarios; g) Gestionar recursos de otras fuentes a través de las organizaciones comunitarias; h) Impulsar las acciones de género en todas sus manifestaciones; i) Impulsar la participación de las comunidades indígenas; k) Contratar los servicios de acompañamiento auto y cogestionarios a través de la sociedad civil, como una experiencia nueva de trabajo; i) Promover el estudio de casos como mecanismo de aprendizaje, m) Incorporar a las instituciones ejecutoras y aliadas en el proceso de asistencia técnica, n) y; Plantear propuestas tecnológicas agropecuarias en forma sencilla y apropiada al potencial de la gente marginada, entre otras. VI. RESULTADOS CUANTITATIVOS Y CUALITATIVOS El impacto más evidente del Proyecto ha sido la formación de Capital Social, evidenciado en los CDS promovidos por el componente de DRS. Durante su ejecución se conformaron 75 CDS´s, que atendieron 556 comunidades. Estos cuentan con 8496 miembros formalmente registrados (35% mujeres) y 10 CDS, con 640 miembros formales, que funcionan en áreas indígenas. La participación de mujeres y jóvenes está en el orden del 25% y 30%, respectivamente. Las relaciones con instituciones gubernamentales y la sociedad civil mejoró significativamente, lo que generó un clima de confianza y cooperación de estos sectores. En su totalidad, a través de la implementación de ambos componentes, se financiaron 1,334 subproyectos por un monto total de US$ 15.4 millones. Los subproyectos aprobados respondían a las demandas comunitarias, a través de un proceso de evaluación de - 43 - necesidades y prorización de acciones, que posteriormente eran sometidas a la evaluación y aprobación por parte del Comité de Evaluación y Aprobación del FADERS. Los subproyectos aprobados fueron ejecutados por las propias comunidades, a través de los CDS´s; organizados y capacitados por el Proyecto para ayudar a la ejecución y administración de fondos. Para realizar esta labor, el PPRRN capacitó a los 75 CDS´s en igual número de corregimientos. En cuanto a la ejecución de los subproyectos del Componente de DRS, se aprobaron 1250 subproyectos por un monto de US$ 14.283 millones, de los cuales US$ 10.902 millones son aporte del PPPRN, US$ 2.284 millones de aporte comunitario y US$ 1.096 millones de otras fuentes, beneficiando a unas 296434 personas. Para el caso del Componente de Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica se aprobaron 84 subproyectos, por un monto de US$ 1,155 millones, de los cuales US$ 770 mil son aporte del PPRRN y US$ 384 millones son aporte comunitario. Es digno destacar el aporte comunitario en los subproyectos con cerca de 16% del monto total y la gestión de recursos de otras fuentes (8%). Otra acción relevante fue el incremento del Capital Humano, a través de la capacitación (1983 eventos) que incluyó unas 51 mil personas, principalmente a los miembros de los CDS. Así; el Componente de DRS organizó 235 eventos de capacitación, en los cuales se capacitaron 10098 miembros de comunidades, incluyendo 635 técnicos y autoridades locales (miembros de los CDS, Alcaldes y Representantes de Corregimientos). Las ONG´s contratadas por el proyecto prepararon 1569 eventos de capacitación, en los cuales participaron 30296 personas. El FADERS financió 60 subproyectos de capacitación que prepararon a 8123 personas en electrificación, pesca, agroindustria y viveros. El 39% de todas las personas que recibieron capacitación fueron mujeres (16% indígenas). Los CDS han fortalecido las inversiones locales, que incluyen inversiones con recursos que fueron producto de la gestión a través otras fuentes de financiamiento, lo que representó el 24% del total. Estas gestiones son superiores a las expectativas planteadas en el documento del Proyecto (21.5%) y se puede interpretar como un resultado muy bueno, dada las características y nivel de los miembros de los CDS´s. En los subproyectos clasificados como Productivos el apalancamiento financiero alcanzó el 39.6%, gracias a la complementariedad con otros programas gubernamentales en la zona de intervención. Los subproyectos de Infraestructura muestran aportes de la comunidad y otras fuentes cercanas al 18.7% del total, y en las categorías de Fortalecimiento Financiero, Ambientales y Capacitación los aportes externos al proyecto representan, respectivamente, el 33.6%, 31.9% y el 24.4% de las inversiones totales en cada caso. Finalmente, en cuanto al Componente de DRS, los resultados de la evaluación de parte de los diferentes actores clave fueron satisfactorios, sobre todo el reconocimiento por parte de los miembros de la Federación de CDS´s. Específicamente a través de la implementación del Componente de Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica, se apoyó el desarrollo de acciones dirigidas a: · Modernización del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (SINAP), mediante el desarrollo de instrumentos para la planificación efectiva y eficaz de las áreas protegidas, por ejemplo, el plan de manejo de la Reserva Forestal El Montuoso, actualización el marco - 44 - regulatorio de la Ley 24 de 1995 de vida silvestre, fortalecimiento técnico del personal involucrado en la gestión del SINAP y establecimiento de mecanismos de coordinación intra e interinstitucional. · Fortalecimiento de áreas protegidas prioritarias, mediante la dotación de equipos de movilización y oficina; mejoramiento de infraestructuras (construcción de refugios para guardaparques -Isla Cañas-, mejoras a agencias de la ANAM -Las Minas e Isla Iguana- y la construcción de la sede de regional de Veraguas); construcción de los centros de educación ambiental de Flores (Veraguas) y Taboga (Panamá) y facilidades logísticas y operativas para el manejo de las áreas protegidas prioritarias. Bajo este subcomponente se inició el programa de monitoreo de calidad del agua en ríos de la región Pacífica. · Reducción de la presión sobre las áreas protegidas, a través de una mayor integración de las comunidades en la conservación y manejo de éstas, mediante acciones de organización comunitaria, capacitación y educación ambiental. · Ecoturismo, mediante el desarrollo de estudios de apoyo a la normativa legal para la promoción de actividades de ecoturismo en las áreas protegidas de la Península de Azuero e Isla Taboga, de bajo impacto ambiental, así como un reglamento de cconcesiones de servicios públicos en áreas protegidas. El mecanismo de ejecución fue el financiamiento de subproyectos comunitarios de ecoturismo. La evaluación final del impacto del Componente B Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica del PPRRN, se considera satisfactoria, lo que nos permite concluir que en la ejecución del Componente B del PPRRN, por parte de la ANAM como institución responsable, se cumplió con las expectativas que se establecieron en el diseño y ajustes realizados al Componente, y al Proyecto, el cual respondió a los cambios que se dieron en las condiciones sociales y políticas que incidieron en el desarrollo de sus actividades. Transcurrida la vida del Proyecto, su ejecución financiera ha sido de US$ 19.43 millones, o sea, el 97%, en cuanto al aporte externo que financia el BM, de la cual existe aún US$ 629,626.00 como saldo (junio 2004). El componente de Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica y los gastos incurridos en el PPF totalizan US$ 2.45 millones, los cuales fueron ejecutados en su totalidad. El aporte local de contrapartida nacional, que fue de US$ 4.5 millones, fue ejecutado en un 100%. VII. FACTORES EXTERNOS QUE AFECTARON LA IMPLEMENTACION Para el caso del Componente de DRS, entre los factores que incidieron en algunas actividades durante la implementación estuvo algunas diferencias en las coordinaciones entre los actores clave y el Proyecto, en gran medida por los muchos cambios del Recurso Humano de la instancia ejecutora como de las instituciones aliadas, sobre todo a partir del año 2000, lo que conllevó muchas veces a la falta de comprensión de la filosofía y metodología de trabajo del PPRRN, así como la burocratización propia de todo proyecto en ejecución, en cuanto a la toma y proceso de decisión durante el proceso de transición, como fue el caso del dualismo que se generó en la administración del recurso humano pagado por el Proyecto, pero asignado a las direcciones ejecutivas regionales del MIDA Estas limitaciones que en el conjunto de la implementación no constituyen la mayoría, fueron superadas por los actores involucrados, incidiendo en los logros de los objetivos generales y en el cumplimiento de las tareas. En el caso del componente de Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica, aunque hubo - 45 - algunos factores externos que afectaron en parte la implementación, estos se vieron superados, a través de una ejecución coordinada mediante la elaboración de planes operativos anuales, los cuales contaban con la participación directa de las Administraciones, Direcciones y la Administración General de la ANAM, logrando un consenso y coordinación efectiva para la ejecución de las actividades programadas. VIII. PAPEL DEL BANCO MUNDIAL El Banco Mundial tuvo un activo papel de supervisión, tanto en la evaluación final del Proyecto como en la intermedia. Durante todo el proceso de seguimiento dado a través de las misiones de supervisión del Banco Mundial, fue evidente, tal como consta en las ayudas memorias de las misiones, la consideración de que el Proyecto se ejecutaba satisfactoriamente. Igualmente, en la evaluación intermedia no se indicó o recomendó adecuar o cambiar el diseño; lo que posteriormente conllevó a tener un proyecto que tuvo limitaciones al no poder ser evaluado, según lo indicado en el SAR, pese a insistirse durante su finalización en ello (indicadores). En cuanto a las recomendaciones de adquisiciones, éstas fueron muy oportunas y significativas. La revisión financiera fue buena y periódica. No hay la menor duda de que el BMl dio relevancia a este Proyecto y se lo hizo saber al Gobierno Nacional. IX. El PAPEL DEL PRESTATARIO Este proyecto fue concebido en 1997 como parte de la estrategia del Gobierno Nacional, constituyéndose un proyecto insignia en la región central del país, sin embargo la estructura existente en el grupo de trabajo para establecer las líneas directrices y de gestión expresadas en el Comité Técnico Operativo no funcionó, lo que trajo como resultado un alto grado de centralización por parte del Ministro del MIDA, el cual controlaba las decisiones referidas a las partes A y C del Proyecto. A pesar de ello, la implementación de este proyecto generó una serie de lecciones que es necesario considerarlas para nuevos proyectos de desarrollo, como son: · Continuar considerando a los CDS´s como actores principal del Proyecto. · Establecer un Sistema de Seguimiento y Evaluación y su respectiva línea base desde el inicio del Proyecto. · Continuar con el proceso metodológico de "aprender a hacer", como mecanismo de gestión · Considerar el diseño técnico-económico y supervisión de los subproyectos sobre la experiencia generada en la fase I. X. ASPECTOS DE EQUIDAD DE GENERO E INDÍGENAS Para el Proyecto, las actividades con equidad de género se constituyeron en un pilar de las acciones que tenían que ser contempladas en los planes de trabajo, tanto del Proyecto como de los CDS´s, y por ende, de las ONG´s. Tanto es así que se dieron un total de 210 eventos en diferentes temas afines, con actividades centradas en las mujeres, tales como: capacitación, pasantías e intercambios de experiencias exitosas. En cuanto a la participación de las mujeres en las Juntas Directivas de los CDS`s, está en el orden del 35%, siendo algunas de ellas Presidentas y Secretarias de las mismas. Otro hecho interesante es su representación en las terceras firmas y subcomités de Subproyectos. - 46 - En cuanto a los aspectos indígenas se trabajo en el 14% de los CDS´s atendidos, donde es importante resaltar el empoderamiento de esta población con la implementación del Proyecto, destacando como resultado tangible durante la vida del Proyecto, lo siguiente: 162 subproyectos por un monto de US$ 1,5 millones, de los cuales el FADERS ha aportado: US$ 1,4 millones, la comunidad ha gestionado recursos de otras fuentes (embajadas, instituciones, autoridades), monto por US$ 12,658 y la comunidad ha aportado US$ 0.3 millones. El monto de los subproyectos indígenas representa unos 13% del total de las inversiones comunitarias aprobadas por el PPRRN. Los eventos de capacitación representan casi el 8%. XI. LOGROS MÁS SIGNIFICATIVOS Los resultados más evidentes e importantes de la ejecución del Proyecto son: · El Proyecto ha inducido un cambio cultural evidente en las comunidades rurales en el área de acción a través de 75 CDS constituidos y sus correspondientes planes de acción de mediano y corto plazo. · Las comunidades tuvieron la capacidad de organizarse. Identificar, planificar, preparar y gestionar proyectos de carácter comunitarios y productivos, con la participación de las mujeres e indígenas, tanto en su participación como dirección en los CDS´s. · El 70% de los subproyectos ejecutados fueron de tipo de infraestructura, los cuales respondían a una demanda social no resuelta en el pasado y constituyeron la plataforma para el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida y generación de ingresos. · El manejo directo de los subproyectos por parte de los beneficiarios organizados en los CDS´s, logró que las comunidades rurales se sintieran ahora actores principales de su propio desarrollo, enfrentando sus responsabilidades y desafíos comunes. · El Manejo de recursos naturales mediante la adopción de tecnologías apropiadas, donde más del 80% de todos los subproyectos financiados contienen algún componente agroforestal y todos involucraban actividades que incluían actividades dirigidas a reducir los impactos sobre el ambiente. · Elaboración de un plan de educación ambiental con su respectivo plan piloto para la Región de Azuero e Isla Taboga, como un instrumento práctico para educar a distintos usuarios, ayudado a promover un cambio de actitud sobre el manejo ambiental. · Incremento del uso sostenible y conservación de las áreas Protegidas, mediante la elaboración de planes de manejo y las directrices técnicas para elaborar planes de manejo. Adicionalmente, se construyó infraestructura, se dotó de equipos y recursos logísticos y operativos para cumplir con las labores de protección, vigilancia y control que requiere el manejo de las áreas protegidas. Otro punto importante es que el proyecto ayudó a mejorar la cultura institucional de la ANAM en relación con los usuarios de los recursos naturales, logrando mayor colaboración de éstos en el manejo de los recursos. XII. CONSIDERCIONES FINALES - 47 - El PPRRN logró alcanzar sus objetivos globales de desarrollo, lo cual es evidente en los resultados de la implementación del Proyecto, al punto que esta iniciativa ha sido muy bien acogida por la comunidad y está siendo adoptada por otras instituciones gubernamentales, lo que indica que su metodología e instrumentos de intervención son satisfactorios. Sin embargo, es necesario el fortalecimiento de la capacidad técnica, principalmente, de los funcionarios de campo, así como de las instituciones ejecutoras y acompañantes; además de la clara definición de los roles de todos y cada uno de los diferentes actores del Proyecto. Asimismo, hay que resaltar que los componentes en su diseño e implementación estuvieron claramente orientados a los sectores más necesitados. XIII. RECOMENDACIONES Se recomienda que se lleve a cabo la segunda fase, sobre la base de los lineamientos establecidos por el MIDA y la ANAM, mediante el desarrollo de mecanismos adecuados de coordinación entre ambas instituciones. El MIDA, como institución normadora y facilitadora de la política agropecuaria, recomienda tomar en consideración para futuros proyectos de desarrollo rural i) Área de cobertura, ii) Metodología, iii) Tipo de Organización, iv) Incorporación de las directrices de los Ejes estratégicos del Plan Agropecuario en el documento que sustente un nuevo proyecto, sin dejar de considerar la incorporación de la equidad de género y la participación activa y directa de los indígenas. Todo bajo la metodología de aprender a hacer, basado en la participación de los actores en la toma de decisión de lo que se quiere y puede hacer con los recursos y potencialidades existentes en las áreas de cobertura. Por su parte, la ANAM como organismo administrador de la política ambiental que debe velar porque se cumpla con la política y las normas de manejo ambiental, recomienda tomar en consideración: (i): Continuar trabajando en las mismas regiones donde se ejecutaron ambos proyectos, para consolidar en el largo plazo los logros alcanzados por el PPRRN y el CBMAP (ii) Ampliar los beneficios del Componente a otras zonas adyacentes a las seleccionadas del PPRRN y el CBMAP, para integrar la gestión del proyecto en espacios continuos; (iii) Incorporar a los gobiernos municipios y comarcales en la ejecución del Componente, creando las condiciones necesarias para que el proceso de descentralización de la gestión ambiental cuente con la participación activa de las autoridades municipales (iv) Continuar fortaleciendo a las organizaciones locales para que el capital social creado y/o fortalecido con el PPRRN y el CBMAP y las nuevas organizaciones que se fomenten con el PPRRN-CBMAP II participen en igualdad de condiciones y capacidades en la ejecución de las actividades del Proyecto; (v) Concienciar a los tomadores de decisiones al más alto nivel en la visión del CBM, mediante un amplio proceso de educación y concienciación, de forma que las decisiones sobre inversiones regionales y nacionales sean consecuentes con las normas de manejo ambiental y reducción de la pobreza que promueve el proyecto. - 48 - - 49 -