Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: ICR00005170 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT ON IDA CREDIT (IDA-51900) IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 19.5 MILLION (US$ 30 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS FOR THE DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT December 21, 2021 Urban, Resilience And Land Global Practice Latin America And Caribbean Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective {December 21, 2021}) Currency Unit = Lempira HNL 24.37 = US$1 US$ 1.4 = SDR 1 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 Regional Vice President: Carlos Felipe Jaramillo. Country Director: Michel Kerf. Regional Director: Anna Wellenstein. Practice Manager: David N. Sislen. Task Team Leader(s): Eduardo Ereno Blanchet, Horacio Cristian Terraza. ICR Main Contributor: Emma Katrine Phillips, Solmari Jazmin Huelle. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AECID Spanish International Cooperation Agency (Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo) AMHON Association of Honduran Municipalities (Asociación de Municipios de Honduras) CAH National Association of Architects (Colegio de Arquitectos de Honduras) CAPRA Central American Probabilistic Risk Assessment CAT DDO Disaster Risk Management Development Policy Loan with Catastrophe Deferred Draw Down Option CCIVS Flood Control Commission of the Sula Valley (Comisión de Control de Inundaciones del Valle de Sula) CENAOS National Center for Atmosphere, Oceanography and Seismic Studies (Centro Nacional de Estudios Atmosféricos, Oceanográficos y Sísmicos) CERC Contingency Emergency Response Component CICH National Association of Civil Engineers (Colegio de Ingenieros Civiles de Honduras) CODEL Local Committee for Emergency Response (Comité de Emergencia Local) CODEM Municipal Committee for Emergency Response (Comité de Emergencia Municipal) COMOT Municipal Land Use Committee (Comité Municipal de Ordenamiento Territorial) CONPAH Confederation of Autochthonous Peoples of Honduras (Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas de Honduras) COPECO Permanent Commission of Contingencies (Comisión Permanente de Contingencias) COSUDE Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 CPF Country Partnership Framework CPS Country Partnership Strategy DDI Disaster Deficit Index DGOT General Directorate of Territorial Planning (Dirección General de Ordenamiento Territorial) DGRH General Directorate of Water Resources (Dirección General de Recursos Hídricos) DPL Development Policy Loan DRM Disaster Risk Management EAP Emergency Action Plan ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FMA Financial Management Assessment FONAPRE National Fund for the Prevention and Response to Emergencies (Fondo Nacional de Preparación y Respuesta a Emergencias) FY Fiscal Year GDP Gross Domestic Product GNI Gross National Income GOH Government of Honduras HDI Human Development Index ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IDA International Development Association IDB Inter-American Development Bank INE National Statistical Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística) IP Property Institute (Instituto de la Propiedad) IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework IRM Immediate Response Mechanism JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency MCPTGR Characterization and Territorial Planning with Disaster Risk Management Methodology (Metodología de Caracterización y Planeamiento Territorial para la Gestión de Riesgos) MiAmbiente Secretary of State for Natural Resources and Environment (Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente) MNIGRD National Table for Promoting DRM (Mesa Nacional de Incidencia de la Gestión de Riesgos) MTR Mid-Term Review OSI International Sanitary Offices (Oficinas Sanitarias Internacionales) PATH Honduras Land Administration Program (Programa de Administración de Tierras de Honduras) PCC Project Coordination Committee PDO Project Development Objective PEM Municipal Emergency Plan (Plan de Emergencia Municipal) PIU Project Implementation Unit PMDN Natural Disaster Mitigation Project (Proyecto de Mitigación de Desastres Naturales) PMGR Municipal Disaster Risk Management Plan (Plan Municipal de Gestión de Riesgos) PMOT Municipal Land Use Plan (Plan Municipal de Ordenamiento Territorial) RENOT Territorial Planning Norms Registry (Registro Nacional de Normativas de Ordenamiento Territorial) SDHJGD Secretariat for Human Rights, Justice, Government and Decentralization (Secretaría de Derechos Humanos, Justicia, Gobernación y Descentralización) SDP Ministry of the Presidency (Secretaría de Estado del Despacho Presidencial) SDR Special Drawing Rights SE Ministry of Education (Secretaría de Educación) SEDINAFRO Ministry of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples (Secretaría de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas y Afrohondureños) SEFIN Ministry of Finance (Secretaría de Finanzas) SEIP Ministry of the Interior and Population (Secretaría del Interior y Población) SEPA Procurement Plans Execution System (Sistema de Ejecución de Planes de Adquisiciones) SEPLAN Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation (Secretaría Técnica de Planificación y Cooperación Externa) SERNA Secretary of State for Natural Resources and Environment (Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente) SIAFI System for Integrated Financial Administration (Sistema de Administración Financiera Integrada) SINAGER National System for Risk Management (Sistema Nacional de Gestión de Riesgos) SINAP National Property Administration System (Sistema Nacional de Administración de la Propiedad) SINIT National Territorial Information System (Sistema Nacional de Información Territorial) SORT Systematic Operations Risk-rating Tool SURE Unified Registry System (Sistema Unificado de Registro) TOC Theory of Change UAM Mass Attention Units (Unidades de Atención Masiva) UEPEX Special Module for Project Implementing Units with External Financing (Módulo Especial para Unidades Ejecutoras de Proyectos con Financiamiento Externo) UNAH National Autonomous University of Honduras (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras) UNDP United Nations Development Program UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction USAID United States Agency for International Development TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 6 A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL .........................................................................................................6 B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................. 12 II. OUTCOME .................................................................................................................... 15 A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs ............................................................................................................ 15 B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) ...................................................................................... 15 C. EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................................................... 20 D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING .................................................................... 21 E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 21 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 22 A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION ................................................................................... 22 B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................. 23 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 24 A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ............................................................ 24 B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ..................................................... 26 C. BANK PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 28 D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ....................................................................................... 29 E. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 29 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................... 31 ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 54 ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 56 ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 57 ANNEX 5. COMPLEMENTARY EFFICACY ANALYSIS (IMPACT EVALUATION) ............................ 74 ANNEX 6. STRUCTURAL MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY PGRD ........................... 97 ANNEX 7. BORROWER COMMENTS .................................................................................... 100 ANNEX 8. INTERVIEWS UNDERTAKEN AS PART OF ICR PREPARATION................................. 101 ANNEX 9. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ................................................................................ 104 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) DATA SHEET BASIC INFORMATION Product Information Project ID Project Name P131094 Disaster Risk Management Project Country Financing Instrument Honduras Investment Project Financing Original EA Category Revised EA Category Partial Assessment (B) Partial Assessment (B) Organizations Borrower Implementing Agency COPECO -Comision Permanente de Contingencias Republic of Honduras (COPECO) Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO The Project Development Objectives are to support Honduras to: (a) continue strengthening its capacity for integrated disaster riskmanagement at the municipal and national level; and (b) improve its capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency. Page 1 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) FINANCING Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) World Bank Financing 30,000,000 26,000,001 23,752,620 IDA-51900 Total 30,000,000 26,000,001 23,752,620 Non-World Bank Financing 0 0 0 Borrower/Recipient 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 Total Project Cost 30,000,000 26,000,001 23,752,620 KEY DATES Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing 13-Dec-2012 18-Mar-2013 16-May-2016 30-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions 22-Apr-2014 2.24 Change in Components and Cost Cancellation of Financing 02-Sep-2015 5.65 Change in Institutional Arrangements 08-Apr-2019 14.99 Change in Results Framework Change in Components and Cost Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Change in Implementation Schedule 10-Jun-2020 19.01 Change in Results Framework Change in Components and Cost Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Reallocation between Disbursement Categories 18-Dec-2020 23.37 Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Page 2 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) KEY RATINGS Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Substantial RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs Actual No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Disbursements (US$M) 01 03-Apr-2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0 02 06-Nov-2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.01 03 24-May-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.24 04 23-Dec-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.37 05 08-Jun-2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.65 06 09-Dec-2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 7.40 07 16-Jun-2016 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 8.46 08 20-Dec-2016 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 9.65 09 19-Jun-2017 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 10.61 10 06-Dec-2017 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 11.91 11 14-Jun-2018 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 12.82 12 20-Dec-2018 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 14.48 13 07-Jun-2019 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 15.35 14 19-Dec-2019 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 18.04 15 24-Jun-2020 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 19.34 16 01-Mar-2021 Satisfactory Satisfactory 23.93 Page 3 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Major Sector/Sector (%) Public Administration 21 Sub-National Government 12 Other Public Administration 9 Information and Communications Technologies 10 ICT Infrastructure 10 Transportation 9 Other Transportation 9 Water, Sanitation and Waste Management 60 Public Administration - Water, Sanitation and Waste 16 Management Other Water Supply, Sanitation and Waste 44 Management Themes Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%) Finance 25 Finance for Development 25 Disaster Risk Finance 25 Urban and Rural Development 75 Disaster Risk Management 75 Disaster Response and Recovery 25 Disaster Risk Reduction 25 Disaster Preparedness 25 Page 4 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Regional Vice President: Hasan A. Tuluy Carlos Felipe Jaramillo Country Director: Carlos Felipe Jaramillo Michel Kerf Director: Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez Anna Wellenstein Practice Manager: Anna Wellenstein David N. Sislen Enrique Pantoja, Ana Campos Eduardo Ereno Blanchet, Task Team Leader(s): Garcia Horacio Cristian Terraza Emma Katrine Alexandra ICR Contributing Author: Phillips Page 5 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL Country Context 1. At project appraisal in 2012, Honduras, a lower-middle-income country, had an estimated population of 8.6 million1, with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of US$ 1,9702. The country faced significant development challenges, with 66.5% of the households living below the poverty line and 46% in extreme poverty3, with increasing land degradation and low agricultural productivity being major drivers of Honduras' rural poverty4. Despite this, Honduras' growth outlook was positive: Honduras had experienced a moderate recovery following the 2008-2009 global economic crisis, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of 3.7% in 2010, 3.8% in 2011, and 4.1% in 20125. 2. Efforts to sustain economic growth and reduce poverty in Honduras had been hindered by the country's high vulnerability to natural hazards, including hurricanes, tropical storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes, and landslides. In 1998, the impact of Hurricane Mitch was particularly devastating, affecting 90% of the country, impacting approximately 6.2 million people, causing 7,007 deaths, and reducing the human development index (HDI) of the country67. Following this disaster, the Government recognized the importance of shifting from a response focus to one of prevention and mitigation. In 2000, the World Bank-financed Natural Disaster Mitigation Project (Proyecto de Mitigación de Desastres Naturales, PMDN, P064913) was launched to support this shift. In 2007, the World Bank approved an Additional Financing of the PMDN (P105386) to further support Honduras in its efforts in disaster risk management (DRM). Despite the success of the PMDN, poverty, urbanization, environmental degradation, and climate change continued to contribute to the country’s high vulnerability to natural hazards. Sector Context 3. By Appraisal, Honduras had taken significant steps at the national level to advance the institutional and policy framework for DRM including (i) the Honduran Permanent Commission of Contingencies (Comisión Permanente de Contingencias, COPECO), that sought to strengthen institutional capacity, prevention, recovery, and reconstruction, and (ii) the National System for Risk Management (Sistema Nacional de Gestión de Riesgos, SINAGER) law (passed in 2009) to manage Honduran policies related to mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and international humanitarian assistance. SINAGER provides the legal framework for DRM and incorporates DRM within the national development context while also promoting strong citizen participation in DRM decision-making. Furthermore, the Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation (Secretaría Técnica de Planificación y Cooperación Externa, SEPLAN), in 2009 was established to manage regional territorial planning, early warning systems, and disaster recovery. 4. During the period from 2000-2010, with support from the PMDN project, significant progress in DRM had been achieved at the municipal and community level with the roll-out of a successful participatory methodology that engaged local authorities and communities in identifying risks and preparing local plans, including Municipal Land Use Plans (Planes Municipales de Ordenamiento Territorial, PMOTs), Municipal Disaster Risk Management Plans 1 2012 Honduras Population. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=HN 2 2012 World Development Indicators database (Atlas Method). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD?name_desc=false&locations=HN 3 2012 Country Indicators. Statistics National Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE). https://www.ine.gob.hn/publicaciones/cifrasdepais/cifras%20de%20pais%202012.pdf 4 Country Partnership Strategy for the Republic of Honduras for FY2012-2014 https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/580301468282846558/honduras-country-partnership-strategy-for-the-period-fy2012-2014 5 Honduras GDP growth (annual %). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2020&locations=HN&start=2010&view=chart 6 CEPAL (1999). Honduras, evaluation of damages caused by Hurricane Mitch (evaluación de daños ocasionados por el Huracán Mitch). 7 Hurricane Mitch. A look at some thematic trends for risk reduction (Una mirada a algunas tendencias temáticas para la reducción del riesgo). https://www.preventionweb.net/files/4095_Mitch.pdf Page 6 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) (Planes Municipales de Gestión de Riesgos, PMGRs), and Municipal Emergency Plans (Planes de Emergencia Municipal, PEMs). PMOTs included land-use guidelines that informed public and private investment decisions. Additionally, national, municipal, and local level coordination and information exchange had been made more effective through the development of Municipal Committees for Emergency Response (Comités de Emergencia Municipal, CODEMs) and Local Committees for Emergency Response (Comités de Emergencia Local, CODELs). 5. Despite these advances, several gaps in the DRM sector were identified at Appraisal. These included the need to: (i) strengthen the capacity of national institutions, including COPECO, whose mandate had expanded without commensurate capacity built and budget allocation, and SEPLAN, a relatively new ministry; (ii) increase the understanding of the underlying causes of disaster risk from an environmental perspective; (iii) generate new and publicly available information on disaster risk to support decision-making to reduce risks; (iv) improve local capacity in DRM and invest in mitigation measures given the number of people living in high-risk areas; (v) adopt disaster risk financing strategies to manage fiscal vulnerability and provide rapid access to funds post-disaster; and (vi) develop risk reduction strategies that mainstream prevention and mitigation issues into key sectors such as transport, water and sanitation, and energy. Rationale for World Bank Support 6. This project was part of a historic and continuous support from the World Bank to the country’s DRM efforts, and in particular to the SINAGER and COPECO over the past 23 years. The World Bank had forged a strong partnership with Honduras following Hurricane Mitch (1998). This partnership was further strengthened through the PMDN project in 2000 as well as its additional financing in 2008, which had successful results and impact. The Government of Honduras (GoH) then requested the Disaster Risk Management Project (PGRD, being evaluated in this ICR), to further strengthen the outcomes achieved under the PMDN and address remaining gaps. The PGRD also complemented existing Bank Projects that addressed multisectoral risks, including climate, crime, violence, poverty, and social exclusion in Honduras, such as the Second Land Administration Project (PATH II, P106680), the Barrio-Ciudad Project (P088319), and the Safer Municipalities Project (P130819). The World Bank currently continues supporting COPECO and SINAGER the first Cat DDO (FY20, P172567, that has a pillar focusing on COPECO) as well as through the second Cat DDO (P177001, currently in preparation, with a pillar on the SINAGER reform, reinforcing COPECO’s central role in it). In addition to the Cat DDOs, the World Bank also approved in FY21 the Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota Emergency Recovery Project (P175977) aiming at support Honduras' response and recovery needs and strengthening institutional capacity to manage a resilient and inclusive recovery and reconstruction. Finally, in support of all these financing operations, a suite of Technical Assistances has also been extended to the GoH over the past few years (Disaster Risk Financing TA, Urban Resilience and Hydromet TA, Hands-on Implementation Support to the Emergency Recovery Project TA). Project Contribution to Country Higher-level Objectives and CPS Objectives 7. The Project was consistent with the World Bank Group (WBG)'s Country Partnership Strategy (CPS - Report No. 63370-HN) for FY2012-2014, which had three strategic objectives: (i) Improving citizen security, (ii) Expanding opportunities through reducing vulnerabilities, and (iii) Enhancing good governance. The Project contributed to the achievement of the second objective, which was related to improving fiscal management, investment climate, competitiveness, and more effective disaster risk management. It remained relevant to Pillar 3: “Reducing Vulnerabilities” of the WBG’s Country Partnership Framework (CPF) for FY16-FY20. The Project also contributed to supporting the third objective by promoting citizen participation in local planning and decision-making. In addition, the Project was aligned with Honduras’ Country Vision for 2010-2038 and the National Plan for 2010-2022, each of which contains pertinent provisions for DRM, elevating them to national laws, and recognize the link between environmental degradation, high poverty levels, and increased vulnerability to natural disasters. Specifically, the Page 7 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) National Plan includes goals and objectives to strengthen resilience, mitigate risks, and improve the DRM legal, institutional and planning frameworks, and enforcement mechanisms. The Country Vision seeks to achieve these objectives by consolidating regional development under an environmentally sustainable process. Theory of Change 8. The Project Appraisal Document (PAD) did not include a Theory of Change (ToC); however, it is possible to articulate the underpinning design logic from the stated outcomes, outputs, and activities. Figure 1 below reflects the implicit ToC The ToC considers that the Project was designed to address Honduras’ long-term objectives of strengthening the country’s resilience to natural hazards and improving the DRM legal, institutional, and planning frameworks, building off the achievements of PMDN, which had established a solid base for DRM in the country. 9. The main outcomes the project sought to achieve were (i) National-level DRM capacities strengthened, (ii) Municipal and Community-level DRM capacities strengthened, (iii) Mitigation measures implemented and functioning, and (iv) Government capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency improved. The first three outcomes would result from the interventions and outputs included in Components 1, 2, and 3; i.e., it would be achieved by strengthening DRM institutions and policy-making, enhancing coordination between central institutions and key municipal and local actors, incorporating DRM in territorial planning with a participatory methodology, implementing structural and nonstructural mitigation measures in 20 municipalities, and ensuring social inclusion, technical quality, and environmental sustainability. And the fourth outcome, “Capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an Eligible Emergency improved,” would result mainly from the interventions and outputs included in Component 5 (through the activation of the CERC to respond to eligible emergencies). Component 4 is not mentioned in the ToC because it is not part of the achievement of the project outcomes; only the project management and monitoring and evaluation were financed under this component. 10. Critical assumptions underlying the ToC materialized and contributed to project’s success, especially since the Government provided effective inter-institutional coordination, and the Municipalities and Communities gave their support to the implementation of Project activities (see Figure 1): The assumptions were: • A1. Inter-institutional coordination is adequate among relevant agencies for strengthening National-Level DRM capacities: this is a necessary condition for national strengthening and effective implementation of policies and DRM instruments. • A2. Full engagement of municipal authorities and communities in identifying, prioritizing, and supervising mitigation measures promote ownership of investments: without ownership of investments by municipal authorities and communities, sustainability of implemented measures is not possible. • A3. Community awareness of the importance of the mitigation measures and activities promotes adequate operation and maintenance of the structural mitigation measures: without community awareness, deterioration of the implemented measures is more likely. Communities also play an important role in maintenance, not only directly participating in the maintenance plans but also overseeing them. • A4. Supervision, design, and construction ensure quality controls and effective risk reduction: the quality of the structural mitigation works and their effective impact on risk reduction depend on adequate supervision, design, and construction. • A5. The municipalities have allocated budget to ensure maintenance of the structural mitigation measures: sustainability of structural measures and the risk reduction that they provide depends on the implementation of adequate maintenance plans for which budget must be allocated. Page 8 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Figure 1. Theory of Change The Project Development Objectives are: (a) continue strengthening Honduras' capacity for integrated disaster risk management at the municipal and national level; and (b) improve its capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency. Page 9 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Project Development Objectives (PDOs) 11. The Project Development Objectives are to support Honduras to: (a) continue strengthening its capacity for integrated disaster risk management at the municipal and national level; and (b) improve its capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an Eligible Emergency. The PDOs were stated consistently in the PAD and Financing Agreement. Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators 12. In this ICR, the assessment of the PDOs is organized around each outcome captured in the PDO statement and Theory of Change. Therefore, each of the outcomes linked to the PDO-Level indicators (at Appraisal8) used to assess their achievement are presented in Table 1 below: Table 1. Key Outcomes by PDO-Level Indicators9 Outcome 1: National-level DRM capacities strengthened [1] Direct project beneficiaries [Core] (specifying the percentage of female beneficiaries). PDO-Level Indicator [2] A representative sample of direct Project beneficiaries (and sampled female beneficiaries) are satisfied with COPECO's DRM Project activities [third level on a four-level scale]. Outcome 2: Municipal and Community-level DRM capacities strengthened10 [3] Participating municipalities have adopted DRM Plans (PMGRs), Land Use Plans (PMOTs) 11 and PDO-Level Indicator Emergency Plans (PEMs) based on the Project's participatory methodology. Outcome 3: Mitigation measures implemented and functioning PDO-Level Indicator [4] Mitigation measures financed by the Project are evaluated independently as technically, economically, and environmentally sound12. Outcome 4: Government capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency improved 13 PDO-Level Indicator [5] Time taken to disburse funds requested by Government for an eligible emergency. Components 13. The Project consisted of the following five components: 8 The PDO-level Indicators at Appraisal and after the five Project restructurings were similar, as described in Section B. Significant Changes During Implementation. 9 See in Annex 1, Table 1, the outcomes linked to the revised PDO-Level and Intermediate Indicators (at closing). 10 In the 2019 Restructuring, a new core PDO Level Indicator was added in this outcome: "[4] Cities with improved livability, sustainability, and/or management". 11 After the reorganization of SEPLAN, the land use plans (PMOTs) are captured under the Municipal Development Plan, which is measured separately in a new Intermediate results indicator [2.4]. 12 The word "sound" was replaced in the 2019 Restructuring for "satisfactory or above". Satisfactory is defined as achieving a level of at least 4 on a 5 level-scale. 13 The government's capacity to respond to emergencies was also improved through the institutional strengthening activities of the Project, shown in Component 2 (See the dotted line in the Theory of Change). Page 10 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) 14. Component 1: Strengthening of National-level DRM Capacities [Estimated cost US$2.20 million, Revised cost US$4.70 million (June 2020 restructuring), Actual cost14 US$4.47 million]. This Component aimed to consolidate the institutional and policy framework for DRM within territorial planning, support improved DRM coordination at the national and community level, and build the technical capacity of COPECO and SEPLAN / the General Directorate of Territorial Planning (Dirección General de Ordenamiento Territorial, DGOT). It also aimed to increase environmental sustainability and improve risk monitoring and modeling by supporting the Secretary of State for Natural Resources and Environment (Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente, MiAmbiente). These objectives were achieved inter alia through training, equipment, software, studies, a communication strategy, and the establishment of a grievance redress mechanism. 15. Component 2: Strengthening of Municipal and Community-level DRM Capacities [Estimated cost US$2.90 million, Revised cost US$4.30 million (June 2020 restructuring), Actual cost US$4.25 million]. This Component aimed to support the continued strengthening of municipal and community DRM capacity. This was achieved by providing capacity-building support to CODEMs and CODELs, promoting the participatory methodology of engaging communities in DRM, incorporating DRM in territorial planning, land use, and emergency plans, institutionalizing risk management in local planning, and improving local monitoring and early warning systems. This also was achieved through training, purchasing of equipment and software, emergency simulation exercises, studies on risk and territorial planning, the development of a DRM Geoportal, and outreach activities. 16. Component 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures [Estimated cost US$13.05 million, Revised cost US$13.70 million (June 2020 restructuring), Actual cost US$11.76 million]. This Component focused on reducing local vulnerability to natural hazards through the design and implementation of structural and nonstructural measures. The identification of the structural risk mitigation measures (i.e., physical construction such as riverbank protection and/or drainage) was through activities undertaken in Component 2. A participatory approach was adopted throughout the project cycle (design, implementation, supervision of the works). Nonstructural measures included workshops on environmental (climate change), social (gender), and technical (DRM) aspects. Nonstructural measures were prioritized for Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Descendant communities. 17. Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation [Estimated cost US$1.85 million, Revised cost US$2.77 million (June 2020 restructuring), Actual cost US$2.82 million]. This Component supported capacity building in project management and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). It covered costs associated with project administration, the hiring of firms to conduct the Baseline, Mid-Term Review, and Final Evaluation (to assess the Project's progress, as well as social, environmental, and economic impacts), audits, and oversight for the communication and gender strategies. 18. Component 5: Contingency Emergency Response Component – CERC [Estimated cost US$10.00 million, Revised cost US$0.53 million (June 2020 restructuring), Actual cost US$0.42 million]. This Component aimed to provide immediate liquidity to the Government to respond to an eligible emergency. At Appraisal, the CERC had an allocation of US$10 million, and decreased to US$6 million in 2014 per request of the government. From there, CERC funds were reallocated to Components 1, 2, 3, and 4 during the April 2019 Restructuring. The CERC was triggered twice, in June 2020 and in May 2021, for the Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota, respectively, with a total of US$0.53 million uncommitted funds. 14 The “Actual costs” referred to in this section are the budget execution as of July 31, 2021. Page 11 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) 19. Total Project Cost (Annex 3): [Estimated cost US$30.00 million, Revised cost US$26.00 million (April 2014 restructuring), Actual cost US$23.72 million (July 31, 2021)]. The Bank-financed 100% of project costs. At Appraisal, the estimated cost for all project components was SDR19.5 million (US$30.00 million equivalent). 20. Project Implementation Arrangements. The Project's implementing agency for Components 1-4 was COPECO. According to the CERC Operations Manual, the Coordinating Authority that managed Component 5 (CERC) was the Ministry of Finance (SEFIN), which is also the entity that identifies the projects where the CERC will be activated in the event of an eligible disaster or emergency. According to the two Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) -one in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and another to support the Government in the country's recovery due to the Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota-, SEFIN appointed COPECO-PGRD to implement both EAPs. A Project Implementation Unit (PIU) was established within COPECO, under a Coordinator with operational and administrative autonomy, reporting directly to the Minister-Commissioner of COPECO. The PIU administered all the Credit's resources. The Project included the following co-executing agencies: SEPLAN, MiAmbiente (former SERNA), and the Association of Honduran Municipalities (AMHON), who were part of a Project Coordinating Committee (PCC), presided by COPECO's Minister-Commissioner. B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION 21. There were five restructurings during the project life cycle. The first Restructuring (April 22, 2014) canceled US$4 million of the IDA Credit from the CERC component, which was made available to the Honduras and Nicaraguan Catastrophe Risk Insurance project (P149895). The second Restructuring (September 2, 2015) reflected the new organizational structure of the Government following the elections and a new administration15. The last three restructurings are presented in the next 2 sub-sections. Revised PDOs, Outcomes, PDO-level Indicators, and Intermediate Results Indicators (Annex 1, Table 2) 22. The PDOs and the Outcomes remained the same during the Project's life. However, there were several adjustments to the PDO-level Indicators (PDO-LI) and Intermediate Results Indicators (IRI) in the two following project restructurings. 23. To reflect the recommendations agreed during the Mid Term Review (MTR), a third Restructuring (April 8, 2019) of the project resulted in several significant changes, including a reallocation of funds from the CERC Component to all other Components, as well as a change in component costs, an extension of the closing date (first project extension of 14 months), from April 30, 2019, to June 30, 2020, and several revisions to the results framework (see below and Annex 1, Table 2): • The targets of four PDO-LI and four IRI were scaled up given the number of municipalities expected to be reached due to the extension of the closing date, such as: o [PDO-LI 1] Direct project beneficiaries were increased from 850,000 to 1,285,000. o [PDO-LI 2] The representative sample of direct project beneficiaries satisfied with COPECO's DRM Project activities increased from 70% to 85% (increasing from 70% to 85% the sample of women beneficiaries). 15 DGOT moved from SEPLAN to the Ministry of the Presidency (Secretaría de Estado del Despacho Presidencial, SDP); (ii) SERNA became MiAmbiente; and (iii) The Ministry of the Interior and Population (Secretaría del Interior y Población, SEIP) became the Secretariat for Human Rights, Justice, Government and Decentralization (Secretaría de Derechos Humanos, Justicia, Gobernación y Descentralización, SDHJGD). Page 12 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) o [PDO-LI 3] The number of participating municipalities adopting PMGRs and PEMs based on the Project's participatory methodology increased from 16 to 18.16 o [PDO-LI 5] The percentage of a representative sample of mitigation works is assessed independently as technically, economically, and environmentally satisfactory or above, increased from 85%17 to 90%. The original indicator stated: “At least 90% of mitigation measures financed by the Project are evaluated independently as technically, economically, and environmentally sound18”, which instead of evaluating 90% of all the works, it was changed to evaluate at least 90% of a representative sample of those works. However, during the MTR and final evaluation, 100% of the works were assessed. o [IRI 2.1] CODEMs and CODELs established and functioning effectively: increased from 60 to 100. o [IRI 2.2] At least 85% of sampled technical staff from municipalities rate training received under the Project as Satisfactory: increased from 70% to 85%. o [IRI 2.4] Participants in consultation activities during project implementation: increased to 14,094 (no target was added at appraisal). o [IRI 3.3] Percentage of a sampled direct beneficiaries that rate structural mitigation measures implemented as satisfactory: increased from 70% to 85%. • A new core PDO-LI was added: "[4] Cities with improved livability, sustainability, and/or management", to measure the cumulative number of cities or municipalities for which the direct interventions of the project have resulted in improvements in (a) living conditions for residents; (b) financial, economic, environmental, and/or social sustainability of the city; and/or (c) city planning, systems, and governance. • The IRI “[1.2] Environmental Management Unit operating effectively in COPECO” was deleted because its original objective was to foresee compliance with environmental protection measures in the implementation of the mitigation works, and with the creation of MiAmbiente, an environmental license was provided for each work; thus, there was no need to create an Environmental Unit in COPECO for this purpose. • Four new IRI were added to: (i) reflect the number of annual climate and meteorological reports/bulletins issued by the COPECO-CENAOS [IRI 1.2], (ii) reflect the number of municipalities with new and/or updated municipal planning or management tools with a risk management approach [IRI 2.4]; (iii) include the number of community early warning systems strengthened/rehabilitated [IRI 2.6]; and (iv) capture the results related to nonstructural mitigation measures [IRI 3.2]. • The IRI "[1.3] Seismic monitoring network established and functioning" was revised to "[1.3] Hazard- monitoring stations collecting and transmitting data”. This indicator was revised to include not only seismic but hydromet monitoring stations equipped and collecting and transmitting data. Therefore, the unit of measure changed from percentage (target 100) to number (new target: 42). • At appraisal, 60 mitigation measures were planned without clarifying the number of structural and non- structural works. Therefore, through this restructuring, the IRI “[3.1] Prioritized mitigation measures implemented” was revised to separate the targets for the implementation of 40 structural mitigation measures [IRI 3.1] and 20 non-structural mitigation measures [IRI 3.2, new indicator]. 24. Fourth Restructuring (June 10, 2020). Through this restructuring, (i) the project's closing date was extended from June 30, 2020, to December 31, 2020 (second extension of 6 months) to be able to finish the five mitigation works that were delayed by the COVID-19 shutdown, (ii) a new CERC-related Intermediate Indicator was added, and credit 16 After the reorganization of SEPLAN, the PMOT was captured under the Municipal Development Plan. Therefore, the word “PMOT” was deleted from the original indicator, and due to the 2019 Restructuring it was measured separately in a new Intermediate Results Indicator (2.4). 17 There is an error on page 18 of the PAD, as the ninth column named "End target" has 85%, and the indicator name starts with "At least 90%...". Also, the Cumulative Target Value (eighth column) is 90%. This error was corrected in the April 2019 project restructuring. 18 The word "sound" was replaced for "satisfactory or above". Satisfactory was defined as achieving a level of at least 4 on a 5 level-scale. Page 13 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) proceeds were reallocated between disbursement categories to finance CERC expenditures and revise the component costs; and (iii) the Project’s macroeconomic, institutional capacity for implementation and sustainability, and other risks were revised considering the challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 25. The Operations Manual for the CERC was updated on March 15, 2020, and received the Bank’s No Objection on March 25, 2020, and the Emergency Action Plan (EAP) dated May 8, 2020, was prepared jointly by the Ministry of Health (SESAL), COPECO and SEFIN to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. These actions established the eligibility of the emergency to trigger the CERC under the Project, and the Government requested its activation (letter dated May 14, 2020 and received on May 25, 2020) for US$ 533,124 in uncommitted funds from the Project to support the implementation of the EAP and finance activities to complement ongoing efforts in the COVID-19 pandemic response. On June 2, 2020, the Bank accepted the evidence provided in fulfillment of the conditions for withdrawal of credit proceeds to respond to the eligible emergency and approved the activation of the CERC. Therefore, through this restructuring, a new Intermediate Indicator was added: "International Sanitary Offices (Oficinas Sanitarias Internacionales – OSI) and Mass Attention Units (Unidades de Atención Masiva – UAM) prioritized for COVID-19 response supported by COPECO" to capture the key EAP activities. Other significant changes 26. The fifth and final Restructuring (December 18, 2020) extended the closing date from December 31, 2020, to June 30, 2021, following Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota, which struck the country between November 5 and 18, 2020, and resulted in delays and damage to the minor refurbishment works in the 12 selected UAMs and OSIs (planned in the June 2020 CERC activation), which were suspended by the PIU given that the tropical storms significantly affected most of them. In addition, access to the sites of the 3 remaining structural mitigation measures became difficult owing to the impact of the storms. Therefore, in order to complete the project activities mentioned, which were fully financed by the Project’s uncommitted funds, an extension of the closing date was approved. This was the third extension of the Project's closing date that entailed a cumulative extension of 26 months from the original closing date. 27. Another significant change was the shift from Moderately Satisfactory (MS) to Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU) in the Implementation Progress (IP) rating at the end of 2017 and back to MS in 2019. The IP was adversely affected by a series of events that led to a slowdown in the execution of project activities, resulting in a MU rating from December 2017 to December 2018. The MU rating was attributed to political turmoil and social unrest following the 2017 presidential elections, which impacted the activities in the Project area. Also, the project's lack of Government budget allocation significantly limited disbursements in the first three years of implementation. In 2019, the Project was progressing towards achieving the PDO, and its IP rating changed from MU to MS. Revised Components 28. The Components remained the same throughout the Project's life. Implication on the Original Theory of Change 29. The changes made to the project activities and targets did not affect the Project's underlying ToC. The Project's expected outcomes continued to be relevant, although with enhanced effects when interventions were scaled up. Page 14 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) II. OUTCOME A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating Overall Relevance rating: High 30. The PDO was aligned with the CPS for FY2012-2014 at Appraisal and remained relevant to Pillar 3: “Reducing Vulnerabilities” of the WBG’s Country Partnership Framework (CPF) for FY16-FY2019 at project closing. Pillar 3 aims to boost resilience to disasters and climate change by strengthening institutions and activities to build resilience; integrating hazard risk information in development planning decisions; improving financial response capacity in the aftermath of disasters; and strengthening capacity for integrated climate change resilience and DRM at the national and municipal level. The Project contributed directly to the institutional building of the national DRM agency, COPECO, and its National Center for Atmosphere, Oceanography and Seismic Studies (Centro Nacional de Estudios Atmosféricos, Oceanográficos y Sísmicos, CENAOS) in charge among others of producing and disseminating hydrometeorological/seismologic information. It supported the integration of disaster risk information in national and local territorial planning processes as it engaged local authorities and communities (CODEMs and CODELs) in identifying risks and preparing local plans, including PMOTs, PMGRs, and PEMs. As such, the project followed the CPS emphasis on local planning capacity building, promoting decentralization while also financing high-impact DRM measures. It also improved financial response capacity in the aftermath of disasters by foreseeing and implementing a Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC), contributing to the CPF’s pillar outcome of “Increased ability of the Government to respond to natural disasters and manage climate change resilience risks”. Finally, the catastrophic floods following the TS Eta and Iota reminded how critical Honduras’ needs to manage floods risk are. This project has demonstrated how even small mitigation measures can achieve a great impact and contribute to preserve life and assets of the country’s most exposed and vulnerable population. B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome 31. The assessment is organized around four key outcomes: (i) National-level DRM capacities strengthened, (ii) Municipal and Community-level DRM capacities strengthened, (iii) Mitigation measures implemented; and (iv) Government capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency improved. Outcome 1: National-level DRM capacities strengthened 32. The Project was successful in strengthening national institutions on DRM. The specific achievement of this outcome was measured through the PDO-level indicator 1 (Direct project beneficiaries, including a percentage of female beneficiaries) and PDO-level Indicator 2 (Representative sample of direct project beneficiaries, and sampled female beneficiaries, satisfied with COPECO's DRM Project activities). The project surpassed its targets with the project benefiting 1,343,780 people (105% of the targeted 1,285,000 beneficiaries), with 52% being female beneficiaries 19 The WBG is currently undertaking the formulation of the upcoming CPF for FY22-FY26. Page 15 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) (reaching 102% of the project target); and with 96% of sampled beneficiaries satisfied with COPECO's DRM activities (achieving 113% of the target), with 93% satisfaction from the female sample (achieving 109% of the target). 33. The achievement of this outcome can be further measured by the following results, some of which are not captured in the results framework. Institutional strengthening of the DRM agencies, including COPECO, the CENAOS and the General Directorate of Water Resources (DGRH-MiAmbiente) has resulted in a marked improvement in the forecasting and early warning information to the communities. The application of advanced technological equipment and the capacity built to use it has improved the Government’s ability to communicate risk, as well as to make decisions using adequate resolution data and information – critical for municipal and territorial planning. The incorporation of DRM in territorial planning has helped support the reduction of vulnerability in municipalities, which was achieved through the strengthening of DGOT’s capacity and improved coordination with the National Territorial Information System (Sistema Nacional de Información Territorial, SINIT), the Territorial Planning Norms Registry (Registro Nacional de Normativas de Ordenamiento Territorial, RENOT), the National Property Administration System (Sistema Nacional de Administración de la Propiedad, SINAP), and the Unified Registry System (Sistema Unificado de Registro, SURE). 34. As concluded by the impact evaluation, national-level DRM capacities were strengthened through several actions that included methodology development, and the strengthening of CENAOS and hazard monitoring. These mark a key step forward in DRM. A standard methodology for municipal development and territorial planning with a risk management approach was developed and disseminated. It constituted a starting point from which the institutions could advance jointly in developing planning instruments and ensure risk-informed decisions. The strengthening of CENAOS and the forty-two (42) hazard monitoring stations collecting and transmitting data established through the project had a high impact in building the country's capacities in hazard knowledge and early warning systems. Outcome 2: Municipal and Community-level DRM capacities strengthened 35. The Project was successful in building municipal and community capacity in DRM during implementation. This outcome was measured by the PDO-level Indicator 3 (Participating municipalities that adopted DRM Plans (PMGRs) and Emergency Plans (PEMs), based on the Project's participatory methodology and Core PDO-level Indicator 4 (Cities with improved livability, sustainability, and/or management). The project achieved its targets with 18 municipalities adopting PMGRs and PEMs (reaching 100% of the target), and 38 cities have improved livability, sustainability, and/or management because of the Project (surpassing the target at 190%). 36. The participatory methodology, which engaged local authorities and communities in identifying risks and preparing local plans, including PMGRs and PEMs, had the following positive outcomes: community understanding of risk and level of preparedness has been considerably improved20; DRM has been institutionalized into the planning activities of the decentralized institutions, with 18 municipalities adopting PMGRs and PEMs; and Units such as Cadaster, Investment, Environment, and Municipal Risk Management trained in territorial planning – and as a result, the use of PMGRs and PEMs increased the number of regulations issued by municipalities on land use and DRM; and national, municipal, and local level coordination and information exchange had been made more effective through the CODEMs and CODELs. The support provided under this component contributed to the GoH requiring all municipalities, as of 2020, through the General Budget Law, to elaborate local emergency plans to reduce and respond to climate risk, in order to access national resources. This reform was retained as one of the Prior Actions under the first Cat DDO. 20 In interviews captured in the 2020 Project Evaluation (Evaluación Final General Cualitativa del PGRD – COPECO), community members in the most vulnerable areas of El Negrito reported that as a result of the Project they had a better understanding of natural hazards, as well as the actions they need to follow, and the roles of the institutional actors supporting them, in case of an emergency. Page 16 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) 37. The project also supported the organization and restructuring of 20 CODEMs in municipalities of the Sula Valley and the organization of 205 CODELs that were equipped and received training, for a total of 225 Emergency Committees functioning effectively, surpassing the target of 100 (225%). The active participation of women in management positions reached 42% surpassing the target of 40%. Both CODEMs and CODELs are key organizational units that positively impact community resilience and response capacity. The Project provided capacity-building workshops to the CODELs on climate change, gender mainstreaming in shelter management, Community Based Early Warning Systems (CBEWS), DRM, drills, operation of seismographs, accelerographs, and hydrometeorological stations. With these activities, the Project reached 34,448 (surpassing the target of 14,094) participants, from which 14,692 (surpassing the target of 6,423) were women and 1,929 (surpassing the target of 1,000) were Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Honduran communities. The project also trained municipal technicians, who after each training were assessed about its level of satisfaction (training effectiveness, trainer, topic, methodology, and the organization of the event), in which 96% of the sampled technical staff rated the training received under the Project as Satisfactory (surpassing the target of 85%). Additionally, a geoportal was created for public access to information of all the information prepared during the implementation of the project in terms of characterization, plans, elevation models, and explanatory material. Outcome 3: Mitigation measures implemented and functioning 38. The Project was successful in building COPECO’s capacity to identify, design, and implement flood risk reduction measures in targeted municipalities during project implementation. This outcome was measured by PDO-Level Indicator 5 (A percentage of a representative sample of mitigation measures financed by the Project evaluated independently as technically, economically, and environmentally satisfactory). The project achieved its target with 100% of the mitigation works assessed independently as technically, economically, and environmentally as satisfactory (surpassing the target of at least 90% of a representative sample evaluated). 39. Reported to be the most successful component of the Project in the perception surveys of PGRD, the risk reduction mitigation measures effectively contributed to reducing the vulnerability of the communities to disaster risks in the targeted municipalities. According to interviews conducted with beneficiaries, community members who historically had suffered from flood damage now felt a "sense of security" and protection of their homes because of the mitigation works. This was corroborated by the impact evaluation, and the perception surveys21 where beneficiaries were asked to qualify their degree of satisfaction as a result of the mitigation works and training carried out by the PGRD - 97% of a representative sample of direct project beneficiaries reported satisfaction with COPECO’s DRM project activities and 97% of sampled female beneficiaries were satisfied with COPECO's DRM project activities. 40. Beyond the achievement of the related indicator, according to the final project report, there is also evidence (qualitative only, because there was no risk analysis developed) of the magnitude of the avoided losses after the interventions: "During and after Eta and Iota tropical storms, the works built by the Project met the objective of reducing vulnerability in the beneficiary communities; bridges such as those in the sector of El Sauce, Naco, Buenos Aires, and Toloa, withstood the flood, allowing the immediate rehabilitation of the communication routes after the storms, which facilitated the rescue and support work of the relief and contingency corps.” The technicians of the municipalities of Quimistán, Pimienta, and Santa Cruz de Yojoa said that “the works contributed to reducing the damage to the surrounding houses and that the canalizations of El Sauce in Colonia Los Ángeles and the community El Negrito, prevented these sectors from being flooded as usually in those areas". The beneficiaries and municipal representatives commented: "The structural mitigation measures that the project built were not affected by Eta and Iota, and most importantly, the measures met the objective of reducing vulnerability in the beneficiary and surrounding communities of the sectors where the storms passed and prevented these sectors from flooding, as was 21 Community Surveys and Quantitative Evaluation as part of the Final Evaluation, 2020. Page 17 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) traditional in those communities.22" Also, the Project Impact Evaluation mentions perception results related to estimated avoided losses caused by other disasters.23 41. It is estimated that 283,793 people benefitted directly and an estimated 489,659 people indirectly (See Annex 6) from the forty (Target: 40) structural mitigation measures implemented, with temporary employment generated for 4,571 people24. 42. Fifty-five (surpassing the target of twenty) nonstructural mitigation measures supported improved capacity for DRM at the municipal and community level, with 8,03825 people participating in the workshops that focused on building understanding and knowledge on DRM, climate change, and environmental sustainability. 43. Additionally, to enhance Project impact among the most vulnerable, nonstructural risk reduction measures, such as the introduction of CBEWS, were piloted in the Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Honduran Communities in the Project Area. COPECO established dialogue with the Confederation of Autochthonous Peoples of Honduras (CONPAH), held several workshops with the communities, and, based on a consultative process, implemented nonstructural interventions in the Tolupan and Garífuna communities based on the 2020 Indigenous Peoples Plans (IPP). In 2020, the hazard database of the Indigenous Peoples territory of Garífuna and Tolupan was added to the COPECO geoportal as part of the Natural Hazard Atlas developed for Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Honduran communities. In addition, 13 Atlases of natural hazards in the Indigenous Peoples Communities of the Sula Valley (https://www.pgrd- copeco.gob.hn/atlas-de-amenazas-naturales-en-pueblos-autoctonos-region-01-valle-de-sula/) were designed and shared with the Tolupan and Garífuna communities, each comprising of nine maps with specific information for each community, including graphic-numerical databases of basic cartography, physiography and natural resources, social aspects, vulnerability, and risks. Two animated videos were produced and disclosed to the population as educational tools on the Atlases' use and management. These activities helped improve the understanding of risk in the Indigenous People’s communities while also providing COPECO with an understanding of the needs and risks these communities face. Based on interviews conducted for this ICR, these activities were highly beneficial to the Indigenous Peoples, with evidence of increased preparedness following Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota.26 Outcome 4: Government capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency improved 44. This Project outcome was primarily measured by PDO-Level Indicator 6 (Time taken to disburse funds requested by the Government for an eligible emergency). Nevertheless, the government's capacity to respond to emergencies was also improved through the institutional strengthening activities of the Project, shown in Component 2 (See the dotted line in the Theory of Change). In the project impact evaluation and the surveys undertaken as part of this ICR, respondents confirmed that PGRD had improved the response capacity of COPECO at the municipal and local levels. 45. Considering the country’s vulnerability to disasters, the GoH requested under the original Credit an allocation for the CERC of US$ 10.0 million. During project implementation: a) the initial CERC allocation was reduced to zero by (i) canceling in April 2014 US$ 4.0 million, and (ii) reallocating the remaining amount to other project activities in the April 2019 project restructuring; b) in May 2020, the GoH requested to activate the CERC using US$ 0.53 million of project savings for the COVID-19 response (approved by the Bank on June 2, 2020); and c) on May 3, 2021, the GoH 22 2013-2021 Project Final Report (August 2021), page 46. See Figures 1 - 3, Annex 5, ICR. 23 Project Impact Evaluation (August 2020), pages 40-64, 88, 92, 93, 95, 142, 145, 147, 149, 150-151, 154, 156-161; and women, indigenous/afro-descendants, pages 69-70, 75-76. 24 PGRD Final Report, page 37 (Informe Final PGRD Periodo: 2013 -2021, COPECO). 25 PGRD Final Report, page 47 (Informe Final PGRD Periodo: 2013 -2021, COPECO). 26 See Annex 8: Interview with Project Beneficiaries: “The Project was very helpful, we learned about risk mitigation, and when ETA and IOTA hit Honduras, there was no loss of life in our community, alerts were issued to the population, due to the capacity building given to us by the project, and we alerted other neighboring communities” (El Proyecto fue de mucha ayuda, aprendimos sobre la mitigación de riesgos, y cuando vino ETA e IOTA, no hubo pérdidas de vidas en nuestra comunidad, se emitieron alertas a la población, debido a lo enseñado por el proyecto, asimismo, también alertamos a otras comunidades vecinas). Page 18 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) requested again the activation of the CERC to fund eligible activities related to the emergency responses to the Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota as well as to modify the EAP to the COVID-19 emergency response, which the WB approved on May 11, 2021, accepting the revised EAP for the COVID-19 emergency response for an amount of US$ 100,108, and to support the GoH response to the Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota for an amount of US$ 432,929. Consequently, the withdrawal condition for Category 2 was deemed lifted and to spend up to an amount of US$ 533,124. In both cases of CERC activation, it took three weeks to access the funds, which was quicker than the four- week target. Nevertheless, while both activations of the CERC were diligently done, the actual delivery of the activities took substantial time, all the more in the context of an emergency (see more details in lessons learned). Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating 46. The Project is rated High in terms of its efficacy, having met six (out of six) PDO-level indicators' targets, and fifteen (out of fifteen) Intermediate indicators’ targets have either been achieved or exceeded. 47. Beyond the achievements of all the indicators, the passage of the tropical storms Eta and Iota in November 2020 allowed to measure in real terms the improvement in the country’s disaster management capacities in particular for extreme events. After Eta and Iota, a much lower number of fatalities (99 in Honduras) were observed than in the case of Hurricane Mitch (about 5,600 in Honduras). While the 1998 hurricane and the 2020 storms are different hydrometeorological events in nature, they also have hydrological similarities as water level measurements on the ground suggested and the magnitude of the emergencies is also very much comparable. The strengthening of surveillance and early warning systems, to which the PGRD significantly contributed, can be considered as one of the key elements that have safeguarded the lives of the population. The planning and support of COPECO at local level were essential for a significantly improved response during the 2020 hurricane season. Finally, the forty structural mitigation measures reportedly avoided significant losses within the beneficiary communities. This life-saving overall improvement in the country’s emergency preparedness and response can certainly be partly attributed to the PGRD interventions. 48. It should be noted that in 2019 (before the third project restructuring that modified the results framework), only three indicators had not met the targets established at Appraisal. In addition, the indicator targets were increased to reflect the extension of the project. In 2020, before the fifth project restructuring of December, the only indicator that had not been met was [3.1] (progress: 37 works, out of 40). Despite the achievements of most indicators as of early 2020, the ISR ratings were not upgraded before the 2021 (last) ISR. An upgrade to S was considered in 2020 but in agreement with the CMU, it was not retained owing to the country's situation dealing with the COVID pandemic and the ensuing budgetary constraints. Also, the indicator that provided the greatest impact to the project and the country had not been achieved yet (structural mitigation measures). Page 19 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) C. EFFICIENCY Assessment of Efficiency and Rating: Substantial 49. Economic Analysis. A standard ex-post economic analysis was conducted for the ICR (Annex 4). The analysis was based on actual project outputs, project costs, and estimates of the likely impact of the forty (40) structural mitigation measures built. The analysis shows that the Project is profitable with an economic Net Present Value (NPV) of US$ 3.4 million and an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 21 percent. The economic benefits of the Project were US$19.3 million, with a Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio of 1.21. It can thus be concluded that the Project's economic benefits exceed the associated costs by US$8.5 million, NPV by US$1.5 million, and IRR by 8.11%, compared with the ex-ante economic analysis. 50. The ex-post economic analysis was developed under the same methodology used in the ex-ante assessment, based on the following criteria: 1) The same opportunity cost of capital of 10%, and 2) All costs and benefits estimates were projected to 25 years, which was the return period used for the structural mitigation works27. 51. The forty structural mitigation works built were rated "high" due to a Benefit/Cost ratio greater than 1, a positive NPV, and an IRR above the applied discount rate (10%). See Annex 4, Table 2 for details on the results of the Economic indicators for each structural mitigation measure. 52. Financial Evaluation. During implementation, several financial changes were made that did not affect the Project objectives, such as: a) The first Project Restructuring (2014) canceled US$ 4 million of the IDA Credit from the CERC component (Balance: US$ 26 million), b) Due to the Mid-Term Review (2017), a third Project Restructuring (2019) resulted in several significant changes, including a reallocation of funds from the CERC Component to all other Components, as well as a change in component costs, and c) On June 2, 2020, a first CERC activation was requested and approved by the Association to support the Recipient’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic for an amount of US$ 533,124.0028. 53. As of July 31, 2021, the Project had a good financial performance, which presents a financial execution of US$ 23,715,204.00, or 99% regarding the disbursed funds (Total disbursed: US$ 23,926,796.0029), and 91% of the total loan of US$ 26 million. As of July 31, 2021, the remaining balance was US$ 211,592.00 (non-disbursed funds), distributed as follows: US$ 114,654.00 (Component 5) and US$ 96,938.00 (Special Account, Components 1 to 4). 54. Sensitivity analysis. The economic indicators were evaluated under two scenarios of assumptions about costs and benefits. The first scenario considered a reduction of the estimated benefits by 20%. The second, increased the costs by 20%. The results showed that the Project is more susceptible to benefit decreases than increased costs (see Table 10, Annex 4). 27 See costs and benefits criteria used in the Ex-ante economic analysis, on pages 75 and 76, PAD. 28 The scope of this first CERC was to assess and rehabilitate 8 local health centers. In November 2020, the Eta and Iota Tropical Cyclones heavily affected most of these health centers; therefore, the identified scope of the CERC work became obsolete, which led the GoH to cancel these activities. The GoH letter request (dated May 3, 2021) included a new EAP in response to the Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota and a revised EAP in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cumulatively in both EAPs, the estimate for Bank financing needed was US$533,037. The amount of US$533,124 was already reallocated from Category (1) to Category (2) of the disbursement table under the CERC, activated for the COVID-19 response. This amount was also disbursed to the Recipient and was available at the PGRD’s Designated Account when the new request of CERC activation was submitted. On May 11, 2021 the Bank approved the activation of the CERC to assign uncommitted funds under Category 2 in the withdrawal table outlined in Section IV.A of Schedule 2 to the Financing Agreement to finance immediate recovery activities to address the compound impacts of tropical cyclones Eta and Iota (US$432,929) and redirect the COVID19 pandemic response (US$100,108). 29 As of 12/18/2021, the Client Connection system showed that US$ 23,926,796 had been disbursed, which is the same amount that is in this ICR. However, the ICR data sheet presents other information ($ 23,752,620). Client Connection is the World Bank's official system for project disbursements. Page 20 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Justification of Overall Efficiency Rating 55. The Project is rated Substantial in terms of its efficiency based on the highly positive economic and financial results and assessment of key elements for the sustainability of project interventions. Despite the cancellation of US$4 Million from the CERC funds and the delays that extended the project closing (mentioned in Section I.B.) to approximately 26 months (original closing date: 04/30/2019, actual closing date: 06/30/2021), the project efficiency is rated as Substantial, based on the ex post economic and financial analysis results, which reflect that the investments of the Project were executed almost in their entirety (91% as of July 31, 2021) and 99% disbursed. It can be concluded that the delays referred to did not affect the achievement of the PDO-Level indicators and Intermediate Results Indicators (achieving all), and targets were achieved with less resources. See Annex 4 for further details on the Efficiency Assessment results. D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING 56. The Project's overall outcome is rated as Highly Satisfactory due to the high relevance of its PDO at Project Appraisal and Closing, the Project’s high efficacy in achieving the intended outcomes with only minor shortcomings, and the substantial efficiency with which the inputs and resources have translated into results. 57. It should be noted that the PDO and IP ratings given during the life of the project were established based on the likelihood of the achievement of the PDO (by the closing date and consistent with progress on results and implementation) and based on the progress status (project components and activities, consistent and evidence- based), respectively, established in the Investment Project Financing Implementation Support to Project Completion guidelines. And the ratings given to this ICR are based on Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Relevance, established in the ICR Guidelines. E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS Gender 58. A Gender Strategy was developed for PGRD and had positive outcomes. According to the findings in the 2020 Final Evaluation30 and the results of the two PDO-level Indicators and two Intermediate Indicators focused on gender, the project was able to reach 52% female beneficiaries (target 51%), 93% of sampled female beneficiaries were satisfied with COPECO's DRM project activities (target 85%), 42% of women participated actively in management positions of CODEM and CODELs (target 40%), 97% of sampled direct female beneficiaries rated structural mitigation measures implemented as satisfactory (target 85%) and 14,692 females participated in consultation activities during project implementation was (target 6,423). These findings indicate that significant progress was made in terms of raising awareness of the importance of gender equality and equal participation of men and women in public institutions at the national and municipal levels, and PGRD also contributed to strengthening the leadership roles and opportunities for women. This was achieved through several workshops and training events and PGRD working closely with the Municipal Office for Women (la Oficina Municipal de la Mujer - OMM) to promote collaboration and incorporate gender in DRM and sustainable development planning. 30 The Project prepared its final evaluation in 2020, because due to the first extension of the closing date, the project was planned to end on June 30, 2020. Page 21 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Institutional Strengthening 59. COVID-19 and Eta and Iota emergencies demonstrated the improved coordination capacity of the SINAGER and its member institutions, including COPECO. SINAGER has positioned itself as a more effective system that is responsible for prioritizing emergency response and coordinating inter-institutional actions in the country. Based on feedback from the interviews (August 2021) undertaken for the preparation of this ICR, an important achievement of the Project was the strengthening of the communities’ early warning system and CENAOS. In addition, the Secretariats and Decentralized Institutions now incorporate DRM in their planning activities, and at the Local government level, DRM is included in the Municipal Environmental and Risk Management Units where protocols for zoning, territorial planning, resource management, and emergency response have been developed. Poverty Reduction 60. The project was aligned with the Country Vision for 2010-2038 and the National Plan for 2010-2022, built on the 2003 and 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy documents. The Project was also founded on the strong commitment and broad consensus in the country regarding the importance of DRM for inclusive growth and poverty reduction. Government efforts to reduce poverty and sustain economic growth have been hindered by the country's high vulnerability to disasters, especially hurricanes, tropical storms, and associated impacts such as flooding and landslides. However, based on interviews conducted for this ICR, there is evidence that preparedness following Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota has increased. Community members who historically had suffered from flood damage said that because of this preparedness and the implementation of mitigation works in their Municipalities, their lives and properties are now protected, with no damages following Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota. Also, the project provided employment opportunities for communities in municipalities where the mitigation works were implemented: temporary employment was generated for 4,571 people31. Mobilizing Private Sector Financing 61. Neither the project nor the CERC had activities related to the mobilization of financing from the private sector. Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts 62. The structural mitigation measures had several other positive impacts for the communities living in the Project area; not only did they reduce the risk of flooding in the municipalities, but they also improved health conditions, facilitated transport, reduced migration, and improved community development (For more details see Annex 5). III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION 63. The Project was well-designed and built off the success of the previous Bank-funded PMDN project. Several of the successful outcomes of PGRD can be attributed to the continuation and reflection of lessons learned from the PMDN project, including: a participatory methodology that was expected to engage municipalities and the community in territorial planning and DRM; implementing relatively small scale structural measures in at-risk municipalities, which had a big impact on saving lives and protecting property at the community level; and ensuring clear and simple lines of accountability and resource management. COPECO’s prior experience implementing PMDN and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Disaster Risk Prevention and Mitigation Project (MITIGAR) ensured adequate financial Page 22 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) management arrangements that met the Bank's minimum fiduciary requirements and ensured readiness for implementation. 64. There were challenges in setting up the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) methodological Plan to measure the Project Results Framework Indicators, such as the lack of inclusion of appropriate data collection, inadequate use of M&E information for project management, and limited ability to report in a timely fashion. However, this was rectified following the MTR. Overall, project preparation took five months from concept to Board approval. B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION 65. The Project benefited from the Government of Honduras’ strong consensus and commitment on the importance of DRM for reducing vulnerabilities, promoting inclusive growth, and reducing poverty, as well as the long-standing partnership between the country and the Bank on DRM. In addition, COPECO was a strong implementing partner for the Project, having had prior experience in Bank-funded projects. 66. Fiscal constraints in the country affected Project implementation and resulted in delays. In 2014, the project's budget allocation was not registered in the National Integrated System of Financial Administration (SIAFI), resulting in several procurement delays. SEFIN annual allocations to COPECO were subject to "budgetary ceilings" that, together with the requirement that SEFIN had to go before the legislature for project extensions, also caused delays in the execution of the Project. At Project Closing, no budget was assigned to the PIU for the project grace period (July- October 2021), resulting in key staff working unpaid, including the auditing firm. This was rectified by the end of September 2021. 67. Political and social instability in Honduras was another factor that impacted the Project. The 2013 national election resulted in significant institutional restructuring, causing amendments to the Financing Agreement and to the co- execution agreements, such as: a) At the national level, the elimination of SEPLAN impacted the regional integration of DRM in territorial planning and caused initial coordination issues, and b) At the municipal level, changes in government resulted in high staff turnover and additional costs and efforts to maintain the same level of technical expertise. The elevated levels of crime in the country also caused safety concerns that delayed some structural mitigation works. 68. During the MTR, several deficiencies in the Project were identified. From an environmental and social perspective, the Project had not engaged with the Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Descendant communities in the Project Area. This was rectified through consultations, the development of the IPP, implementation of nonstructural measures in the Tolupan and Garífuna communities, as well as the development of the Atlases of natural hazards in the Communities of Indigenous Peoples of the Sula Valley. In addition, technical capacity issues with the consultancy hired to undertake the risk studies caused delays during the project's first two years. Finally, the MTR highlighted the limited participation of the Municipalities in the construction, supervision, and assurance of environmental controls in the structural mitigation measures. 69. The approval for the 2019 Restructuring took around two years. The Ministry of Finance (SEFIN) sent two letters to the Bank on December 5, 2017, and on November 15, 2018, to request to reallocate the unused CERC proceeds to other components to maximize the project’s impact, extend the closing date, and modify the Results Framework. The delay between the two requests for restructuring was due to internal GoH’s procedural requirements, which 31 2013 -2021 PGRD Final Report (Informe Final PGRD 2013 -2021, COPECO). Page 23 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) required a waiver to be obtained from Congress. In February 2018, the GoH responded that this request would take longer than expected due to the country’s legal procedure that requires that at least 75% of total Credit funds should be committed, including the CERC. Since the CERC was outside the purview of COPECO, an exception was sought by COPECO in the National Congress to obtain a waiver for extending the project’s closing date without the 75 percent rule. Obtaining this exception took nine months, and Congress approved it on November 8, 2018 [Decree 110-2018, gazette Number 34,789]. In the April 2019 project restructuring, the GoH and the Bank reviewed the implementation plan and agreed that all activities under the project could be implemented by June 30, 2020, requiring a 14-month extension of the closing date. 70. In March 2020, the COVID-19 Pandemic weakened Honduras economic growth, and the nationwide curfew caused several delays in the construction of the structural mitigation measures. In November 2020, Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota impacted Honduras and, in particular, the Sula Valley (the Project area). Over 4.5 million people were affected, 99 people died, and 1 million people were evacuated. The two disasters compounded the country's vulnerability, which was already facing significant setbacks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ninety percent of the centers (International Sanitary Offices and Mass Attention Units) identified to support the COVID-19 emergency were flooded, resulting in the second activation of the CERC, which focused on responding to the damages caused by the Tropical Cyclones and revised the EAP for the COVID-19 response. IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) Overall Quality of M&E rating: Substantial M&E Design 71. The PGRD, through the PIU, was responsible for M&E processes. M&E staff was designated in the PIU to enhance communication with the different focal points, PGRD and COPECO. Co-executing agencies and participating municipalities collaborated with the PIU by providing progress reports and relevant information. The Bank team also supported the PIU M&E team to a) provide timely and accurate information related to the Project's results framework, b) collect, analyze, and report on project performance data (including physical and financial progress); and (c) provide periodic information on intermediate project results and progress toward higher-level outcomes. 72. Regarding the Results Framework (RF), the Project Key Outcomes were aligned with the PDO-Level Indicators, including appropriate and realistic targets; and the links from the Intermediate Results Indicators to these outcomes were measurable. One of the key elements of the RF is the M&E plan for each indicator, which was prepared with Bank support in 2019. The M&E plan was based on a methodology that measured each indicator through Indicator Measurement Fact Sheets (IMFS), which included: Indicator´s description, geographic scope, unit of measurement, formula, frequency, responsible for data collection, source of information, means of verification, and data collection instruments. Therefore, from 2019 to 2021, the IMFS was monitored and updated quarterly. 73. The Project's ToC was not designed at Appraisal though it was created ex-post for the purpose of the ICR (See Figure 1, Section I.A.). 74. At appraisal and in the 2019 and 2020 restructurings, the Results indicators were designed according to the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Adequate, Realistic and Targeted) methodology, providing the results chain from activities to outputs, outputs to outcomes, and from outcomes to measure the achievement of the PDO. The Indicators were (i) specific, because there was a clear linkage between them and the stated results; (ii) measurable, as they were Page 24 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) clear about the measurement of the intended results; (iii) the Indicators were also adequate and had sufficient information to assess the intended results; (iv) realistic, as the data obtained was at a reasonable cost and with enough frequency of measurement; and (v) the Indicators had a targeted population and coverage area defined. Therefore, the indicators provided accurate and reliable evidence about the achievement of a specific result. For more details on the use of the SMART methodology, see Annex 1, Tables 1 and 2. 75. The arrangements for M&E were acceptable to the Bank. Based on the Key Factors during preparation explained in Section III.A., regarding the lack of an M&E methodological plan, the Project M&E was rated Moderately Satisfactory from June 2015 to November 2019. In December 2019, it changed to Satisfactory due to the progress presented below. M&E Implementation 76. The M&E team was responsible for all the measurements and reporting of project indicators, monitoring the progress of key targets in the field, and assisting the executing agencies in reporting the needed data and information. The semi-annual progress reports were of adequate quality and submitted on time, according to Schedule 2, Section II.A. of the Financial agreement (not later than forty-five days after the end of each semester covered by such reports). 77. At the MTR and Final Evaluation Report, several external consultants were recruited by the Project to prepare both assessments, including (i) Technical, Economic, and Environmental Evaluation of the structural mitigation measures; (ii) Economic and Financial Analysis (only at closing: ex-post); (iii) Social Audits; (iv) Emergency Drills; (v) Quantity Evaluation Report and Database; and (vi) Consolidated Evaluations’ Reports. 78. In 2020, the PIU, with Bank advice, conducted an impact level evaluation to assess the Project's efficacy. This study was carried out by a firm contracted by the Project, conducting a survey directed to 1,100 project beneficiaries (households) and 260 members of CODELs, CODEMs, and co-executing agencies, within the area covered by PGRD. The study assessed whether the analysis, planning, decision-making, and implementation processes of actions aimed to correct vulnerabilities in development processes and if it prevented the effects of a potentially destructive phenomenon from causing damage or severe disruptions to people's lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems territories (including counterfactuals). It also provided valuable information about DRM's short and long-term effects on households' main assets. Moreover, this impact evaluation, plus the technical, economic, and environmental evaluation of the mitigation measures and an additional economic evaluation contracted by the Project, offered key data to develop the ex-post Economic and Financial Analysis and the Impact Evaluation for this ICR (Annexes 4 and 5). From December 2019 to August 2020, the PIU prepared the Government's Project Completion Report with assistance from external consultants, who conducted the following assessments: (i) Project Economic Evaluation; (ii) Technical, Economic and Environmental Evaluation of 35 works (out of 40); (iii) Social Audit; (iv) Emergency Drill; (v) Quantity Evaluation Report; and (vi) Qualitative Evaluation Report (General Evaluation). M&E Utilization 79. M&E data on performance and results progress were used to inform project management and decision-making. Throughout project implementation, the information provided by the M&E team enabled PGRD, COPECO, and the co-executing agencies to identify bottlenecks that could affect the achievement of project targets. Also, the M&E Page 25 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) reports allowed these agencies to inform about DRM in the municipalities, communities, CODELS, and CODEMs of the project area. 80. Based on the MTR recommendations, the Results Framework was adjusted in the April 2019 project restructuring to reflect the scaled-up activities and increased targets, to enhance M&E implementation and project evaluation, and focus on better data integration under the M&E system (Microsoft Excel database); followed by a structured methodology for indicators’ measurement, designed in May 2019, with the support of the Bank M&E Specialists. This methodology was implemented by the PIU from June 2019 until project closing to measure each indicator of the Result Framework and to monitor Project progress quarterly through the Indicator Measurement Fact Sheets, an Action Plan, and an M&E Plan. In the June 2020 project restructuring, the Results Framework was also revised to add one intermediate indicator to follow up the activation of the CERC due to the COVID-19 crisis. Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E 81. The overall quality of the M&E is rated Substantial. The M&E system was designed with some delays and implemented well since 2019. The quality of reporting of the M&E system continued to improve during project implementation. M&E staffing was qualified and collaborated with the planning team and the focal points. Throughout the Project's life, the Bank M&E specialists advised the PIU M&E team frequently, participating in implementation support missions and revising M&E methodologies, project indicators, consultant terms of reference, Annual Operations Plans, as well as the planning and implementation of the Project baseline, MTR, and final evaluation. This specialized support contributed to making the M&E inputs more consistent and reliable. B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE 82. Environmental safeguards: The Project was classified as category B and triggered the following environmental safeguard policies: Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP 4.04), Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11), and Forests (OP 4.36). An Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was finalized through consultations with a wide range of stakeholders that took place on October 5, 2012. In accordance with the Bank's Information Disclosure Policy (BP 17.50), the ESMF was disclosed in the Borrower's and the Bank's websites on October 17, 2012. The structural mitigation measures or works that were carried out before 2019 complied with the provisions of the applicable national legislation. However, their reports did not include a description of compliance with the ESMF developed for the Project, and the performance of the reported activities was not documented. Beginning with the MTR in 2019, following an update of the ESMF and closer supervision of the contractors, the environmental performance of the works gradually improved, and the supervision and compliance with the ESMF requirements were documented more efficiently. The Project's ESMF was updated during the MTR to include environmental and occupational safety aspects not originally considered and was redisclosed in January 2020. The 13 works carried out in 2019 and 2020 presented adequately documented reports on the supervision carried out and compliance with the ESMF and applicable national legislation, for which their performance was rated as satisfactory. For all works, maintenance plans were delivered by the contractors to COPECO, and the corresponding municipalities were trained about these plans through workshops, providing assurance about the sustainability of the works and their proper long-term functioning. 83. Social Safeguards. The Project triggered social safeguards for Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) and Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12). During the Project's MTR, it was agreed that a social management system would be adopted to improve community participation and ownership of mitigation works, and a more proactive approach towards the Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Descendant communities in the Project Area was recommended. It was also recommended that the Resettlement Policy Framework be reviewed to ensure that the impacts, Page 26 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) compensation, and documentation processes were aligned with the Bank's Operational Policy 4.12 and that training be provided to municipalities on international standards and tools for resettlement. 84. COPECO adopted the social management system and effectively implemented it with important improvements in community participation, ownership, and management of grievances. It also established dialogue with the national indigenous community's organization (CONPAH) and carried out workshops with Indigenous Tolupan and Afro- Descendant Garifuna communities to identify the risks and systematize traditional practices and knowledge in risk prevention and response. The Project implemented nonstructural mitigation measures in the Tolupan and Garifuna communities following its 2019 restructuring. 85. Due to the delays in implementing those activities, OP/BP 4.10 and OP/BP 4.12 were rated Moderately Satisfactory (MS) between June 2017 and October 2018. Given this MS rating, the overall safeguards rating was also MS during the same period. However, these ratings were upgraded to Satisfactory in October 2018 (until project closure) due to evidence of progress. 86. In addition to the regular project activities, the CERC was activated to finance expenditures incurred by the Government for equipment and goods used for the COVID-19 health emergency response (June 2020, and its EAP was revised in May 2021) and then Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota (May 2021). The CERC did not trigger additional safeguards from those already applicable. In both cases, for the activation of the CERC, the preliminary environmental and social evaluation (FEASP) of the activities proposed in the Emergency Assistance Plans (EAPs) was carried out, specifying necessary environmental control measures and safety standards for the activities outlined in the EAPs, but no information was provided regarding compliance with these measures. 87. Financial Management (FM). FM performance was rated Satisfactory throughout most of the project Implementation. However, on June 15, 2021, the FM performance was rated as Moderated Satisfactory due to the lack of confirmation of client funds to cover the costs of the grace period, putting the closing project activities at risk. The Project's FM system was implemented, maintained, and operated satisfactorily, allowing for adequate financial monitoring and compliance with overall FM arrangements. The Project's bi-annual interim unaudited financial reports (IFR) were submitted to the Bank with only minor delays; however, they were acceptable and allowed for adequate financial monitoring. Audit reports were submitted in a timely fashion to the Bank, included unmodified (clean) opinions, and were accepted by the Bank. 88. Procurement. Procurement was rated Satisfactory throughout project Implementation, except in December 2020, it was downgraded to Moderately Satisfactory following a procurement post review that indicated noncompliance with the principles of the old procurement guidelines, which was eventually cleared. Procurement processes were implemented based on the Annual Operations Plans (POA) and the procurement plans, which were reviewed by the Bank prior to its implementation each year. The procurement plan was updated frequently, keeping the supporting information updated in the Systematic Tracking of Exchanges in Procurement System (STEP). Regular supervision missions supported the implementation and monitoring, maintaining a satisfactory rating throughout largely due to the close working relationship between the Bank and the PIU and the PIU procurement capacity. Page 27 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) C. BANK PERFORMANCE 89. The four Bank Task Team Leaders (TTLs) for the Project demonstrated a sound knowledge of the country's context, sector issues and developed a good relationship with the PIU and co-executing agencies. Having part of the Bank team in the country, along with close collaboration with the Country Office, also helped in the delivery of technical and operational advice, as well as in the close follow-up of emerging issues and risks. Quality at Entry 90. The Bank team was well-equipped to advise during project preparation. Having the same TTL involved in the previous PMDN project meant that the Bank was able to deliver a Project that was strategically relevant and built off prior experience and successes. The task team also ensured that good global practices and international standards on DRM and territorial planning were applied to the Honduran context, ensuring the country could benefit from the latest technological advances and innovations on DRM. The Bank team identified COPECO as the PIU based on the successful implementation of previous projects. Among other aspects, it was necessary to balance institutional deployment with the need for progressively gaining legitimacy with the population to develop tailored activities for specific groups such as women and Indigenous Peoples, who both benefitted from a specific focus in the Project Appraisal Document. Ensuring the application of lessons learned in project design also contributed to the Project’s quality at entry. Foreseen M&E arrangements followed standard practice. Risk assessment rightfully identified Governance as the main risk since this mainly affected the project and caused implementation delays. Quality of Supervision 91. In general, Implementation Support Missions – with a total of 50 missions and 16 videoconferences – were timely, appropriately resourced, and solution-oriented. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bank provided remote supervision; therefore, the project was not affected significantly since from March 2020 to June 2021, the project was in its final stages. The last in-country mission took place in January 2020. Implementation support continued remotely through virtual meetings with counterparts and provision of data. Regardless of the pandemic, Government ICR was provided to the team in advance, allowing for the gathering of evidence needed for the closing of the Project. 92. During implementation, the Bank focused on delivering specialized technical and operational advice support to the PIU to ensure adequate management of environmental and social, and fiduciary risks. The team demonstrated candor in reporting performance issues by downgrading the project to MU for about a year time. Effective decisions and agreements resulted from the MTR, and critical issues affecting implementation were adequately handled, including engaging communities with a gender approach and consistent with Indigenous Peoples and Afro- Descendant communities' culture and priorities; holding workshops to ensure an adequate understanding of guidelines and procedures for the CERC; providing technical advice on how to measure the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the Project and address the challenge of gathering Baseline, MTR, and Final Evaluation data for M&E; and providing technical expertise to strengthen risk management capacities at the municipal and community levels. The team demonstrated an adaptive and proactive approach to challenges. 93. Three Management Letters (December 18, 2019, March 10, 2020, and October 30, 2020) were sent to the GoH, and several meetings were held with SEFIN and COPECO to address the lack of government budget allocation for the PIU in the grace period following the closing of the Project. The task team continued to follow up on the issue and ensured that the Project closed satisfactorily and that the Project closing staff were paid and able to deliver the final reports and cover the costs of the audits. Page 28 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 94. Bank performance is rated Satisfactory considering there were only minor shortcomings in the quality of supervision, that the Bank provided technical advice and continuous support during project preparation and implementation, and effectively and proactively followed up on emerging issues. D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME 95. The Government of Honduras has a clear vision and demonstrated commitment to DRM. Project outcomes are likely to be sustained given the institutional commitment and increased capacity, as well as the close inter- institutional collaboration and coordination fostered through the Project. 96. However, one risk that has been identified is ensuring the sustainability of the structural mitigation measures, given the lack of municipal budget and evidence of maintenance issues. Therefore, remaining issues include: (i) agreeing on the long-term role of municipalities in DRM to ensure the maintenance of structural mitigation measures, for which investments have been made within the framework of this project; and (ii) COPECO needs adequate governmental resources to continue strengthening Honduras capacity for integrated disaster risk management at the municipal and national following up on the DRM activities implemented by the project. E. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 97. One of the key factors of success for PGRD was that it was a continuation and strengthening of the previous DRM Project (PMDN) outcomes and benefited from a strong commitment to DRM by the Government of Honduras. The Project was built off the approach of engaging at the municipal and community level and applying a participatory approach in the design of the Municipal DRM Plans (PMGRs) and the Municipal Emergency Plans (PEMs), as well as the structural and nonstructural mitigation measures. This coupled with the strong commitment to DRM by the Government of Honduras and a qualified PIU staff; all contributed to the success of PGRD. Strong institutional capacity - including low staff turnover and responsiveness to the population's needs - and transparency are critical factors for successful projects. These qualities were evident with PGRD-COPECO but could be strengthened at the municipal level. Permanent staff and personnel at the municipal level would help ensure continuity and more efficiency. 98. Integrating DRM in territorial planning has supported a risk-informed approach in development planning and contributed to the culture of prevention in Honduras. The development of a methodology for territorial planning with a risk management approach marks a key step forward in DRM. A standard methodology for territorial planning is a starting point from which other institutions can jointly advance in the construction of planning instruments. In particular, the PMGRs and PEMs are important instruments that provide a framework for building resilience at the local level. However, territorial planning that incorporates DRM has demanding requirements for effective implementation. In addition, PMGRs and PEMs are "living" instruments that must be constantly updated. Investments in human capital are needed to keep the DRM system operational, including continued training opportunities and hiring and retainment of technical experts, such as meteorologists, hydrologists, and geologists. 99. Honduras is a country that faces budget liquidity issues, and this was reflected in the fiscal constraints that PGRD faced during Project implementation. Additionally, the country suffers from high political and social turmoil, which can also cause delays and financial access issues. These risks should be considered and built into the design of future projects. It is also recommended that future CERCs always have a zero allocation of funding to avoid Page 29 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) requesting a waiver in Congress for a restructuring (to reallocate funds to other Project Components if necessary), as this caused several delays in this Project. 100. The participatory methodology of the Project design for risk and vulnerability analysis as well as decision making facilitated the proactive inclusion of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. Including communities in the design of PMGRs and PEMs, as well as mitigation works supervision and maintenance, had a positive impact in terms of community empowerment and buy-in. Community participation and citizen engagement were the foundation for inclusive DRM & Gender Equality (https://www.gfdrr.org/en/inclusive-drm), and it is expected that these activities will have a short- and long-term impact, if sustained, in building local DRM capacity. The engagement and consultation with Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Honduran population in the Project Areas was an impactful pilot approach for the Project. It provided COPECO with a better understanding of the needs and risks these communities face while also building local preparedness for the most vulnerable communities. 101. The structural mitigation works demonstrated a high impact on reducing household risks and improving the lives and livelihoods of communities. Structural mitigation works, such as bridges and stormwater canals, produce a highly positive impact on the wellbeing of communities. Investing in these works can have benefits beyond DRM – including supporting rural development, improving urban infrastructure, providing employment, and even transportation impacts. The foundation, organization, and training of the CODEMs and CODELs linked to the implementation of structural mitigation works, had a high impact on DRM response capacity and the empowerment of communities, which was evidenced in the interviews conducted in this ICR, where CODELs leaders indicated that they are contributing to the sustainability of the structural mitigation measures implemented by the Project in their communities, giving maintenance to them, due to the lack of it from the Municipalities. The sustainability of the structural mitigation measures will depend on maintenance, which in turn depends on the willingness of the communities and the budget allocation to Municipalities to carry it out regularly. Without adequate operating budgets for municipal maintenance of these works, as well as continued engagement and support to the CODEMs and CODELs, the sustainability of these works is in jeopardy. 102. The CERC implementation proved to have limited effectiveness as an emergency response instrument. The CERC was activated twice during project implementation, once for the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020) and the second time to respond to Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota (May 2021), for activities of limited emergency goods procurement amounting to about half a million USD. In both cases, it took three weeks to access the funds, which was quicker than the four-week target. However, prior to this, it took significant time to process the necessary documents to request the activation of the CERC formally. For the first CERC, the preparation and review of these documents took around three months and the second CERC five months from both parties (Bank and GoH). This implies that the GoH responded to both emergencies in 5 to 7 months, respectively, from the declaration of the state of emergency, activation time, disbursement until access and implementation of the funds. Therefore, more flexibility in the preparation and approval of these documents to the extent permitted by Bank policies. 103. One of the major challenges of promoting disaster mitigation and prevention is demonstrating that its potential benefits far exceed its costs in terms of saved lives and property. Based on interviews conducted for this ICR (See Annex 8), evidence of preparedness following Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota has increased. Community members who historically had suffered from flood damages said that because of the capacity building and structural mitigation measures implemented by this Project, there was no loss of lives, properties, and assets in their communities. . Page 30 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators Objective/Outcome: Strengthen capacity for integrated disaster riskmanagement at the municipal and national level. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Direct project beneficiaries Number 0.00 850000.00 1,285,000.00 1,343,780.00 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 Female beneficiaries Percentage 0.00 51.00 51.00 52.00 Comments (achievements against targets): The project benefited 1,343,780 people (105% of the targeted 1,285,000 beneficiaries), with 52% being female beneficiaries (reaching 102% of the project target); benefiting 493,780 more people, compared to the original target (850,000). Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion At least 85% of a Percentage 0.00 70.00 85.00 96.00 Page 31 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) representative sample of 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 direct Project beneficiaries are satisfied with COPECO's DRM Project activities (third level on a four-level scale) At least 85% of sampled Percentage 0.00 70.00 85.00 93.00 female beneficiaries are satisfied with COPECO's 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 DRM Project activities Comments (achievements against targets): 96% of sampled beneficiaries reportedly satisfied with COPECO's DRM activities (achieving 113% of the target), with 93% satisfaction from the female sample (achieving 109% of the target). Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion At least 18 participating Number 0.00 16.00 18.00 18.00 municipalities have adopted DRM Plans (PMGRs), and 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 Emergency Plans (PEMs) based onthe Project's participatory methodology Comments (achievements against targets): The project achieved its targets with 18 municipalities adopting PMGRs and PEMs (reaching 100% of the target). Page 32 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Cities with improved Number 0.00 20.00 38.00 livability, sustainability, and/or management 01-Mar-2019 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): The project achieved its targets with 38 cities that have improved livability, sustainability, and/or management (surpassing the target at 190%). Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion At least 90% of a Percentage 0.00 85.00 90.00 100.00 representative sample of mitigation works is assessed 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 independently as technically, economically and environmentally satisfactory or above. Comments (achievements against targets): The project surpassed its target with 100% of the mitigation works evaluated as satisfactory (111% achieved). Objective/Outcome: Improve capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency. Page 33 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Time taken to disburse funds Weeks 0.00 4.00 3.00 requested by Government for an eligible emergency 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): The CERC was activated twice during project implementation. In both cases, it took three weeks to access the funds (four-week target). A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators Component: Strengthening of National-level DRM Capacities Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 1.1 Standard methodology Number 0.00 1.00 1.00 for municipal development and territorial planning 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2021 developed and disseminated Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 100% achieved. Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Page 34 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Target Completion 1.2 Number of annual Number 0.00 40.00 130.00 climate and meteorological reports / bulletins issued by 01-Mar-2019 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 the COPECO - National Center for Atmospheric, Oceanographic and Seismic Studies (CENAOS) Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 325% achieved. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 1.3 Number of hazard- Number 0.00 100.00 42.00 42.00 monitoring stations collecting and transmitting 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 data Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 100% achieved. The unit of measure of the original target was in percentage (100%). Component: Strengthening of Municipal and Community-level DRM Capacities Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Page 35 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Target Completion 2.1 CODEMs and CODELs Number 0.00 60.00 100.00 225.00 established and functioning effectively 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 2.1(a) Women participating Percentage 0.00 35.00 40.00 42.00 actively in management positions of CODEMs and CODELs Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 225% achieved. The project supported the organization and restructuring of 20 Municipal Emergency Committees (CODEMs) in municipalities of the Sula Valley and the organization of 205 Local Emergency Committees (CODELs) that were equipped and received training, for a total of 225 Emergency Committees functioning effectively surpassing the target of 100. The active participation of women in CODEMs and CODELs management positions, reached 42%, surpassing the target of 40%. Both CODEMs and CODELs are key organizational units that positively impact community resilience and response capacity. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 2.2 At least 85% of sampled Percentage 0.00 70.00 85.00 96.00 technical staff from municipalities rate training 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 received under the Project as Satisfactory Page 36 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 113% achieved. Target increased by 15%, to measure satisfaction of training provided under the project to technical staff in selected municipalities. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 2.3 Database of risk and Percentage 0.00 100.00 100.00 vulnerability analyses and municipal plans is publicly 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2021 available Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 100% achieved. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 2.4 Number of municipalities Number 0.00 16.00 18.00 with new and/or updated municipal planning or 01-Mar-2019 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 management tools with a risk management approach Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 113% achieved. This indicator was added in the 2019 Project Restructuring. Related to former PDO-Level Results Indicator 3: At least 16 participating municipalities have adopted DRM Plans (PMGRs), Land Use Plans (PMOTs) and Emergency Plans (PEMs) based Page 37 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) on the Project's participatory methodology. The indicator measured the municipal governments that adopted municipal planning focusing on risk management and/or intervention strategies. After the reorganization of SEPLAN, the land use plans (PMOTs) are captured under the Municipal Development Plan, measured separately through this new Intermediate results indicator [2.4]. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 2.5 Participants in Number 0.00 0.00 14,094.00 34,448.00 consultation activities during project implementation 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 (number) 2.5 (a) Participants in Number 0.00 0.00 6,423.00 14,692.00 consultation activities during project 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 implementation - female 2.5(b) Participants in Number 0.00 1000.00 1,929.00 consultation activities during project 01-Mar-2019 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 implementation – indigenous / afro Honduran Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 244% achieved. The Project reached 34,448 participants (from which 14,692 were women and 1,929 were Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Honduran communities), significantly exceeding the target that was 14,094 for the total participants (6,423 women and 1,000 Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Honduran communities). Page 38 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 2.6 Number of Community Number 0.00 12.00 12.00 Early Warning Systems Strengthened / Rehabilitated 01-Mar-2019 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 through the provision of equipment by the project. Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 100% achieved. Component: Implementation of Mitigation Measures Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 3.1 Prioritized structural Number 0.00 60.00 40.00 40.00 mitigation measures implemented 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 100% achieved. At appraisal, 60 mitigation measures were planned without clarifying the number of structural and non-structural measures. Therefore, in the 2019 Project Restructuring, the targets for implementing 40 structural mitigation measures and 20 nonstructural mitigation measures were defined and separated. Page 39 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 3.2 Prioritized nonstructural Number 0.00 20.00 55.00 mitigation measures implemented 01-Mar-2019 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 275% achieved. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 3.3 Percentage of a sampled Percentage 0.00 70.00 85.00 97.00 direct beneficiaries that rate structural mitigation 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 08-Apr-2019 30-Jun-2021 measures implemented as satisfactory (reflect their priorities) 3.3(a) Percentage of a Percentage 0.00 70.00 85.00 97.00 sampled direct female beneficiaries that that rate structural mitigation measures implemented as satisfactory (reflect their priorities) Page 40 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 114% achieved. 97% of a sampled direct beneficiaries reported satisfaction with the structural mitigation measures as well as 97% of a sampled direct female beneficiaries. Target increased by 15%. The indicator was modified to measure the satisfaction of the direct beneficiaries in each implemented structural mitigation measure. Component: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 4.1. Baseline for Project Number 0.00 3.00 3.00 impact, Mid-Term Report, and Final Evaluation Report 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2021 completed in a timely fashion Comments (achievements against targets): The status of the end target of this Indicator is 100% achieved. Component: Contingency Emergency Response Component Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Formally Revised Completion Page 41 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Target 5.1 CERC established and Number 0.00 1.00 1.00 ready to provide access to financial resources to 30-Nov-2012 13-Dec-2012 30-Jun-2021 Honduras in case of an eligible emergency Comments (achievements against targets): The CERC was activated twice, the first time to support the Government in the COVID-19 pandemic response (June 2020) and the second time to respond to Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota (May 2021). Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 5.2 OSI and/or UAM Number 0.00 8.00 12.00 prioritized for COVID-19 response supported by 01-Jun-2020 10-Jun-2020 30-Jun-2021 COPECO. Comments (achievements against targets): This indicator was added to provide support to the Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In coordination with the regional offices of COPECO and the Ministry of Health, the contracted firm carried out field visits and evaluated 12 sites. Then, the firm prepared 12 files for each prioritized OSI and UAM in legal, technical, environmental, biosafety, and financial aspects. Also, the firm prepared the terms of reference for the construction and supervision of the 12 (minor) works. However, in November 2020, the Eta and Iota Tropical Cyclones heavily affected most of these health centers; therefore, the identified scope of the CERC work became obsolete, which led the GoH to cancel these activities. The GoH letter request (dated May 3, 2021) included a new EAP in response to the Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota and a revised EAP in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 11, 2021 the Bank approved Page 42 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) the activation of the CERC to assign uncommitted funds to finance immediate recovery activities to address the compound impacts of tropical cyclones Eta and Iota (US$432,929) and redirect the COVID19 pandemic response (US$100,108). Page 43 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) B. KEY OUTCOMES BY INDICATORS AND COMPONENTS (Table 1) Outcome 1: National-level DRM capacities strengthened 1. Direct project beneficiaries 1.a) Female beneficiaries 2. At least 85% of a representative sample of direct Project beneficiaries are satisfied with COPECO's DRM Project activities 2.a) At least 85% of sampled female beneficiaries are satisfied with COPECO's DRM PDO-Level Indicators Project activities. The project benefited 1,343,780 people (105% of the targeted 1,285,000 beneficiaries), with 52% being female beneficiaries (reaching 102% of the project target); and with 96% of sampled beneficiaries reportedly satisfied with COPECO's DRM activities (achieving 113% of the target), with 93% satisfaction from the female sample (reaching 109% of the target). 1.1 Standard methodology for municipal development and territorial planning developed and disseminated Intermediate Results Indicators 1.2 Number of annual climate and meteorological reports/bulletins issued by the COPECO - National Center for Atmospheric Oceanographic and Seismic Studies (CENAOS) 1.3 Number of hazard-monitoring stations collecting and transmitting data • A standard methodology for municipal development and territorial planning was Component 1 Key Outputs: Strengthening of National-Level DRM developed and disseminated Capacities • The COPECO - CENAOS issued 130 annual climate and meteorological reports/bulletins • 42 of hazard-monitoring stations collecting and transmitting data were established Outcome 2: Municipal and Community-level DRM capacities strengthened 3. At least 18 participating municipalities have adopted DRM Plans (PMGRs), and Emergency Plans (PEMs) based on the Project's participatory methodology. 4. Cities with improved livability, sustainability, and/or management. PDO-Level Indicators The project achieved its targets with 18 municipalities adopting PMGRs and PEMs (reaching 100% of the target), and 38 cities have improved livability, sustainability, and/or management because of the Project (surpassing the target at 190%). Page 44 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) 2.1 CODEMs and CODELs established and functioning effectively 2.1.a) Women participating actively in management positions of CODEMs and CODELs 2.2 At least 85% of sampled technical staff from municipalities rate training received under the Project as Satisfactory 2.3 Database of risk and vulnerability analyses and municipal plans is publicly available 2.4 Number of municipalities with new and/or updated municipal planning or management tools with a risk management approach Intermediate Results Indicators 2.5 Participants in consultation activities during project implementation 2.5.a) Participants in consultation activities during project implementation – female 2.5.b) Participants in consultation activities during project implementation – indigenous / afro Honduran 2.6 Number of Community Early Warning Systems Strengthened / Rehabilitated through the provision of equipment by the project • The project supported the organization and restructuring of 20 Municipal Emergency Committees (CODEMs) in municipalities of the Sula Valley and the organization of 205 Local Emergency Committees (CODELs) that were equipped and received training for a total of 225 Emergency Committees functioning effectively surpassing the target of 100. • The active participation of women in management positions reached 42% surpassing the target of 40%. • The Project provided capacity-building workshops to the CODELs on climate change, gender mainstreaming in shelter management, Community Based Early Warning Systems (CBEWS), DRM, simulations and drills, seismographs and accelerographs Component 2 Key Outputs: Strengthening of Municipal and operation, and hydrometeorological stations. Community-Level DRM Capacities • The Project reached 34,448 participants, from which 14,692 were women and 1929 were Indigenous Peoples or Afro-Honduran communities, significantly exceeding the target that was 14,094 for the total participants, 6,423 for women, and 1,000 for Indigenous Peoples. • A geoportal was created for public access to the information as well as explanatory material. In 2020, the hazard database of the Indigenous Peoples territory of Garífuna and Tolupan was added to the geoportal as part of the Natural Hazard Atlas developed for Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Honduran communities. Page 45 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Outcome 3: Mitigation measures implemented and functioning PDO-Level Indicators 5. At least 90% of a representative sample of mitigation works is assessed independently as technically, economically and environmentally satisfactory or above. The project achieved its target with 100% of the mitigation works evaluated as satisfactory (111% achieved). Intermediate Results Indicators 3.1 Prioritized structural mitigation measures implemented 3.2 Prioritized nonstructural mitigation measures implemented 3.3 Percentage of a sampled direct beneficiaries that rate structural mitigation measures implemented as satisfactory 3.3(a) Percentage of a sampled direct female beneficiaries that that rate structural mitigation measures implemented as satisfactory (reflect their priorities) Component 3 Key Outputs: Implementation of Mitigation • 40 prioritized structural mitigation measures implemented Measures • 55 prioritized nonstructural mitigation measures implemented • 97% of sampled direct beneficiaries reported satisfaction with structural mitigation measures as well as 97% of a sampled direct female beneficiaries. • 13 Atlases of natural hazards in the Communities of Indigenous Peoples of the Sula Valley were designed and shared with the Tolupan and Garífuna communities. Outcome 4: Government capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency improved 32 PDO-Level Indicators 6. Time taken to disburse funds requested by Government for an eligible emergency. The CERC was activated twice during project implementation. In both cases, it took three weeks to access the funds (four-week target). Intermediate Results Indicators 5.1 CERC established and ready to provide access to financial resources to Honduras in case of an eligible emergency 5.2 OSI and/or UAM prioritized for COVID-19 response supported by COPECO Component 5 Key Outputs: Contingency Emergency Response • The CERC was activated twice, the first time to support the Government in the COVID-19 Component pandemic response (June 2020) and the second time to respond to Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota (December 2020). • 12 OSI and UAM were prioritized for COVID-19 response supported by COPECO. 32The government's capacity to respond to emergencies was also improved through the institutional strengthening activities of the Project, shown in Component 2 (See the dotted line in the Theory of Change). Page 46 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) C. RESULTS FRAMEWORK STORYLINE (Table 2) Indicator NC=No Baseline Baseline End Target End Target Achieved Achieved Indicator Name Name Baseline End Target change Indicator Name (April 08, (June 10, (April 08, (June 10, (2013- (2013- Reason of change/ (April 08, 2019 (June 10, at at N=New at Appraisal 2019 2020 2019 2020 2021) 2021) Comments restructuring) 2020 Appraisal Appraisal R=Revised restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) In #s In % restructuring) D=Deleted PDO-Level Results Indicators The end target was NC: increased to 1,285,000 [1] Direct project Indicator due to the Project scale-up beneficiaries [Core] NC NC 0 0 0 850,000 1,285,000 1,285,000 1,343,780 105% name of activities. This was a (Number) R: End CORE indicator only at Target appraisal. [1(a)] Female This was a CORE beneficiaries [Core NC NC 0 0 0 51 51 51 52 102% NC breakdown indicator only breakdown] (Percentage) at appraisal. [2] At least 70% of a representative sample of NC: direct Project beneficiaries Indicator are satisfied with NC NC 0 0 0 70 85 85 96 113 name COPECO’s DRM Project R: End activities [third level on a Same indicator, target Target four-level scale] increased by 15% due to (Percentage) the Project scale-up of [2(a)] At least 70% of activities. NC: sampled female Indicator beneficiaries are satisfied NC NC 0 0 0 70 85 85 93 109 name with COPECO's DRM R: End project activities Target (Percentage) [3] At least 18 participating Target increased by two (2) [3] At least 16 participating municipalities more municipalities. After municipalities have have adopted the reorganization of R: adopted DRM Plans DRM Plans SEPLAN, the land use plans Indicator (PMGRs), Land Use Plans (PMGRs), and (PMOTs) are now captured NC 0 0 0 16 18 18 18 100 name (PMOTs) and Emergency Emergency Plans under the Municipal and end Plans (PEMs) based on the (PEMs) based on Development Plan, which is target Project's participatory the Project's measured separately in a methodology (Number) participatory new Intermediate results methodology indicator [2.4]. (Number) Page 47 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Indicator NC=No Baseline Baseline End Target End Target Achieved Achieved Indicator Name Name Baseline End Target change Indicator Name (April 08, (June 10, (April 08, (June 10, (2013- (2013- Reason of change/ (April 08, 2019 (June 10, at at N=New at Appraisal 2019 2020 2019 2020 2021) 2021) Comments restructuring) 2020 Appraisal Appraisal R=Revised restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) In #s In % restructuring) D=Deleted New CORE indicator. This indicator was added to measure the cumulative number of cities or [4] Cities with municipalities for which improved the direct interventions of livability, the project have resulted --- sustainability, NC --- 0 0 --- 20 20 38 190 N in improvements in (a) and/or living conditions for management residents; (b) financial, [Core] (Number) economic, environmental, and/or social sustainability of the city; and/or (c) city planning, systems, and governance. The word "sound" was replaced for "satisfactory or above". Satisfactory is defined as achieving a [5] At least 90% level of at least 4 on a 5 of a level-scale. And, instead of representative evaluating 85% of all the [4] At least 90% of sample of works, the indicator mitigation measures mitigation works changed to evaluate a R: financed by the Project are is assessed representative sample of Indicator evaluated independently independently as those works. However, in NC 0 0 0 85 90 90 100 111 name as technically, technically, the MTR and final and end economically and economically evaluation, 100% of the target environmentally sound and works were evaluated. (Percentage) environmentally Also, there is an error on satisfactory or page 18 of the PAD, as the above ninth column named "End (Percentage) target" has 85%, and the indicator name starts with "At least 90%..."; and, the Cumulative Target Value (eighth column) is 90%. Page 48 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Indicator NC=No Baseline Baseline End Target End Target Achieved Achieved Indicator Name Name Baseline End Target change Indicator Name (April 08, (June 10, (April 08, (June 10, (2013- (2013- Reason of change/ (April 08, 2019 (June 10, at at N=New at Appraisal 2019 2020 2019 2020 2021) 2021) Comments restructuring) 2020 Appraisal Appraisal R=Revised restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) In #s In % restructuring) D=Deleted The number of the PDO- [5] Time taken to disburse Level Indicator changed funds requested by NC NC 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 133 NC from 5 to 6, due to the Government for an eligible adding of a new indicator emergency (Weeks) (PDO-Level Indicator 4). Intermediate Results Indicators Component 1: Strengthening of National-Level DRM Capacities [1.1] Standard methodology for municipal development and NC NC 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100 NC Same indicator and target. territorial planning developed and disseminated (Number) The original objective was to foresee compliance with environmental protection measures in the implementation of the [1.2] Environmental mitigation works. Then, Management Unit with the creation of D --- 0 --- --- 1 --- --- --- --- D operating effectively in MiAmbiente (former COPECO (Number) SERNA), an environmental license was provided for each work; thus, there was no need to create an Environmental Unit in COPECO for this purpose. [1.2] Annual This indicator was added climate and to measure the climate meteorological and meteorological --- reports/bulletins NC --- 0 0 --- 40 40 130 325 N reports/bulletins issued by issued by the the COPECO. CENAOS COPECO-CENAOS provided the information. (Number) Page 49 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Indicator NC=No Baseline Baseline End Target End Target Achieved Achieved Indicator Name Name Baseline End Target change Indicator Name (April 08, (June 10, (April 08, (June 10, (2013- (2013- Reason of change/ (April 08, 2019 (June 10, at at N=New at Appraisal 2019 2020 2019 2020 2021) 2021) Comments restructuring) 2020 Appraisal Appraisal R=Revised restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) In #s In % restructuring) D=Deleted This indicator was revised to include not only [1.3] Hazard- seismic, but hydromet R: monitoring stations. Therefore, this [1.3] Seismic monitoring Indicator stations indicator measured the network established and NC 0 0 0 100 42 42 42 100 name collecting and seismic and hydro- functioning (Percentage) and end transmitting data meteorological monitoring target (Number) stations that were equipped and collecting and transmitting data. Component 2: Strengthening of Municipal and Community-Level DRM Capacities This indicator measured NC: [2.1] CODEMs and CODELs the operational activities Indicator established and of each CODEM, as well NC NC 0 0 0 60 100 100 225 225 name. functioning effectively verified the establishment R: End (Number) and strengthening of Target. CODELs by the project. [2.1 (a)] Women participating [2.1 (a)] Women R: actively in Replaced the word participating actively in Indicator management “committees” for management committees NC 0 0 0 35 40 40 42 105 name positions of “positions” to expand the of CODEM and CODELs and end CODEMs and scope of the indicator. (Percentage) target CODELs (Percentage) [2.2] At least 70% of Target increased by 15%, NC: sampled technical staff to measure the Indicator from municipalities rate satisfaction of training NC NC 0 0 0 70 85 85 96 113 name. training received under provided under the project R: End the Project as Satisfactory to technical staff in Target. (Percentage) selected municipalities. [2.3] Database of risk and vulnerability analyses and NC NC 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 NC Same indicator and target. municipal plans is publicly available (Percentage) Page 50 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Indicator NC=No Baseline Baseline End Target End Target Achieved Achieved Indicator Name Name Baseline End Target change Indicator Name (April 08, (June 10, (April 08, (June 10, (2013- (2013- Reason of change/ (April 08, 2019 (June 10, at at N=New at Appraisal 2019 2020 2019 2020 2021) 2021) Comments restructuring) 2020 Appraisal Appraisal R=Revised restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) In #s In % restructuring) D=Deleted [2.4] Municipalities Related to former PDO- with new and/or Level Results Indicator 3. updated The indicator measured municipal the municipal --- planning or NC --- 0 0 --- 16 16 18 113 N governments that adopted management municipal planning tools with a risk focusing on risk management management and/or approach intervention strategies. (Number) Same indicator. Target [2.4] Participants in To be changed from "To be consultation activities assessed R: End assessed during during project NC NC 0 0 0 during 14,094 14,094 34,448 244 Target implementation" to implementation [Core] implement 14,094. This was a CORE (Number) ation indicator only at appraisal. [2.5 (a)] Women are now [2.4 (a)] Participants in Participants in measured independently. consultation activities To be R: consultation Target changed from "To during project assessed Indicator activities during be assessed during implementation-female NC 0 0 0 during 6,423 6,423 14,692 229 name project implementation" to 6,423 /indigenous and afro- implement and end implementation women. This was a CORE Honduran [Core ation target – female breakdown indicator only breakdown] (Number) (Number) at appraisal. [2.5 (b)] Participants in Indigenous/afro-Honduran consultation are now measured activities during independently. --- project NC --- 0 0 --- 1,000 1,000 1,929 193 N Autochthonous population implementation– disaggregated indicator to indigenous/ measure community afro Honduran engagement. (Number) [2.6] Community The indicator was added Early Warning to measure the number of Systems --- NC --- 0 0 --- 12 12 12 100 N community early warning Strengthened/ systems strengthened Rehabilitated and/or rehabilitated by through the Page 51 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Indicator NC=No Baseline Baseline End Target End Target Achieved Achieved Indicator Name Name Baseline End Target change Indicator Name (April 08, (June 10, (April 08, (June 10, (2013- (2013- Reason of change/ (April 08, 2019 (June 10, at at N=New at Appraisal 2019 2020 2019 2020 2021) 2021) Comments restructuring) 2020 Appraisal Appraisal R=Revised restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) In #s In % restructuring) D=Deleted provision of the project through the equipment by purchase of equipment the project and/or spare parts. (Number) Component 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures [3.1] Prioritized At appraisal, 60 mitigation R: structural measures were planned [3.1] Prioritized mitigation Indicator mitigation without clarifying the measures implemented NC 0 0 0 60 40 40 40 100 name measures number of structural and (Number) and end implemented non-structural measures. target (Number) Therefore, in the 2019 RP, [3.2] Prioritized the targets for nonstructural implementing 40 mitigation structural and 20 --- NC --- 0 0 --- 20 20 55 275 N nonstructural mitigation measures implemented measures were defined (Number) and separated. [3.3] Percentage of a sampled [3.2] At least 70% of direct sampled direct beneficiaries that R: beneficiaries agree that rate structural Indicator mitigation measures mitigation NC 0 0 0 70 85 85 97 114 name implemented under the measures and end Project reflect their implemented as target priorities (Percentage) satisfactory Target increased by 15%. (reflect their The indicator was priorities) modified to measure the [3.3 (a)] satisfaction of the direct Percentage of a beneficiaries in each sampled direct implemented structural [3.2 (a)] At least 70% of female mitigation measure. sampled direct female R: beneficiaries that beneficiaries agree that Indicator rate structural mitigation measures NC 0 0 0 70 85 85 97 114 name mitigation implemented under the and end measures Project reflect their target implemented as priorities (Percentage) satisfactory (reflect their priorities) Page 52 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Indicator NC=No Baseline Baseline End Target End Target Achieved Achieved Indicator Name Name Baseline End Target change Indicator Name (April 08, (June 10, (April 08, (June 10, (2013- (2013- Reason of change/ (April 08, 2019 (June 10, at at N=New at Appraisal 2019 2020 2019 2020 2021) 2021) Comments restructuring) 2020 Appraisal Appraisal R=Revised restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) restructuring) In #s In % restructuring) D=Deleted Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation [4.1] Baseline for Project impact, Mid-Term Report, and Final Evaluation NC NC 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 100 NC Same indicator and target. Report completed in a timely fashion (Number) Component 5: Contingency Emergency Response Component [5.1] CERC established and ready to provide access to financial resources to NC NC 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100 NC Same indicator and target. Honduras in case of an eligible emergency (Number) [5.2] OSI and/or UAM prioritized for This indicator was added COVID-19 to provide support to the --- --- --- --- 0 --- --- 8 12 150 N response Government’s response to supported by the COVID-19 pandemic. COPECO (Number) Ref.: Revised end targets and indicators. Errors in targets identified in the PAD. Page 53 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS Name Role Preparation Enrique Pantoja, Ana Campos Garcia Task Team Leader(s) Anemarie Guth Proite Procurement Specialist Jose Simon Rezk Financial Management Specialist Jason Jacques Paiement Social Specialist Tuuli Johanna Bernardini Social Specialist Supervision/ICR Eduardo Ereno Blanchet Task Team Leader Emma Katrine Alexandra Phillips Task Team Leader Horacio Cristian Terraza Task Team Leader Carlos Lago Bouza, Zoila Catherine Abreu Rojas Procurement Specialist(s) Solange Maria Olivera Financial Management Specialist Eduardo Franca De Souza Financial Management Specialist Ricardo Marten Caceres Social Specialist Solmari Jazmin Huelle M&E Specialist Rodrigo Andres Donoso Arias Team Member Diacono Raul Vera Hernandez Environmental Specialist Lizardo Narvaez Marulanda Task Team Leader Claudia Patricia Pacheco Florez Team Member Mirtha Liliana Escobar Saenz Team Member Dianna M. Pizarro Social Specialist Leanne Farrell Environmental Specialist Enrique Pantoja Task Team Leader Haris Sanahuja Team Member Angelica Calderon Procurement Team Maria Carolina Rogelis Prada Impact Evaluation Specialist Page 54 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) B. STAFF TIME AND COST Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs) Preparation FY12 .600 34,113.87 FY13 10.712 147,912.50 FY18 0 5,006.75 Total 11.31 187,033.12 Supervision/ICR FY13 10.471 91,669.79 FY14 22.532 170,361.60 FY15 32.747 255,686.65 FY16 17.825 116,448.35 FY17 18.576 203,583.92 FY18 8.545 276,682.81 FY19 9.320 141,907.32 FY20 18.177 157,198.32 Total 138.19 1,413,538.76 Page 55 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Revised Revised Revised Planned Planned costs, Planned costs, Actual Cost as Planned cost including Actual Cost including including of July 31, 2021 costs at reallocation of as of July Components cancellation of reallocation of (Expenditure at Appraisal CERC funds 31, 2021 CERC funds CERC funds Project Closing (In US $) -June 2020- (in %) -April 2014- -April 2019- -in US$M-) (In US $) (In US $) (In US $) Component 1: Strengthening of 2.20 2.20 4.74 4.70 4.47 95% National level DRM Capacities Component 2: Strengthening of Municipal and Community Level DRM 2.90 2.90 5.07 4.30 4.25 99% Capacities Component 3: Implementation of 13.05 13.05 13.13 13.70 11.76 86% Mitigation Measures Component 4: Project Management, 1.85 1.85 3.06 2.77 2.82 102% Monitoring and Evaluation Component 5: Contingency Emergency 10.00 6.00 0.00 0.53 0.42 79% Response Component Total 30.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 23.72 91% Page 56 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS Economic and Financial Analysis (EFA) I. PROJECT BACKGROUND 1. The Project Development Objectives (PDOs) are to support Honduras to: (a) continue strengthening its capacity for integrated disaster risk management at the municipal and national level; and (b) improve its capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an Eligible Emergency. 2. The Project outcomes are: (i) National-level DRM capacities strengthened, (ii) Municipal and Community-level DRM capacities strengthened, (iii) Mitigation measures implemented; and (iv) Government capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency improved. 3. The PGRD focused its efforts on strengthening Honduras capacity for integrated Disaster Risk Management (DRM) at the national, municipal, and community levels, supporting the analysis, planning, decision-making, and implementation of actions aimed at addressing disaster vulnerabilities in the Sula Valley region and preventing the effects of potential hazards from causing severe damage or disruption to lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems. Structural risk mitigation works were built in strategic sites in consultation with the local population and based on local knowledge and technical criteria to ensure better functionality. 4. At the national level, this included investments in equipment, software development, meteorological stations, and at the municipal and community levels, it focused on strengthening the organization of municipal and local emergency committees (CODEMs and CODELs). In addition, 40 structural mitigation works were built in 20 municipalities prioritized by the Project, which aimed at reducing vulnerability to natural hazards. 5. The outcomes related to the strengthening of Honduras' capacity for integrated DRM resulted from the interventions and outputs included in Components 1, 2, and 3; i.e., it would be achieved by strengthening DRM institutions and policy-making, enhancing coordination between central institutions and key municipal and local actors, incorporating DRM in territorial planning with participatory methodologies, implementing structural and nonstructural mitigation measures in 20 municipalities, and ensuring social inclusion, technical quality, and environmental sustainability. The outcome “Capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an Eligible Emergency improved” resulted from the interventions and outputs included in Component 5. II. PROJECT ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (EFA) 6. Scope of the Analysis. This EFA covered five aspects: (i) Financial Analysis; (ii) Ex-post Economic Analysis; (iii) Project costs; and (v) Sensitivity Analysis. 7. Information Sources: Most of the information included in this section derives from the economic and financial evaluations ex-ante (project appraisal) and ex-post (project evaluation of 35 works). The data required for this evaluation was provided by the PIU. Additional information comes from the PGRD Impact Evaluation Report and key inputs completed as part of this report – such as the final PGRD Report (which includes the final costs and beneficiaries of the 40 works). 8. Methodology. The following activities were carried out the EFA: Page 57 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) a) A database was created on the 40 works distributed as follows: 35 mitigation works built over the period 2013-2019 plus the five works built in 2020 and 2021. b) This database contains a description of each mitigation work (number, name, location by department, municipality, and community; year of construction, the final cost of each work; and the number of direct and indirect beneficiaries per work). In addition, the database contains the costs by component: those originally approved, those revised in 2014 and 2019, and the actual closing costs (as of July 31, 2021). Also, the database includes the economic indicators for the 40 mitigation works implemented under Component 3, and the project evaluation (Components 1 to 5). 9. Evaluation criteria: a) Economic Analysis measures the impact of the project on the economy of the country, region, or locality where the project was implemented. The Economic Analysis also examines the costs and benefits, but in some cases using non-monetary values, since this allows it to measure the regional, national, or local economy. Also, it incorporates benefits and costs that do not carry monetary values and can be attributed. The economic evaluation indicators considered in this analysis were Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C), Net Present Value (NPV), and Internal Rate of Return (IRR), as described below: • Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR): This indicator calculates the present value of total benefits (total project income or social benefits) compared to total costs, including investments and current expenses. A cost-benefit analysis is a process of comparing the projected or estimated costs and benefits (or opportunities) associated with a project decision to determine if the project is profitable. The project is considered profitable if the BCR is greater than 1. If it is equal to 1, the project is neither profitable nor lossy. If it is less than 1, the project investment generates losses and implies that the investment would not be recovered. The BCR is used almost exclusively as a measure of social benefits. • Net Present Value (NPV): NPV is interpreted as the value of the net benefits (income minus costs) generated by an investment when considering a discount rate. If NPV is used as an investment selection criterion, a project is acceptable if its present value is equal to or greater than zero. The NPV can prioritize and select between projects or different alternatives that involve the same investment amounts. In such cases, projects with an NPV equal to or greater than zero are selected, ranking them according to the order of magnitude of the NPV. The formula used in this evaluation was: n Rt NPV = ∑ (1 + i ) t t=1 Where: Rt = Net cash inflow-outflows during a single period t i = Discount rate or return that could be earned in alternative investments t = Number of years or periods Page 58 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Interpretation: • If NPV = 0: The investment in the project does not produce gains or losses. The choice or acceptance of the project will depend on other criteria. • If NPV > 0: The project would generate higher profits than alternative projects of equal risk (or higher than the required rate). It is ideal for the acceptance of the project. • If NPV < 0: The project would generate losses concerning the required profitability. It must be rejected. • Internal Rate of Return (IRR): IRR represents the financial rate of return on the money invested in the project. The IRR is an index that corresponds to a discount rate that makes the present value of the total costs equal to the value of the total benefits during the project's useful life or period of analysis. This rate indicates the maximum interest that the project could pay for the resources used without incurring losses. If the IRR is used as an investment selection criterion, a project is acceptable if its IRR is equal to or greater than the opportunity cost of capital. The formula used in this evaluation was: n Bt - C t IRR = ∑ (1 + i ) t =0 t=1 Where: Bt = Cash flow of benefits during a single period t Ct = Cash flow of costs during a single period t i = Discount rate or return that could be earned in alternative investments t = Number of years or periods Interpretation: The IRR will be compared to the opportunity cost or profitability of alternative projects of equal risk (minimum profitability required or “r”). • If IRR = r: The IRR equals the profitability of other similar projects. The choice/acceptance of the project will depend on other criteria. • IRR > r: It is ideal for the choice or acceptance of the project. • IRR <0: The project will have lower profitability than required. It must be rejected. b) The Financial Analysis examines costs, benefits at real prices and determines their relationships in terms of indicators that reflect individuals' or companies' points of view or private interest. It also provides information on when funds are required and when income is expected to be received (the ex-ante analysis). It also shows when the productive activities were executed and the real flow costs and income during a period of analysis, and the final balance (the ex-post analysis). It consists of determining if a project will obtain sufficient returns to recover the funds invested in it and generate earnings, which would mean that it is a financially feasible project. In the Financial Analysis of projects, two types of analysis are done: 1) Projections of the financial statements to examine the behavior of the project's finances to judge its ability to meet the planned financing, and 2) The application of indicators determine the potential capacity of the return on the planned investment. In addition, Financial Analysis provides a series of indicators that determine how and measure the investments are converted into available monetary cash and if this is sufficient to meet the payments of obligations and the project's operating costs. Page 59 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) The PGRD 2013-2021 financial reports were analyzed for this evaluation to calculate the evaluation indicators, the flows of funds from the financial execution of each component from March 2013-July 2021, with the information on the structural mitigation works’ investments, at the local and municipal levels. As stated in the PAD, one of the main challenges of promoting disaster mitigation and prevention is to demonstrate that its potential benefits exceed its costs in terms of lives saved and property protected. Estimating the costs of disaster risk reduction activities is relatively easy, while estimating their benefits is complicated by its probabilistic nature. Although economic effects cannot be verified, there are indications of positive economic efficiency regarding the results of the Project. 10. EFA ratings: The evaluation ratings are based on a 4-point scale: Rating Qualification Description 4 High Efficiency exceeds expectations. 3 Substantial Efficiency is what you would expect in the Project sector. 2 Modest Efficiency is below expectations in the Project sector. 1 Negligible The efficiency is very low compared to the benefits. III. EFA Results Economic Analysis 11. The Evaluation was based on the collection, analysis, and interpretation of secondary information to define the efficiency of the Project implementation based on the following economic indicators: BCR, NPV, and IRR. 12. The following segments of the population were considered in this analysis: 1) Indirect beneficiaries: this includes communities that are not located near the structural mitigation measures but who received information on disaster risk and the mitigation measures through the communication campaigns of PGRD. 2) Direct beneficiaries: this includes the communities directly impacted by the 40 structural mitigation measures and received training. 3) Municipal and Local Emergency Committees: The third group includes beneficiaries that make up the institutional framework that promotes DRM at the local level through the Municipal Emergency Committees (CODEMs) and the Local Emergency Committees (CODELs). PGRD provided training, technical assistance and supported institutionalization and adoption of the Disaster Risk Mitigation. 13. The results obtained from the ex-post Economic Analysis of the PGRD are higher than those estimated in the ex-ante Economic Analysis (see Table 1): Page 60 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Table 1: Economic Analysis Indicators Evaluation indicators Ex ante Ex post DIFFERENCE Expected Benefits US$10.8 million US$19.3 million US$8.5 million NPV US$1.9 million US$3.4 million US$1.5 million IRR 12.89% 21% 8.11% Source: WB Economic and Financial Evaluation (August 2021). 14. The ex-post economic analysis was based on actual project outputs, project costs, and estimates of the likely impact of the forty (40) structural mitigation measures built. Its results show that the Project is profitable with an economic Net Present Value (NPV) of US$ 3.4 million and an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 21 percent. The economic benefits of the Project were US$19.3 million, with a BCR of 1.21. The Project's economic benefits exceed the associated costs by US$8.5 million, NPV by US$1.5 million, and IRR by 8.11%, using a 10 percent discount rate and 25 years of analysis. See Graph 1: Graph 1 Ex-ante and ex-post comparative analysis of Economic Indicators Ex-ante Economic Analysis Ex-post Economic Analysis 25 19.3 21 20 15 12.89 10.8 10 5 3.4 1.9 0 Expected Benefits NPV IRR Source: WB Economic and Financial Evaluation (August 2021). 15. The ex-post economic analysis was developed under the same methodology used in the ex-ante assessment, based on the following criteria: 1) The same opportunity cost of capital of 10%, and 2) All costs and benefits estimates were projected to 25 years, which was the return period used for the structural mitigation works33. 16. The forty structural mitigation works built are rated "high" due to a Benefit/Cost ratio greater than 1, a positive NPV, and an IRR above the applied discount rate (10%) obtained in this evaluation. See Table 2 for details on the results of the Economic indicators for each structural mitigation measure. 33 See costs and benefits criteria used in the ex-ante economic analysis on pages 75 and 76, PAD. Page 61 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Table 2 Economic Evaluation Indicators: Benefit/Cost (B/C), Net Present Value (NPV), and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Description of the structural mitigation measures Economic indicators Year of No. Name of the work Department Municipality Community B/C NPV (In US$) IRR construction Santa Barrio Monte Fresco / 1 Canalization of pluvial water and pedestrian access Las Vegas 2013 1.34 40,516.55 21% Bárbara Colonia Orellana Construction of box culvert bridge to canalize pluvial water and 2 Cortés San Manuel Aldea El Porvenir 2013 1.72 94,287.74 19% reduce vulnerability San Antonio 3 Construction of box culvert bridge Cortés Quebrada La Tigra 2013 1.75 62,457.34 20% de Cortés 4 Canalization of pluvial water Cortés Pimienta Barrio Suyapa 2013 1.34 37,161.83 21% El 5 Canalization of pluvial water Cortés Potrerillos 2013 1.35 45,263.03 21% Nuevo Higuerito Central 6 Canalization of pluvial water Yoro El Negrito Barrio Abajo 2014 1.34 78,523.83 21% 7 Construction of stormwater pipe Yoro El Progreso Barrio San Juan 2014 1.58 170,946.11 22% Construction of gabion wall to reduce risk in the left riverbank of Santa 8 Petoa Barrio Pueblo Nuevo 2014 1.68 143,000,12 20% the Cacaulapa river Bárbara 9 Protection of the left riverbank of the Santa Cruz creek Yoro Morazán Aldea Cuyamapa 2014 1.34 77,823.98 21% Protection of the left levee, El Zapote sector, Guaruma I, to reduce 10 Cortés La Lima El Zapote / Guaruma 2014 1.35 88,917.53 21% risk from the Chamelecon river Construction of stormwater pipe to reduce risk in the El Calvario and Santa Cruz Barrios El Calvario y El 11 Cortés 2014 1.37 134,574.63 18% El Centro neighborhoods de Yojoa Centro 12 STAGE II- Protection of the left levee Cortés La Lima El Zapote 2015 1.34 80,639.65 21% 13 Construction of levee on the left riverbank of the San Idelfonso river Cortés Omoa Aldea Potrerillos 2015 1.34 78,818.53 21% Protection of the right riverbank of the metallic bridge on the Puerto 14 Cortés Aldea Baracoa 2015 1.34 77,738.46 21% Chamelecon river Cortés Canalization of pluvial water and protection of the left riverbank of 15 Cortés Choloma Colonia Valle de Sula 2015 1.38 108,207.58 22% the El Carmen lagoon 16 Canalization of pluvial water Atlántida Tela Colonia Venecia 2015 1.07 25,441.62 14% Protection of banks of the stormwater canal and repairing of box Colonia La 17 Cortés Villanueva 2016 1.34 79,985.06 21% culvert bridge Independencia Page 62 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Description of the structural mitigation measures Economic indicators Year of No. Name of the work Department Municipality Community B/C NPV (In US$) IRR construction STAGE II: Construction of gabion wall to reduce risk in the left Santa 18 Petoa Aldea Pueblo Nuevo 2016 1.49 96,649.11 18% floodplain of the Cacaulapa river Bárbara 19 Canalization of pluvial water Cortés San Manuel Aldea El Plan 2016 1.38 107,427.06 22% Aldea San 20 Canalization of pluvial water Yoro Morazán 2016 1.36 74,291.47 22% Juan Camalote Complementary work of the structural mitigation measure #11 Santa Cruz Barrios El Calvario y El Cortés 2016 stormwater pipe de Yojoa Centro 21 Canalization of pluvial water in the north-east sector Yoro El Progreso Ciudad de El Progreso 2017 1.38 107,043,32 22% Santa Quebrada Piedras 22 Riverbank protection works in the Piedras Amarillas creek Las Vegas 2017 1.34 75,085.83 21% Bárbara Amarillas 23 Canalization of pluvial water Cortés Omoa Sector Sur Casco Urbano 2017 1.34 80,252.92 21% Construction of box culvert bridge on the Chasnigua creek in El 24 Cortés Villanueva Comunidad El Sauce 2018 1.75 150,382.79 20% Sauce community Santa 25 Construction of box culvert bridge on the Naco river Quimistán Río Naco 2018 1.74 121,002.51 20% Bárbara Barrios Reparto 26 Canalization of pluvial water from the Callejas hill Cortés Potrerillos Pedregal y Poder 2018 1.40 144,735.81 23% Ciudadano Construction of levee on the left bank of the Helado river and Santa Cruz Aldea Buenos Aires- 27 Cortés 2018 1.40 163,002,99 23% hanging bridge de Yojoa La Jutosa Barrios Lara 28 Canalization of pluvial water Yoro Santa Rita Independencia y 2018 1.40 150,587.52 23% Subirana San Construction of levee on the left bank of the Chiquito river and 29 Cortés Francisco de Colonia La Paz 2018 1.35 54,923.54 21% canalization of pluvial water Yojoa Protection of right riverbank and construction of a pedestrian San Pedro 30 Cortés Colonia Los Ángeles 2019 1.40 152,396.21 23% bridge on the El Sauce creek Sula San Pedro 31 Riverbank protection of the Inter-sindical creek Cortés Colonia SITRATELH 2019 1.40 131,761.83 23% Sula Page 63 The World Bank Disaster Risk Management Project (P131094) Description of the structural mitigation measures Economic indicators Year of No. Name of the work Department Municipality Community B/C NPV (In US$) IRR construction 32 Construction of box culvert bridge on the Toloa river Atlántida Tela Comunidad de Toloa 2019 1.84 258,596.11 21% San 33 Box culvert bridge and left riverbank protection Cortés Francisco de Colonia Belén 2019 1.83 281,137.35 21% Yojoa Santa Barrio San 34 Construction of stormwater pipe and box culvert bridge Quimistán 2019 1.83 378,300.47 21% Bárbara Martín Pinalejo 35 Canalization of pluvial water Cortés Pimienta Pimienta Km 86 2019 1.35 90,423.28 21% San Antonio Comunidad El Caulote y 36 Construction of bridge on the La Cienega creek Cortés 2020 1.86 716,242.97 24% de Cortés Nueva Unión Puerto Colonia La Esperanza y 37 Construction of embankment and canalization of pluvial water Cortés 2020 1.45 224,580.08 24% Cortés Nuevos Horizontes Second stage of the canalization of pluvial water in the southern 38 Cortés Choloma Colonia López Arellano 2020 1.29 179,826.04 20% sector 39 Canalization of pluvial water of the Rosario Nuñez neighborhood Yoro El Negrito Colonia Rosario Nuñez 2020 1.43 236,026.66 24% 40 Canalization of pluvial water Yoro Santa Rita Barrio Municipal 2020 1.32 200,391.05 21% Complementary work of the structural mitigation measure #16 to Atlántida Tela Colonia Venecia 2020 reinforce a pluvial water canal Source: WB Ex-post Economic and Financial Evaluation (August 2021). Page 64 17. Positive economic indicators results were obtained for each structural mitigation measure. However, due to the characteristics of each work, there are differences in the indicators. For example, work 36 “Construction of a bridge over the Quebrada La Ciénaga to reduce risk in the El Caulote , and Nueva Unión Community in the Municipality of San Antonio de Cortés” presents the highest evaluation indicators: BCR 1.86, NPV US$716,242.97 and an IRR of 24%, while Work 16 “Canalization of rainwater for risk reduction in Colonia Venecia in the Municipality of Tela”, built in 2015, presents the lowest evaluation indicators: BCR 1.07, NPV US$25,441.62, and an IRR 14%. This is because the work required complementary works to strengthen the canal for an investment of US$157,725.46 in 2020. 18. The Economic Analysis concludes that the PGRD Project was an efficient intervention that demonstrated a successful approach in its design and implementation and was also well-received by several of the stakeholders who had a specific role in its performance. Financial Analysis 19. As of July 31, 2021, the Project had a good financial performance, which presents a financial execution of US$23,715,204.00 or 99% regarding the disbursed funds (of the total disbursed: US$23,926,796.00),; and 91% of the total loan of US$26 million. As of July 31, 2021, the remaining balance was US$211,592.00 (non-disbursed funds), distributed as follows: US$114,654.00 (Component 5) and US$96,938.00 (Special Account, Components 1 to 4). 20. During implementation, several financial changes were made that did not affect the Project objectives, such as: a) The first Project Restructuring (2014) canceled US$4 million of the IDA Credit from the CERC component (Balance: US$ 26 million), b) Due to the Mid-Term Review (2017), a third Project Restructuring (2019) resulted in several significant changes, including a reallocation of funds from the CERC Component to all other Components, as well as a change in component costs, c) On June 2, 2020, a first CERC activation was requested and approved by the Association to support the Recipient’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic for an amount of US$533,124. The scope of this first CERC was to assess and rehabilitate 12 local health centers. In November 2020, the Eta and Iota Tropical Cyclones heavily affected most of these health centers; therefore, the identified scope of the CERC work became obsolete, which led the GoH to cancel these activities. The GoH submitted a revised Emergency Action Plan (EAP) to modify the scope of the first CERC and limit it to US$100,108 worth of equipment to attend the COVID-19 emergency. The WB received a letter from the Minister of Finance dated May 3, 2021, confirming its interest to activate the CERC to assign uncommitted funds under Category 2 in the withdrawal table outlined in Section IV.A of Schedule 2 to the Financing Agreement to finance immediate recovery activities to address the compound impacts of tropical cyclones Eta and Iota (US$432,929) and redirect the COVID19 pandemic response (US$100,108). The request included a new EAP in response to the Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota and a revised EAP in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cumulatively in both EAPs, the estimate for Bank financing needed was US$533,037. The amount of US$533,124 was already reallocated from Category (1) to Category (2) of the disbursement table under the CERC, activated for the COVID-19 response. This amount was also already disbursed to the Recipient and was available at the PGRD’s Designated Account when the new request of CERC activation was submitted. 21. Therefore, the following table represents the changes of the Project Costs regarding the PAD, the Project restructurings and changes mentioned above, as well as the Actual Costs: Page 65 Table 3 Project Costs: Original, Revised, and Actual Costs as of July 2021 (in US$) Revised Planned Revised Planned cost Revised Planned cost costs including Actual Cost Actual Cost Planned costs at including reallocation including reallocation reallocation of (Expenditure at (Expenditure at Components Apraisal of CERC of CERC CERC Project Closing Project Closing (In US $) funds April 2019 funds june 2020 funds April 2014 -in -US$-) (in %) (In US $) (In US $) (In US $) Component 1: Strengthening of National - 2.20 2.20 4.74 4.70 4.47 17% level DRM Capacities Component 2: Strengtheing of Municipal 2.90 2.90 5.07 4.30 4.25 16% and Community - Level DRM Capacities Component 3: Implementation of 13.05 13.05 13.13 13.70 11.76 45% Mitigation Measures Component 4: Project Managment, 1.85 1.85 3.06 2.77 2.82 11% Monitoring and Evaluation Component 5: Contingency Emergency 10.00 6.00 0.00 0.53 0.42 2% Response Component Totals……………. 30.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 23.72 91% Source: PGRD Final Evaluation Report (September 2020). PGRD Final Costs (2012-July 2021). 2014-2020 Restructuring Papers. 22. The Project Costs by component and year is presented below in Table 4: Table 4 2012-July 2021 Project Costs by Component and Year (US$) COMPONENT COMPONENT COMPONENT COMPONENT COMPONENT YEAR TOTALS I II III IV V 2012 - - - 18,571.29 - 18,571.29 2013 288,534.20 147,770.93 350,201.68 224,507.88 - 1,011,014.69 2014 646,74.96 1,123,954.75 1,279,310.94 287,027.42 - 3,337,037.07 2015 408,582.16 1,201,306.06 1,327,206.91 295,978.78 - 3,233,073.91 2016 288,257.00 314,589.57 979,600.39 291,873.54 - 1,874,320.50 2017 283,695.51 645,500.29 906,099.51 423,247.72 - 2,258,543.03 2018 278,844.83 259,890.36 1,159,600.35 365,509.73 - 2,063,845.27 2019 734,889.90 476,322.28 2,456,478.17 385,504.27 - 4,053,194.62 2020 1,525,744,44 78,408.76 3,071,718.05 409,005.37 34,025.00 5,118,901.62 To July 2021 12,416.00 - 227,173.00 122,668.00 384,445.00 746,702.00 TOTALS 4,467,708.00 4,247,743.00 11,757,389.00 2,823,894.00 418,470.00 23,715,204.00 Source: PGRD Final report (2013-2021). Pg. 95. PGRD Final Evaluation (September 2020). Pg. 104. Page 66 23. The Project Costs by year is presented below in Graph 2: Graph 2: 2012 - June 2021 Project Costs 2012 - July 31, 2021** Project disbursements by year 6,000,000.00 5,118,901.62 5,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,337,037.07 4,053,194.62 3,233,073.91 3,000,000.00 2,258,543.03 2,000,000.00 2,063,845.27 1,874,320.50 746,702.00 1,000,000.00 1,011,014.69 … - Source: PGRD Final report (2013-2021) Pag. 95. PGRD Final Evaluation (September 2020) Pag. 104. 24. Total Project Costs (Components 1 to 5) adjusted by the July 31, 2021 SDR deflator (See Table 5): The planned costs (at Appraisal) were: SDR 19.5 million (US$ 30 million equivalent); which represents to date US$ 27.47 million (adjusted by the SDR deflator); the revised costs (April 2014, April 2019 and June 2020 restructurings) were SDR 17.90 million (US$ 26.0 million equivalent), which represents to date US$ 23.81 million (adjusted by the SDR deflator). The actual costs (as of July 2021) were SDR 16.78 million (US$ 23.72 million equivalent), which represents to date US$ 23.02 million (adjusted by the SDR deflator). This reflects savings in actual costs of US$0.70 million (US$23.72 - US$23.02). 25. Also, in the case of the PGRD, the changes were reflected in the exchange rates from SDR to US$, because the Project budget was established in SDRs, which represented US$ 2.98 million (US$ 26 million - US$ 23.02 million) in savings (adjusted by the SDR deflator on July 31, 2021), as the Project achieved its targets with fewer funds (US$ 23.02 million, adjusted by the SDR deflator on July 31, 2021), compared to the revised budget of US$ 23.81 million (adjusted by the SDR deflator on July 31, 2021). The original budget was US$ 30 million (equivalent, without the deflator adjustment), and the revised budget was US$ 26 million (equivalent, without the deflator adjustment). 26. The difference between the real costs and the nominal costs, or the deflator, was measured over the life of the Project in terms of a base period (Appraisal, November 2012) through the closing date (June 30, 2021) to establish changes in the money value, comparing them with the achievement of physical targets. A deflator serves as a price index in which the effects of inflation are nulled. During the PGRD implementation period, the real effective exchange rate index fluctuated while trending low. During this period, inflation, based on GDP deflator, also fluctuated while growing. Overall, these variables did not represent significant challenges during project implementation. Page 67 Table 5. Project Cost by Component (adjusted by the SDR deflator) (In US$ million) Revised Revised Revised Planned costs Planned costs Planned cost Planned cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Planned costs at Apraisal including including including (Expenditure (Expenditure at Apraisal (In US $ M) - reallocation of reallocation of reallocation of Components at Project at Project Original Cost- Planed costs in CERC CERC CERC Closing Closing (In US $ M) US$ based SDR funds April funds April funds june -in -US$ M-) (in %) deflator- 2014 2019 2020 (In US $ M) (In US $ M) (In US $ M) Component 1: Strengthening of National 2.20 2.01 2.01 4.34 4.30 4.34 18% -level DRM Capacities Component 2: Strengtheing of Municipal 2.90 2.66 2.66 4.64 3.94 4.13 17% and Community - Level DRM Capacities Component 3: Implementation of 13.05 11.95 11.95 12.02 12.55 11.41 48% Mitigation Measures Component 4: Project Managment, 1.85 1.69 1.69 2.80 2.54 2.74 11% Monitoring and Evaluation Component 5: Contingency Emergency 10.00 9.16 5.49 0.00 0.49 0.41 2% Response Component Totals 30.00 27.47 23.81 23.81 23.81 23.02 97% 27. As mentioned above, Component 5 (CERC) was first activated in June 2020, with an amount of US$ 533,124 to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, and again this Component was activated in May 2021 to support the Government response of the Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota (See Table 6). Table 6: Planned, revised, and actual CERC Costs (in US$) Balance Revised Actual Cost Planned Actual Cost as of Description planned Jan-Jul costs to Dec-2020 July 31, costs 2021 2021 1 COVID -19 Emergency Response 533,124 100,108 34,025 40,122 25,961 2 ETA and IOTA Emergency Response --- 432,929 - 344,323 88,606 TOTALES 533,124 533,037 34,025 384,445 114,567 Source: 2013-2021 PGRD Final Report, Pag. 100. 28. As of July 31, 2021, US$23,926,796.00 (99%) has been disbursed, compared with the actual costs (US$ 23,715,204.00). Therefore, the remaining balance was US$211,592.00 (non-disbursed funds), distributed as follows: US$114,654.00 (Component 5) and US$96,938.00 (Special Account, Components 1 to 4) is shown in Table 7: Page 68 Table 7 Project Disbursements as of July 31, 2021 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (US $) Disbursed to July 31, 2021 23,926,796.00 Actual costs as of July 31, 2021 23,715,204.00 Balance as of July 31, 2021 211,592.00 Balance composition 211,592.00 Special Account BCH 11101-20-000-760-8 * 114,654.00 Special Account BCH 11101-20-000-726-8 ** 96,938.00 Source: 2013-2021 PGRD Final Report. * Component 5, Account Balance, Pag. 103 ** Balance of the Account of Components 1 – 4, Pag. 97. Main investments of the Project: 29. The main investments of the PGRD were made in Component 3 in the 20 selected municipalities with structural and nonstructural mitigation measures, the preparation of feasibility and design studies, and the municipal plans for risk management and land use planning, which reached US$10,965,986.91 and was distributed as follows (see Table 8): Table 8 Component 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures and Other Complementary Works (In US$) YEARS MITIGATION WORKS OTHER INVESTMENTS34 TOTALS 2013 437,096.79 874,06.70 524,503.49 2014 1,238,282.07 185,467.65 1,423,749.72 2015 1,051,135.54 110,212.70 1,161,348.24 2016 814,482.84 23,554.75 838,037.59 2017 607,579.56 66,127.62 673,707.18 2018 1,374,930.14 120,852.24 1,495,782.38 2019 1,735,578.44 120,852.24 1,856,430.68 2020 2,647,084.47 118,170.16 2,765,254.63 2021 - 227,173.00 227,173.00 TOTALS 9,906,169.85 1,059,817,06 10,965,986.91 Source: WB Economic and Financial Evaluation (August 2021). 30. In the Department of Cortés, 58% (US$5.78 million) of the total investments of the mitigation works were invested in 12 municipalities. In the Department of Yoro, 24% (US$.2.3 million), in the Department of Santa Bárbara 11% (US$1.1 million), and in the Department of Atlántida 7% (US$ 0.66 million). See Table 9. 31. At the municipal level, the largest investments were made in the Municipalities of Santa Rita of the Department of Yoro (8.5%), Choloma of the Department of Cortés (7.7%), US$844,918.70, and 34 Other investments include: Non-structural mitigation works, the preparation of feasibility and design studies, and the municipal plans for risk management and land use planning. Page 69 US$765,956.60. They were followed by the Municipality of Tela of the Department of Atlántida (6.7%), the Municipality of El Negrito of the Department of Yoro (6.6%), the municipalities of Santa Cruz de Yojoa (6.3%), San Antonio de Cortés (6.2%), Puerto Cortés (6.1%) and San Pedro Sula (6.0%), of the Department of Cortés. 32. The total investment in the 40 structural mitigation measures by department and municipality is presented below in Table 9. 9 7 Table No. CUADRO Structural INVESTMENTSMitigation Measures IN MITIGATION Investment WORKS by Department BY DEPARTMENT AND and Municipality(In MUNICIPALITY (In US$) US $) DEPARTMENTS / MUNICIPALITES No. OF WORKS AMOUNTS (in US$) % 1 DEPARTAMENT OF ATLÁNTIDA 2 661,675.32 6.7 1.1 Municipio de Tela 2 661,675.32 6.7 2 DEPARTAMENT OF CORTÉS 24 5,776,758.27 58.3 2.1 Municipio de Choloma 2 765,956.60 7.7 2.2 Municipio de La Lima 2 403,118.20 4.1 2.3 Municipio de Omoa 2 383,552.48 3.9 2.4 Municipio de Pimienta 2 294,177.08 3.0 2.5 Municipio de Potrerillos 2 401,757.74 4.1 2.6 Municipio de Puerto Cortés 2 605,390.42 6.1 2.7 Municipio de San Antonio de Cortés 2 609,394.48 6.2 2.8 Municipio de San Francisco de Yojoa 2 407,095.20 4.1 2.9 Municipio de San Manuel 2 335,633.59 3.4 2.10 Municipio de San Pedro Sula 2 590,138.40 6.0 2.11 Municipio de Santa Cruz de Yojoa 2 625,075.37 6.3 2.12 Municipio de Villanueva 2 355,468.71 3.6 3 DEPARTAMENT OF SANTA BÁRBARA 6 1,124,734.25 11.4 3.1 Municipio de Las Vegas 2 270,616.95 2.7 3.2 Municipio de Petoa 2 332,735.63 3.4 3.3 Municipio de Quimistán 2 521,381.67 5.3 4 DEPARTAMENT OF YORO 8 2,343,002.01 23.7 4.1 Municipio de El Negrito 2 651,735.01 6.6 4.2 Municipio de El Progreso 2 490,293.75 4.9 4.3 Municipio de Morazán 2 356,054.55 3.6 4.4 Municipio de Santa Rita 2 844,918.70 8.5 TOTALS 40 9,906,169.85 100.0 Source: WB Economic and Financial Evaluation (August 2021). Sensitivity Analysis 33. A sensitivity analysis is an indirect way of evaluating risks and uncertainty in projects to evaluate the following factors: delays, decreased profits, higher than expected costs, among others. For this EFA, a 20% reduction in benefits and increased costs by 20% was applied to analyze those factors (See Table 10). Page 70 Table 10. PGRD Sensitivity Analysis SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS DESCRIPCIÓN (20% Decreased Benefits) (20% Increased Costs) BCR NPV (In US $) IRR BCR NPV (In US $) IRR 40 STRUCTURAL MITIGATION MEASURES 1.14 1,118,686.59 14% 1.19 1,794,319.27 15% (COMPONENT 3) TOTAL PGRD PROJECT 0.97 (488,943.90) 9% 1.01 186,688.77 10% Source: WB Economic and Financial Evaluation (August 2021). 34. At the structural mitigation measures level, assuming the benefits decrease by 20%, the indicators will be positive (BCR= 1.14, NPV = - US $1,118,686.59 and IRR= 14%) and if costs increase by 20% the works also have obtained positive results (BCR= 1.19, NPV= US$ 1,794,319.27 and IRR= 15%). (See Table 10 and Graphs 3 and 4). Graph 3 Sensitivity Analysis (20% Benefits Decreased) Source: WB Economic and Financial Evaluation (August 2021). 35. At the project level, assuming the benefits decrease by 20%, the indicators will be negative (BCR= 0.97, NPV = - US $488,943.9 and IRR= 9%) and if costs increase by 20% the Project would have obtained positive results (BCR= 1.01, NPV= US$ 186,688.77 and IRR= 10%). (See Table 10 and Graphs 3 and 4). Page 71 Graph 4 Sensitivity Analysis (20% Cost Increased) Source: WB Economic and Financial Evaluation (August 2021). 36. The economic indicators obtained in the sensitivity analysis show that profitability is more susceptible to a decrease in benefits than an increase in costs. 37. Aspects of project design and implementation that contributed to efficiency. The main aspects in terms of project design were that the project was built on a long-standing cooperation with COPECO, which had already pre-selected the 20 municipalities and also had worked with the existing institutions, in particular at the local level, greatly facilitating the start of the project activities and contributed to the efficiency of the use of resources. Conclusions Economic Analysis 1. The Economic Analysis was based on actual project outputs, project costs, and estimates of the likely impact of the forty (40) structural mitigation measures built. The analysis shows that the Project is profitable with an economic Net Present Value (NPV) of US$ 3.4 million and an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 21 percent. The economic benefits of the Project were US$19.3 million, with a Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio of 1.21. 2. The Project's economic benefits exceed the associated costs by US$8.5 million, NPV by US$1.5 million, and IRR by 8.11%, using a 10 percent discount rate and 25 years of analysis, comparing them with the ex-ante economic analysis. 3. The forty structural mitigation works built were rated "high" due to a Benefit/Cost ratio greater than 1, a positive NPV, and an IRR above the applied discount rate (10%). Page 72 Financial Evaluation 4. As of July 31, 2021, the Project financial execution was US$23,715,204.00 (of the total disbursed: US$23,926,796.00), or 99% regarding the disbursed funds; and 91% of the total loan of US$26 million (revised planned costs). 5. As of July 31, 2021, the remaining balance was US$211,592.00 (non-disbursed funds), distributed as follows: US$114,654.00 (Component 5) and US$96,938.00 (Special Account, Components 1 to 4). 6. At the Department level, 58% of the total investments of the mitigation works were executed in 12 municipalities in the Department of Cortés. In the Department of Yoro, almost 24% (US$ 2.3 million) was invested, in the Department of Santa Bárbara 11% (US$ 1.1 million), and in the Department of Atlántida around 7% (US$ 0.66 million). 7. At the Municipal level, the largest investments were made in the Municipalities of Santa Rita (US$844,918.70 or 8.5%), Department of Yoro; and Choloma (US$765,956.60 or 7.7%), Department of Cortés; followed by the Municipalities of Tela (6.7%), Department of Atlántida; El Negrito (6.6%), Department of Yoro; and Santa Cruz de Yojoa (6.3%), San Antonio de Cortés (6.2%), Puerto Cortés (6.1%) and San Pedro Sula (6.0%), Department of Cortés. Sensitivity Analysis 8. The economic indicators obtained in the sensitivity analysis show that profitability is more susceptible to a decrease in benefits than an increase in costs. Bibliography • PGRD Final Economic Evaluation. COPECO/PGRD (July 2020). • PGRD Mid-Term Review. COPECO/PGRD (July 2017). • PGRD Final Evaluation (Qualitative). COPECO/PGRD (August 2020). • PGRD Final Evaluation (Quantitative). COPECO/PGRD (July 2020). • PGRD Final Progress Report. Period 2013-2021 COPECO/PGRD (August 2021). • Project Appraisal Document. Disaster Risk Management Project. The World Bank. November 2012. • Five Project Restructuring Papers (April 2014, September 2015, April 2019, June 2020, and December 2020). • Technical, Economic, and Environmental Final Evaluation of Structural Mitigation Measures implemented by PGRD. COPECO/PGRD (August 2020). • Database for the PGRD Final Economic Evaluation. COPECO/PGRD (July 2020). Page 73 ANNEX 5. COMPLEMENTARY EFFICACY ANALYSIS (IMPACT EVALUATION) 1. A complementary efficacy analysis was carried out to assess the impact of the Project according to the objectives and indicators established in the PAD and the restructurings. This analysis is based on the available documentation that includes: i) the Baseline, the Mid Term Review (MTR), and Final Evaluations; the evaluation of 5 structural mitigation works and one reinforcement work carried out in 2020 and ii) the final report of the Project prepared by the PIU. 2. The efficacy analysis is organized around the Project Development Objectives (PDO), and the four project outcomes: (i) National-level DRM capacities strengthened, (ii) Municipal and Community-level DRM capacities strengthened, (iii) Mitigation measures implemented; and (iv) Government capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency improved. 3. Information source. The information to develop this impact evaluation was obtained from the following documents: PGRD Baseline (data collected from November-December 2015); MTR (data collected in February 2017); Final Evaluation (data collected from December 2019 to August 2020); and the evaluation of five structural mitigation works and one reinforcement work carried out in 2020 (through this impact evaluation). The MTR and the Final Evaluation include an assessment of the structural mitigation works and surveys that capture the beneficiary and institutional perceptions of their benefits. However, a detailed impact evaluation based on the quantification of risk reduction provided by the mitigation works is not possible due to the lack of a detailed risk assessment of the before/after scenarios. Therefore, the impact is assessed based on the evaluation reports' existing information, including surveys carried out according to the methodology established during the baseline assessment 35 . As such, limitations exist assessing structural mitigation works since the perception of beneficiaries and institutions may differ significantly from benefits estimated from a risk-based analysis. Outcome 1: National-level DRM capacities strengthened 4. The Project was successful in strengthening national institutions on DRM. The specific achievement of this outcome was measured through the PDO-level indicator 1 (Direct project beneficiaries, including a percentage of female beneficiaries) and PDO-level Indicator 2 (Representative sample of direct project beneficiaries, and sampled female beneficiaries, satisfied with COPECO's DRM Project activities). The project surpassed its targets with the project benefiting 1,343,780 people (105% of the targeted 1,285,000 beneficiaries), with 52% being female beneficiaries (reaching 102% of the project target); and with 96% of sampled beneficiaries satisfied with COPECO's DRM activities (achieving 113% of the target), with 93% satisfaction from the female sample (achieving 109% of the target). All of them were achieved and most surpassed. 5. Despite not being captured by the indicators, several capacity-building activities for the Permanent Commission of Contingencies (COPECO) were carried out. The institutional capacity of COPECO was strengthened through the following activities supported by the Project: South-South knowledge exchange activities in Bogota and Manizalez, Colombia; the construction and equipping of the building for the PIU; acquisition of seven vehicles for the Project and five for COPECO; expansion of the office of 35 Evaluation plan and baseline report, page 14 Page 74 regional No 2 in San Pedro Sula; a solar photovoltaic system was installed in the COPECO main offices; communication and computing equipment, as well as software, were acquired for the central and regional COPECO offices; and computing equipment, spare geotechnical equipment, and software was acquired for the COPECO Prevention Group and drones were purchased for the Prevention, Preparedness, and Response group and the PGRD. Furthermore, a Code of Good Environmental Practices (Código de Buenas Prácticas Ambientales) built COPECO's environmental technical capacity, as did the proposal to update the National Construction Code (Propuesta de Actualización y promoción del Código Nacional de la Construcción), which provides practical recommendations to build safer constructions. A multilayered communication strategy was developed that enabled COPECO to effectively communicate with local communities about DRM and the Project (through TV, radio, online, posters, among others). 6. Territorial Planning and DRM – Strengthening of the General Directorate of Territory Planning (DGOT). In 2014 the Technical Secretariat of Planning and External Cooperation (SEPLAN) ceased to exist, and its territory ordering responsibilities were assigned to DGOT. The Project supported the strengthening of this new institution by providing equipment, software, and capacity building. A standard methodology for territorial planning with a risk management approach that incorporates risk scenarios was updated and promoted. Based on the methodology, Municipal Development Plans with a Territorial Planning Approach [Planes de Desarrollo Municipal con enfoque de Ordenamiento Territorial (PDMOT)] were developed. Furthermore, national databases and systems for territorial planning were strengthened and consolidated, including the Territory Information National System (Sistema Nacional de Información Territorial - SINIT), Standards Register of Territory Ordering (Registro de Normativas de Ordenamiento Territorial - RENOT), and the Unified Register System (Sistema Unificado de Registros - SURE). 7. Strengthening of the Center of Atmospheric, Oceanographic and Seismic Studies (CENAOS). The PGRD supported the strengthening of CENAOS through the construction of its headquarters building36 in 2020 and the acquisition of computing and communication equipment, earth station, antenna of stations, control systems for the radar, solar panels, and meteorological stations. Furthermore, the PGRD provided software and training on hydraulic modelling and preventive maintenance of meteorological stations in coordination with CENAOS/COPECO and the Directorate of Water Resources (Dirección General de Recursos Hídricos - DGRH) of MiAmbiente37. The support to CENAOS contributed to better forecasting, information processing, and monitoring and early warning systems in the country, and improved coordination between CENAOS and the DGRH, resulting in an improved flow of information for the early warning systems. 8. Hazard monitoring. The Project reached the target of 42 monitoring stations collecting and transmitting data38. If sustained and appropriately used, strengthening hydrometeorological and seismic monitoring networks will improve the information for risk assessment and early warning. The interviewed institutional representatives' perception of flood monitoring effectiveness is available in the baseline, 36 According to the PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021), page 23, the construction site has 675 m2 including a parking area. Air conditioning, equipment and furniture were also provided. 37 PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021), page 24 38 According to the PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021), page 22 seismic monitoring equipment was acquired, 5 new seismic monitoring stations were constructed; software, equipment and flood modelling training was provided to SERNA and maintenance was provided to the telemetric stations operated by SERNA; computing equipment and photographic cameras were acquired for the General Directorate of Water Resources; and maintenance was provided to 72 monitoring stations Page 75 MTR, and Final Evaluation, as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The percentage of interviewees who consider flood monitoring effective and very effective reduced in the Final Evaluation. The same occurs for other hazards such as droughts, forest fires, landslides, and hurricanes. The Final Evaluation explains this behavior, arguing that the understanding of hazard monitoring may not have been clear enough in the baseline. While the explanation in the Final Evaluation may be conceivable, it is also possible that data was not used effectively. Figure 1. Flood monitoring effectiveness according to the perception of institutional representatives Source: Final Evaluation – Quantitative Evaluation (2020) Outcome 2: Municipal and Community-level DRM capacities strengthened 9. The specific achievement of this outcome was Figure 2. Existence of Local Emergency Committee measured through the PDO Indicator 3 [Number of according to interviewed communities participating municipalities adopted DRM Plans (PMGRs) and Emergency Plans (PEMs), based on the Project's participatory methodology] and PDO Indicator 4 (Cities with improved livability, sustainability, and/or management) and six intermediate results indicators. All of them were achieved and most surpassed. 10. CODEMs and CODELs. The project supported the organization and restructuring of 20 Municipal Emergency Committees (CODEM) in municipalities of the Sula Valley and the organization of 205 Local Emergency Committees (CODEL) that were equipped and received training for a total of 225 Source : Final Evaluation – Quantitative Evaluation (2020) Page 76 Emergency Committees functioning effectively39 surpassing the target of 100. The active participation of women in management positions reached 42% surpassing the target of 40%. Both CODEM and CODEL are key organizational units that positively impact community resilience and response capacity. The strengthening of the Emergency Committees is reflected in the information provided by communities, as shown in Figure 2, where 28% of the interviewees recognize the existence of a Local Emergency Committee at the end of the project (compared to 9% in the MTR). The perception of the effectiveness of the Local Emergency Committees also improved at the final evaluation compared with the baseline. 11. Strengthening of institutional capacities. The Project planned training activities that addressed environmental management, operation/maintenance of structural mitigation works, preparedness, and response40. Three emergency drills were carried out41. According to the Final Evaluation, the perception of the institutional representatives is that the management capacities improved42; 96% of the interviewed technical staff from municipalities and institutional representatives indicated that the level of satisfaction with the training provided by the PGRD – COPECO was medium to very high. Despite the level of satisfaction surpassing the target indicator, the Final Evaluation surveys show that institutional representatives' perception is that the effectiveness of institutional knowledge to implement mitigation measures decreased at the end of the Project (see Figure 43). This may be explained by the high rotation of personnel in the municipalities. Figure 3. Level of satisfaction of institutional representatives on training provided by the PGRD-COPECO Source : Final Evaluation – Quantitative Evaluation (2020) 39 PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021): Page 62 40 PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021): Page 28 41 According to PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021): Page 28 the emergency drills were carried out in the municipalities El Progreso, El Negrito and San Francisco de Yojoa. 42 PGRD – COPECO Final Evaluation Report (2020): Page 55 Page 77 Figure 4. Institutional knowledge to implement mitigation tools and measures according to interviewed institutional representatives Source: Final Evaluation – Quantitative Evaluation (2020) 12. Public access to risk information and municipal plans. The Project produced digital terrain models as an input into the studies of Characterization and Territorial Planning of the 20 municipalities in the Project area (Sula Valley). These studies were the basis for preparing the Municipal Risk Management Plans, Municipal Emergency Plans, and Municipal Territorial Ordering Plans, which were made publicly available43. The information was included in the DRM Information System and Database of COPECO and the web page of the PGRD. A geoportal44 was created for public access to the information as well as explanatory material. In 2020, the hazard database of the territory of the Garífuna and Tolupan communities (Region I – Sula Valley) was added to the geoportal as part of the Natural Hazard Atlas developed for Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Honduran communities. 13. Risk management/planning tools. Eighteen new or updated tools (PMGRs and PEMs) that incorporate a risk management approach were reported by the Project surpassing the target of 1645. Figure 5 shows the status of the PMGRs according to the Final Evaluation of the Project. This indicates that the number of municipalities with PMGRs increased. The Final Evaluation also indicates that the contents of the PMGRs improved. Similar behavior occurs for the PEMs and the PMOTs. These new or updated plans have also increased the number of ordinances issued by the Municipalities on territory order. 43 The plans can be accessed on https://www.pgrd- copeco.gob.hn/que-hacemos/capacitacion-y-planificacion-territorial-para- la-gestion-de-riesgos/ 44 https://geoportal.copeco.gob.hn/gis/visor/copeco_geoportal 45 PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021): Page 62 Page 78 Figure 5. Municipal Risk Management Plans status Source: Final Evaluation – Quantitative Evaluation (2020) 14. Participation in public consultation. Workshops were carried out focusing on capacities of the CODELs, climate change, gender mainstreaming in shelter management, Community Based Early Warning Systems, DRM, simulations, and drills, operation of seismographs, accelerographs, and hydrometeorological stations. With these activities, the Project reached 34,448 participants, from which 14,692 were women and 1,929 were Indigenous Peoples or Afro-Honduran communities, significantly exceeding the target that was 14,094 for the total participants, 6,423 for women, and 1,000 for indigenous or afro Hondurans46. 15. Community-Based Early Warning Systems (CBEWS). The Project strengthened/rehabilitated 1247 CBEWS48. Furthermore, the Project implemented a communication/education strategy that provided information about the CBEWS that included mass media messages and coordination with educational centers. An assessment of the effectiveness of CBEWS is out of the scope of this impact evaluation, and only the information from the survey carried out for the Final Evaluation is available. This shows that at the end of the Project, the number of interviewees that know that a CBEWS exists in their community increased (see Figure 6). The Final Evaluation also shows that most direct and indirect beneficiaries (56%) think that the CBEWS works49. 46 PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021): Page 62 47 PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021): Page 63 48 According to the PGRD – COPECO Final Report (2021), page 22, the strengthened/rehabilitated CBEWS are in the municipalities: EL Negrito, Morazán, Omoa, Choloma, Puerto Cortes, El Progreso and Potrerillos. The corresponding watersheds are: Guaymas- Guaymon, Guaymas, Omoa, Masca, Cuyamel, Blanco, Chamelecón, Tulian, Rio Ulúa, Rio Pelo, Rio Blanco, where 49 communities are located. 49 PGRD – COPECO Final Evaluation Report (2020): Page 113 Page 79 Figure 6. Knowledge on the existence of a CBEWS according to surveys to direct and indirect beneficiaries Source: Final Evaluation – Quantitative Evaluation (2020) Outcome 3: Mitigation measures implemented 16. The specific achievement of this outcome was measured through the PDO-Level Indicator 5 (A percentage of a representative sample of mitigation measures financed by the Project evaluated independently as technically, economically, and environmentally satisfactory) and three intermediate results indicators. All of them were achieved and most surpassed. The evaluation of this outcome- focused its analysis on the impacts of implementing structural mitigation measures through the process set up by the PGRD. It was based on the PGRD Final Technical, Economic, and Environmental Evaluation and did not include site visits. 17. A ‘Theory of Change’ (ToC) explains how activities are understood to produce a series of results that contribute to achieving the final intended impacts. It can be developed for any level of intervention – an event, a project, a program, a policy, a strategy, or an organization. The ToC for the structural mitigation measures or works (see Figure ) is based on the investigation of how these works produced changes in: i) community well-being and ii) national and local capacities to formulate, plan, and implement a structural mitigation work. Page 80 Figure 7. Theory of change implementation of structural mitigation measures Source: Project Appraisal Document (PAD), Mid Term Evaluation Report (2017), Final Evaluation Reports (2020), and WB impact evaluation (2021) 18. Through the implementation of structural mitigation works, largely applying engineering techniques to achieve hazard-resistant and resilient structures or systems (i.e., small riverbank protection, drainage canal-bridges, and rainwater drainage), the PGRD aimed to reduce or avoid the possible impacts of hazards. The implementation process led to a learning cycle that produced changes related to the improvement of the well-being of the communities located in the critical sites and the strengthening of capacities to plan and execute mitigation projects and to strengthen DRM. 19. The location of the structural mitigation works is shown in Figure 8. Forty (out of 40) structural mitigation works were implemented by the Project, reaching the target. COPECO estimated that 283,793 (See Annex 6) people benefitted directly from the forty (Target 40) structural mitigation measures implemented, and an estimated 489,659 (See Annex 6) people indirectly (58% of total beneficiaries of the Project), with a temporal generation of employment of 4,571 people50. Besides the 40 mitigation works, the PGRD – COPECO Final Evaluation Report indicates that two reinforcements were carried out51. 50PGRD – COPECO Final Evaluation Report (2020): page 37. 51PGRD – COPECO Final Evaluation Report (2020): page 49. The reinforcement mitigation works correspond to: Obras Complementarias al Colector de Aguas Pluviales para la Reducción del Riesgo en los Barrios El Calvario y El Centro del Municipio de Santa Cruz de Yojoa, Departamento de Cortés; and Obras Complementarias para el Reforzamiento del Canal de Aguas Pluviales para Reducción del Riesgo en la Col. Venecia. Page 81 Figure 8. Location of structural mitigation works Source of data: Structural mitigation works data provided in excel by the PGRD 20. The structural mitigation works are grouped according to the construction period, as shown in Annex 6. The 20 structural mitigation works and the reinforcing works built from 2013 to 2016 were assessed in the MTR. A significant improvement of the process of implementation of the works was suggested during the MTR, and 47 recommendations were made, addressing all the stages of implementation (preparation, environmental management, design, construction, and economic aspects). The 15 mitigation works built from 2017 to 2019 were assessed in the Final Evaluation52 , and the remaining five mitigation works, plus one reinforcing work built in 2020, were assessed at the time of the ICR (July to August 2021), applying the same methodology as that of the COPECO- PGRD Final Report. 21. The reinforcing works were carried out to solve problems in two mitigation works previously constructed by the Project. The first reinforcement was carried out in 2016 due to the failure of the pipe system built as part of the Yojoa (Cortés) structural mitigation work carried out in 2014 (see Annex 6). During the site visits for the MTR, part of the pipe was being replaced by a canal53. The canal built 52Final Evaluation - Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment (2020) 53Recommendations on the Technical, Economic and Environmental Aspects of the Structural Mitigation Works Constructed by the PGRD – Honduras (2017): page 26 Page 82 in Tela (Atlantida) in 2015 (see Annex 6) showed erosion problems affecting the canal's walls and producing slope instability. Scouring, deposition, and vegetation were also affecting the flow in the canal54. Therefore, a gabion wall, revetment of the canal, and slope stabilization were built in 2020 (second reinforcement). 22. The target number of structural mitigation works was forty (40). This number was achieved in February 2021, when the last structural mitigation works were handed over to the municipalities55. The 40 works include stormwater channels/canals/pipes, box culvert bridges and small bridges, bridge repairs, riverbank protection works, and levees. Some of these types of works may differ from what is commonly referred to as "flood mitigation works” —particularly in the construction of bridges— and are more related to the construction of road infrastructure and stormwater drainage infrastructure. However, these works are in line with the structural mitigation work concept and scope described in the PAD. Furthermore, lack of infrastructure, or infrastructure not meeting minimum standards, may be directly related to risk conditions. The quantity of structural mitigation works per type is shown in Figure 2 (some structural mitigation works included more than one type of structure). Figure 2. Structural mitigation works per type. Source: Based on the description of mitigation works provided by the PGRD in excel format 23. The Final Evaluation assessed 15 structural mitigation works by a methodology proposed by the PGRD56, based on a scoring of economic, technical, and environmental criteria57. Furthermore, twenty (20) structural mitigation works were also assessed for sustainability in the Final Evaluation. The methodology was aimed to provide the information for the PDO-level indicator 5 (Percentage of a representative sample of mitigation measures financed by the Project evaluated independently as technically, economically, and environmentally sound). This indicator was modified during the 2019 restructuring. It was initially intended to assess the works' economic, environmental, and technical “soundness”. In the restructuring, it was changed to measure “satisfaction”. The target of the indicator 54 Technical Memoir, Tela Atlantida (2019): page 5 55 PGRD – COPECO Final Evaluation Report (2020): page 63 56 The PGRD proposed the criteria and scoring system for the evaluation of the structural mitigation works. The methodology is part of the terms of reference of the Final Evaluation. 57 A scale of five categories was developed where the category satisfactory is reached when the score is higher than 60. Page 83 was 90%, and 100% was achieved). 24. However, satisfaction at the technical, economic, and Figure 10. Process of implementation of environmental levels is a subjective criterion that does not structural mitigation measures since 2018, based provide information about the impact of the structural on information from the PGRD Final Report (2021) mitigation measure and may obscure deficiencies in the design, construction, and operation of the structure. If the indicator's purpose is to assess the design and construction from a technical, economic, and environmental point of view, an interdisciplinary team that can carry out a detailed review of all aspects involved would be required. This type of assessment is not available. Nevertheless, the methodology to assess “satisfaction” was applied to the last five works built in 2020-2021 and to the reinforcement work (2020) to compare results as part of the ICR impact evaluation. In addition, a more in-depth analysis of the identified impacts of the structural mitigation works is carried out to complement the information that is provided by the Indicator. 25. In the following paragraphs, the process of implementing the mitigation works will be discussed, as well as information related to the Indicator, to understand the impacts of the activities. 26. General process for implementing the mitigation works and its evolution. The process to implement the mitigation works evolved as the PGRD progressed. In the first few years of the project, once the construction site was identified based on previous information generated by the PMDN58 and participation of communities and Municipalities, each municipality presented the designs to be financed by the Project, which were reviewed then updated59. During the MTR, several recommendations were made to improve the process, and from 2018 a new approach was implemented, which is shown in Error! Reference source not found. The designs of the mitigation works were carried out by a specialized firm and were supervised by an external firm with the support of the PIU-PGRD. 27. The positive impacts of implementing this process can be observed in the documentation of the structural measures constructed from 2018 onwards: 58 Bank-financed Natural Disaster Mitigation Project (PMDN, P064913). PMDN was implemented between 2000 and 2010 at a total cost of US$24.0 million, including two IDA Credits, several trust funds and government counterpart financing. 59 PGRD – COPECO Final Evaluation Report (2020): page 37 Page 84 a. Community participation was ensured from the beginning of the Project, not only through participation in the PMGRs but also in the early stages of the mitigation works. Community members were aware of the designs and provided opinions, and reached consensus (participation is documented through minutes of meetings). b. Documentation of the process is organized in a dossier (the first recommendation made during MTR60). The construction and supervision are documented in weekly reports and a final report. Information on quality control procedures can be found in these reports, as well as the follow-up on the progress and administrative tasks. c. This impact analysis does not have the scope to review the quality of designs. However, the following conclusions can be drawn from the review of six design reports produced from 2018 onwards, which show that the Project considered the recommendations made during the MTR: i. The reports improved significantly in terms of structure and contents. Sections on geology-geotechnics, hydrology-hydraulics, and structural design are clearly identifiable. ii. The readability of the reports improved significantly. iii. The contents of the technical sections improved, as well as the description of the methods and results. iv. The geotechnical contents improved significantly compared to the reports produced before 2018, where the geotechnical component was often ignored in the documentation. v. The design plans are of a much higher quality than those produced before 2018. d. The implementation of the structural works was integrated with the local community committees (CODEL61). This strategy strengthens DRM at the local level and provides the basis for a more sustainable intervention. It is expected that by including communities in the process, appropriation of the mitigation works will be high, and therefore the chance they are maintained increases. Also, it is expected that transparency is ensured through the continuous overseeing of the implementation process by the beneficiaries. 28. The process implemented in 2018 shows the strengthening of the technical capacities at the national and municipal levels, although to a lesser degree in the latter. The capacity to formulate and manage a structural mitigation project increased significantly. As concluded by the Final Evaluation, there was a strengthening in capacities in all phases of a structural mitigation project, including: identification of the critical site, avoidance of protected areas, identification of location close to communities, document management, technical dossiers, meeting deadlines, supervision, material management, use of protective equipment, recycling, use of canvas-covered trucks/vehicles, avoidance of sediment discharges into water bodies, control erosion practices, verification of cultural patrimony, contingency plans and community grievances, community participation and conditions of the personnel working in the construction site. The Final Report by PGRD- COPECO indicates that the project also contributed to lessons learned in the field of environmental management through better practices in project management, follow-up of mitigation measures, and participative processes, as well as through the development of manuals and documents such as the booklet of climate change and the Good practice environmental code62. The Final Assessment indicates that a civil engineer was incorporated in the Municipality’s personnel, which is an important step for maintenance and operation of the structural measures and increases the capacity of the Municipalities. 60 Recommendations on the Technical, Economic and Environmental Aspects of the Structural Mitigation Works Constructed by the PGRD – Honduras (2017) 61 Local Emergency Committee, it is responsible for coordinating and executing actions aimed to prevention, mitigation and preparedness, response and rehabilitation and reconstruction due to emergencies and disasters in the community (https://www.pgrd-copeco.gob.hn/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Guia-Estructuras-Territoriales-muestra.pdf page 51). 62 PGRD – COPECO Final Evaluation Report (2020), page 9 Page 85 29. However, the MTR highlighted the limited participation of the Municipalities in the construction and supervision activities and assurance of environmental controls, which may have continued after 2018 since no documentation by the Municipalities could be found during the review of the five structural mitigation works (2020-2021). Therefore, the degree to which capacities to implement a project were strengthened at the municipal level is unknown. However, it is assumed that the lack of involvement of the Municipalities in the supervision of the works constructed after 2018 did not affect the supervision process since a firm was hired for that task. 30. The scoring of economic, environmental, and technical criteria shows that the structural mitigation works constructed since 2017 are satisfactory, according to the PGRD´s categories. The methodology proposed by the PGRD to measure the level of economic, environmental, and technical satisfaction of the structural mitigation works specifies that a score higher than 60 points is satisfactory, and higher than 80 is highly satisfactory. The results of applying this methodology to structural measures built from 2017-2020 show that all these reach scores higher than 60 (see Figure 3). The PDO-level indicator 5 (Percentage of a representative sample of mitigation measures financed by the Project evaluated independently as technically, economically, and environmentally satisfactory) is, reported as 100% in the Final Report by the PGRD-COPECO. However, this assessment is based on the 20 mitigation works built from 2017 to 2020; also, it does not include the assessment of the five works built in 2020 and 2021. Figure 3. Mitigation works scores built from 2017 to 2020 31. In the case of the five mitigation works assessed as part of this impact evaluation, the sub-criteria that measure the Municipalities' participation, both in the supervision and in the environmental management, were the most frequently assessed with the lowest score. This is due to the lack of evidence of the participation of the Municipalities. Furthermore, the criteria assessing the design (which is limited to assess if a characterization or identification of risk exists as the basis for the design) was assigned the intermediate score since the designs only include a qualitative identification of risk. 32. Project preparation included the input of the Municipalities and local communities and was linked to the PMGRs. The sites were selected according to the prioritization in the PMGRs, therefore reflecting the local knowledge and available risk information. However, improvement opportunities for future projects can be identified. The identification of critical sites is based on susceptibility information (mainly for floods and Page 86 landslides), historical records, and participative methodologies. Although these sources of information are very valuable, hazard analysis and a risk assessment integrated into the existing information could better inform decisions on the prioritization of critical sites. Hazard analysis in the Sula Valley is not an easy task and may require significant modeling efforts and resources to improve the scale of the available information. Some initiatives have been carried out after the Eta and Iota Tropical Cyclones63 that could be capitalized and integrated into the analysis to identify critical sites. 33. The rationale for needing a structural measure in a prioritized critical site was based on field observations and community input. Although improvement opportunities exist with this approach, the rationale for the structural measures was included in the preparation documents. Examples of the rationale are shown in Table 1, where lack of infrastructure, and/or infrastructure not meeting minimum standards, are the most frequent reasons for the need for structural measures. From this rationale, it can be concluded that most of the structural mitigation works (stormwater canals/channels/pipes and bridges) responded to both risk reduction and infrastructure needs. Table 1. Examples of the rationale for structural measures Type of structure Example of rationale Box culvert bridge • Interruption in the transit of people and vehicles during the rainy season64 • Isolation of communities due to interruption of transit65 • Accidents due to vehicles that are impacted by rocks or debris66 Stormwater • Non-existing stormwater system67 canals/channels/pipes • Flooding during the rainy season68 • No way out for the water; therefore, flooding occurs in the streets69 • Collapsed stormwater system70 34. Although the documentation of the designs and content of the design reports improved significantly after 2018, there are still weaknesses. Significant improvements were made to the content and quality of the design reports, and in the process to carry out the designs (with a specialized firm under the supervision of another firm) that can set the standard for future projects to be replicated not only by COPECO but other institutions. However, aspects such as the analysis of risk scenarios, the selection of a target risk scenario for risk reduction, and estimation of the benefits should be revised and improved in future projects. A risk scenario analysis for the design of structural mitigation measures continues to be the weakest aspect of the design of the structural measures even after the improvements made after the MTR. The analysis was limited to field observations and a description of the general aspects of the area according to the information that the communities or municipal authorities provided71 (see report on the assessment of the five mitigation measures). Understanding hazard, vulnerability, and risk conditions are key for designing 63 See those reported in BID, 2020: Estimación de daños en zonas urbanas por los pasos de las tormentas: ETA-IOTA por Honduras. 64 Descriptive Memoir San Antonio de Cortés, Cortés page 5 65 Descriptive Memoir San Antonio de Cortés, Cortés page 5 66 Descriptive Memoir San Antonio de Cortés, Cortés page 10 67 Descriptive Memoir Puerto Cortés, Cortés page 9; Descriptive Memoir El Negrito, Yoro page 21 68 Descriptive Memoir Puerto Cortés, Cortés page 9 69 Descriptive Memoir Puerto Cortés, Cortés page 9 70 Descriptive Memoir Santa Rita, Yoro page 10 71 See for example: Socio Environmental Management Report San Antonio de Cortés, page 2 Page 87 mitigation measures. The design documentation does not show a minimum level of analysis of the hazard, vulnerability, and risk conditions. The designs are limited to modeling a design scenario without investigating the hazard conditions or including comprehensive vulnerability information (see 35. Box 1 for an example). Box 1. Example of risk information provided by the preparation documents and design reports For example, the information found in the documentation of the structural mitigation work “Construction of embankment and canalization of pluvial water in the neighborhood La Esperanza and Nuevos Horizontes to reduce risk in the southern sector of the Municipality of Puerto Cortes, Cortes Department”72 is shown below. The document presents a description of the current situation of the site and a short description of the hazard source according to the field visit and initial information. Figure 42. Description of hazard source and site situation extracted from descriptive memoir Current situation of the site • During the rainy season, there are reports of flooding in the zone due to non-favorable slopes; also, when the tide rises, the level in the lagoon rises, and therefore there are flooding problems. • The sector does not have a sewerage system • The sector does not have paved roads • The sector does not have electricity • There are wooden houses • There are areas with small lagoons Source of hazard The water comes from the upper part of the mountains and hits the community at the same time the slope is very bad; furthermore, there is no adequate discharge. The design report refers to the situation of the site with a general description of the flooding issues. However, no comprehensive hazard and vulnerability analyses were carried out. Therefore, the risk scenario is limited to the identification of a problem. The content of the previous section is as follows (translated): “In the southern section of the Puerto Cortes city, there is an acute surface drainage problem. The urban zone has developed along the shore of the Alvarado lagoon; on the other hand, it is also limited with low zones, permanently flooded with variable flood depths between centimeters to meters. The low areas are limited with hills. During the rainy season, the water level increases, and the surface runoff drains naturally to the lagoon; when it reaches the houses and roads, the runoff floods the zone causing damage to properties and contents. The problem to solve is protecting the community against flooding, the water level of the swamp zone rises and since it does not have an exit, the discharge time to the water body is large.” 72 Construction of Embankment and Canalization of Pluvial Water in La Esperanza and Nuevo Horizontes Neighborhood to Reduce Risk in the Southern Sector of the Puerto Cortés Municipality ( Construcción de Terraplén y Canalización de Aguas Pluviales en la colonia La Esperanza y Nuevos Horizontes para Reducir el riesgo del Sector Sur del municipio de Puerto Cortés, Departamento de Cortés) Page 88 36. The lack of a detailed risk analysis prevents the quantification of benefits in terms of avoided damage and a clear understanding of the design scenario selection. The feasibility of structural measures in an integrated flood risk management framework should include a clear understanding of risk to inform the choice of design scenario. Structures such as stormwater systems and bridges commonly follow standards of design (manuals or normativity) that specify the probability of exceedance of the design scenario. Despite referring to Volume 6 of the Soptravi Road Manual73 , the design reports produced in PGRD after 2018 show design scenarios that are different from those in the Manual without a clear explanation (see Box 2 as an example). In the case of waterbody interventions, the choice of the probability of exceedance for the design scenario is unclear, and there is ambiguity in the concept of a waterbody intervention. For instance, some projects are named “canalization of pluvial water” that include waterbody interventions. Therefore, they imply runoff drainage and interventions to waterbodies that may require additional considerations to those provided by the Soptravi Manual (e.g., the implementation of the Jocomico creek74). Box 2. Example of return periods (inverse of annual probability of exceedance) used in the structural mitigation measures • Canalizations: the design reports of the projects carried out in Choloma and El Negrito75 mention that according to Volume 6 of Soptravi (Road Manual-Drainage and Bridges), the return period is 5 to 10 years; however, the financial analysis was carried out for return periods of 10 and 25 years, without an explanation of the choice of design criteria. • Levees: for the levee proposed in Puerto Cortés in the project “Construcción de Terraplén y Canalización de Aguas Pluviales en la colonia La Esperanza y Nuevos Horizontes para Reducir el riesgo del Sector Sur del municipio de Puerto Cortés, Departamento de Cortés” a 10 year return period was used. The report does not explain why this return period was chosen; it only mentions that “it is satisfactory”76. However, in the maintenance plan the builder recommends raising the filling of the levee to reach a protection for a 25-year return period. 37. A waterbody intervention requires an integrated approach to flood risk management that not only considers conveying water from one point to another but comprehensively addresses the watershed. Integrality in the structural mitigation measures seems to be missing in the PGRD. This is particularly noticeable in the interventions in creeks where problems were observed only locally without considering a watershed scale analysis nor complementary measures (see Box 3 as an example). 73 The Soptravi Road Manual provides guidance on the design scenarios (return periods/probability of exceedance) of bridges and drainage. 74 In the case of the Project in El Negrito Yoro, the technical memoir explains that the project corresponds to the design of a canal (collector) that will intercept the flow of the Jocomico Creek and small drainage areas along the boulevard at the entrance of the city and will convey them to the canal in construction that goes parallel to the paved highroad that discharges into the Paté Creek. 75 Technical Memoir I Choloma, Cortés page 10 ; Technical Memoir I El Negrito, Yoro page 46 76 Technical Memoir I Puerto Cortés, Cortés page 68. Page 89 Box 3. Example of conceptualization of a creek intervention In the intervention in the Jocomico Creek, El Negrito Yoro, the hazard was identified as the “non-existence of a canal system, so the water was flowing through the natural channel” (i.e., The hazard was identified as the creek using its natural space and flooding the urban area and the “solution” was canalization). According to the design report, sediment transport is an issue since large loads of sediment are transported by the creek and deposited in the urban area during floods (see Photo 1 and Photo 2 for flooding and sediment deposits after hurricanes Eta and Iota). Since the problem was conceptualized and treated locally, integrated watershed measures were not considered, which may impact flood risk and the sediment load in the urban area. Photo 1. Flooding caused by Hurricanes Eta and Iota in the Photo 2. Sediment deposit after Hurricanes Eta and Iota in the Project Area. Source: Canalización de Aguas Pluviales de la Project Area. Source: Canalización de Aguas Pluviales de la Colonia Rosario Nuñez para Reducir el riesgo de la quebrada Colonia Rosario Nuñez para Reducir el riesgo de la quebrada Jocomico del municipio de El Negrito Jocomico del municipio de El Negrito 38. The mitigation works were planned as localized interventions, as described by the PAD, which creates a significant limitation in the case of flood risk since flood risk management requires integrated approaches. Small infrastructure works such as bridges are less demanding in terms of integration to flood risk and water management. However, interventions such as levees do require an integrated vision as they modify the behavior of the water bodies during floods, making it important to review aspects such as their influence in the increase or creation of risk elsewhere. For example, in the levee constructed as part of the project “Construcción de Terraplén y Canalización de Aguas Pluviales en la colonia La Esperanza y Nuevos Horizontes para Reducir el riesgo del Sector Sur del municipio de Puerto Cortés, Departamento de Cortés” the mitigation work improved the flood risk conditions for some of the inhabitants in the area, but the risk condition of those located to the east of the levee was not improved77. 39. The feasibility of mitigation measures reaching acceptable risk levels was not considered when assessing the alternatives of intervention. This aspect particularly applies to waterbody interventions. When analyzing alternatives, the comparison of cost/benefit and environmental and social conditions is key, so a decision on the feasibility and preferability of a measure or a group of integrated measures (as is normally approached by flood risk management) is identified. The preparation documents from 2020 that were reviewed present a short introduction of the problem, hazard conditions, and proposal for intervention with a structural measure without analyzing if there are factors that prevent or limit effective mitigation or make mitigation environmentally or socially unfeasible (see Box 4 for an example). 77 Technical Memoir I Puerto Cortés, Cortés pag 8 Page 90 Box 4. Example of a site where the proximity of houses limits the structural intervention In the mitigation work “Second stage of canalization of pluvial waters in the Southern sector of the neighborhood, Lopez Arellano for risk reduction in the canal of Carmen lagoon,” the site description indicates that the capacity of the channel is limited by several houses “almost” inside of the channel. The possible mitigation work identified in the preparation documents is a wall; however, nothing is explained about what measures should be taken for the houses “almost” inside the channel. The design report78 indicates that the existing channel had already shown erosion and damaged the foundations of houses constructed inside the channel. Photo 3. Houses in the channel of the Photo 4. Houses in the channel of the Figure 5. Render of the designed canal. Source: waterbody of the Project Area. Source: waterbody of the Project Area. Source: design report Memoria Descriptiva Choloma, Cortés PGA Choloma, Cortés The proposal in the design report is shown in Figure 5. The report also explains that the width of the canalization is the maximum possible, stretching to the limit of the properties and keeping a strip of 50 cm79. The report of the Environmental Management Plan80 indicates that a resettlement process started in the Colonia Juan Orlando Hernández with five signed resettlement agreements, but no explanation on how this resettlement integrates with the mitigation work was found. Also, no explanation was found about the sewerage system of the houses in the project area. From the explanation above, it seems that the project was designed to transform the waterbody into a canal to fit the space left by the properties constructed almost inside the channel. From a flood risk management perspective, this creates a series of limitations since hazard scenarios that exceed the design scenario will affect the houses, and the rapid discharge due to canalization may have impacts somewhere else downstream. In addition, the General Water Law81 defines a strip for circulation and public use for rivers and creeks of 5m, and it is not clear how these restrictions were considered in the design. 40. Climate change and ecosystem-based approaches/nature-based solutions were not considered for the structural mitigation works. The design process did not consider climate change at any complexity level (approaches may vary from simple to very complex). Furthermore, although mentioned in the PAD, ecosystem-based approaches were not considered, and all interventions were grey/hard structures. These approaches are very important in climate change adaptation, resilience, and sustainability in water bodies and stormwater systems intervention. In the latter, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) concept is key for climate change adaptation and resilience. This was a missed opportunity in the PGRD to initiate a change in the conceptualization of flood risk management from hard structures to green/hybrid and into infrastructure resilience. This should be considered for future projects. 78 Technical Memoir Choloma Cortés page 6 79 Technical Memoir Choloma Cortés page 78 80 PGA report page 5 81 Decree No 181-2009 Gaceta No 32088 14 of December 2009 General Water Law, page 17 https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/gwp-cam_files/ley-general-de-aguas-2009.pdf Page 91 41. Integrated flood management calls for adopting the best mix of structural and non-structural measures. It is not fully clear how an integrated combination of structural and non-structural measures was planned in the critical sites, however significant efforts in strengthening the community organization for DRM can be identified. An isolated flood management option may achieve a limited objective, e.g., protection of a certain area, but may fail to address other objectives that may also need to be addressed at the watershed level. Non-structural measures serve as an important complement to the structural measures, and usually, they may reduce not only the catastrophic consequences of flood risks but also adverse impacts on the environment82. Although no information about flood risk management in the critical sites was found in the documentation, nor an indication of how residual risks are handled, a strong interrelation of the mitigation works with the institutional organization and response capacity was identified since CODELs were implemented as part of the process of implementing the mitigation works83. 42. From 2018, the Supervision firm followed up on environmental control measures, good socio- environmental practices, and a report of the environmental management plan was produced for the mitigation works. This report compiles all the environmental information of the work, from the site selection to the finalization. The implementation of the procedure shown in Figure 10 in 2018 meant a significant change in the documentation of the environmental management and the assurance of fulfillment of environmental controls. The implemented changes respond well to the recommendations made in the MTR. 43. The participation of the Municipalities in the supervision of the mitigation works and the assurance of fulfillment of environmental controls was one of the weaknesses identified during the MTR. Although the activities the Municipalities were initially in charge of were transferred to the Supervision firm, continued participation was still expected. However, no evidence was found of their involvement. According to the Environmental Plan Reports for structural mitigation works after 2018, the Municipal Environmental Unit (Unidad Municipal del Ambiente - UMA) oversaw watching and monitoring the fulfillment of the environmental measures issued by MiAmbiente, doing weekly visits, filling out the environmental control forms, and sending them to PGRD- COPECO. These tasks seem to be shared with the Supervision firm that also had to follow up on the fulfillment of the environmental measures and report to the PGRD-COPECO. The reports indicate that the forms were filled out by the Supervision firm as part of the weekly report with evidence of the fulfillment of the environmental measures. However, no documentation by the Municipality was found to show their engagement, although the reports mention that they participated. 44. The technical, economic, and environmental assessment of the mitigation works carried out for the Final Evaluation and for the ICR concluded that most of the works have a low cost/complexity to moderate cost/complexity for maintenance and operation84. Furthermore, the final assessment identified that in the Municipal Inversion Plan (Plan de Inversión Municipal - PIM), the planning of mitigation works is being included, as well as maintenance of mitigation works. Although issues to maintain the structural mitigation works exist and more may arise in the future, the Project made efforts to raise awareness in the communities and the local authorities on the importance of maintenance (a maintenance manual was prepared, and the creation of CODELs was integrated into the implementation process). According to the Final Evaluation, 19 out of 20 assessed mitigation works (built from 2017-2019) were considered to show minor/natural deterioration (category A according to categories assigned by the consultant, see Figure 6). 82 WMO, 2007: Applying Environmental Assessment for Flood Management. 33. 83 PGRD – COPECO Final Evaluation Report (2020) page 37 84 Final Evaluation - Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment (2020), page 25 Page 92 Only one mitigation work was identified with evident deterioration85. However, future sustainability and maintenance will depend on political will and available budget. Furthermore, beneficiaries have indicated during interviews that the frequency of maintenance may not be enough and that more commitment from the municipal authorities may be needed86. Figure 6. Sustainability assessment Source: Final Evaluation – Economic and Environmental Assessment (2020) 45. The technical, economic, and environmental assessment (2020) of the mitigation works concluded that the cost of the works is in acceptable ranges regarding materials, labor, and machinery87. Most of the mitigation works had increments in cost during construction. According to the technical, economic, and environmental assessment, these increments occurred in response to improvements in social, technical and/or environmental aspects of the works and were in line with the real needs of the sites and their communities88. 46. The mitigation works constitute the Project's main benefit, as identified by the communities that indicated that these reflect their needs and provide a high degree of satisfaction. According to the 2012-2021 Final 85 Final Evaluation - Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment (2020), page 12 86 SINTRATEL community interviews and ICR interviews (2021). 87 Final Evaluation - Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment (2020) page 25 88 Final Evaluation - Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment (2020), page 25 Page 93 Report by the PGRD, 97% of sampled beneficiaries reportedly satisfied with COPECO's DRM activities (achieving 114% of the target), with 97% satisfaction from the female sample (achieving 114% of the target). Furthermore, the 2020 Final Evaluation indicates that the perception of the degree of accomplishment of the objective of risk reduction is mostly “very high” (48.4%) and “high” (33.42%). It is also important to highlight that the process to implement the structural mitigation measures involved the communities and socialized all the implementation processes of the mitigation works. The 2020 final assessment found that 79% of the direct beneficiaries consider the accomplishment and satisfaction of the mitigation works in combination with the capacity building to communities as very high or high. 52% at baseline, 62% at MTR, and 54% at the final assessment, of the representatives of interviewed institutions, consider that the mitigation works correspond with the needs of communities. The level of accomplishment and satisfaction of the mitigation works for institutional representatives reached 54% in the very high category and 24% in the high category at the final assessment time. 47. The project implemented 55 non-structural measures, significantly exceeding the target of 20. These include: i) workshops for municipal personnel addressing climate change, gender, DRM, waste management, vetiver grass planting, Indigenous Peoples plans, geographic information systems (GIS), watershed management and resettlement; ii) films on DRM; iii) workshops for journalists; iv) training workshops for the CODELs and CODEMs on DRM and damage assessment; v) watershed management plans (La Pita-Las Palamas and the Molombo river); vi) booklets and manuals (Informative Booklet on Climate Change with DRM and Gender Approach, Good practice environmental code for DRM, Operational Manual of the Honduran Builder with a DRM approach; vii) guidelines (Methodological Guidelines of DRM for teachers, Guide for the Organization of CODELs and CODEMs); viii) a radio soap opera on DRM; ix) short DRM films; and x) DRM video clips. Thirteen Indigenous Peoples and Afro- Honduran communities hazard atlases were developed and socialized to the Garifuna and Tolupanes communities. 48. The fourth restructuring project carried out in June 2020 extended the closing date of the project from June 30, 2020, to December 31, 2020. The extension was justified on the need to complete five mitigation works and other project activities which were impacted by the nationwide curfew established by the Government since mid-March 2020 to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the restructuring, 35 mitigation works of the target of 40 had been delivered. A fifth restructuring extended the closing date from December 31, 2020, to June 30, 2021, to allow the completion of three works financed under the project that suffered delays. Although the extensions of the project were significant, the rationale for extension is understandable since social distancing and work restriction measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic affected the estimated progress of the works, and Eta and Iota affected the accessibility to three construction sites. Outcome 4: Government capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible emergency improved 49. The CERC was activated twice during Project implementation, once for the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020) and the second time to respond to Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota (May 2021). The Project successfully improved the Government's capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an emergency, as measured by PDO Indicator 6 (Time taken to disburse funds requested by the Government for an eligible emergency). In both cases, it took three weeks to access the funds, which was quicker than the four-week targets. Page 94 50. With the CERC activation for COVID-19, an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) was implemented for the refurbishment of twelve (12) centers (International Sanitary Offices and Mass Attention Units) to support the COVID-19 emergency. Therefore, 12 Centers were prioritized out of the 8 planned (meeting 150% of the target of the 5.2 intermediate indicator). However, 90% of the centers were flooded during Tropical Cyclone Eta and Iota. In May 2021, a new activation of the CERC refocused the available funds on responding to the damages caused by the Tropical Cyclones. A new EAP for the Tropical Cyclone response was developed and focused on the purchasing of the following equipment and services: transport for COPECO, computer equipment, early warning system equipment, a hydrological study, and geologist and remote sensing specialists. 51. It should be noted that the government's capacity to respond to emergencies was also improved through the institutional strengthening activities of the Project, shown in Component 2 (See the Theory of Change). In the project impact evaluation and the surveys undertaken as part of this ICR, respondents confirmed that PGRD had improved the response capacity of COPECO at the municipal and local levels. Conclusions 1. The targets of all the indicators were achieved, and most of them were surpassed. The Project had a strong focus on community participation and social inclusion, reflected in the number of beneficiaries, of which 52% were women. The Project reached a large number of beneficiaries through the implementation of structural and non-structural mitigation measures, including a significant amount of community participation activities. Community participation and citizen engagement are the foundation for inclusive DRM89, and it is expected that these activities have a short- and long-term impact, if sustained, in the DRM local capacity. 2. National-level DRM capacities were strengthened through several actions: The development of a methodology for territorial planning with a risk management approach and the strengthening of CENAOS and hazard monitoring in Honduras mark important steps forward in DRM. A standard methodology for territorial planning constitutes a starting point from which the institutions could advance jointly in the construction of planning instruments. However, territorial planning that incorporates DRM has very demanding requirements for effective implementation (e.g., sufficient capacities, detailed risk information, legal framework, political will, community engagement, among others), and continued strengthening of national and local capacities will be important. The strengthening of CENAOS and hazard monitoring have a very high impact in building the capacities of the country in hazard knowledge and early warning, and it is expected that capacity building, better equipment, and new offices for CENAOS have strengthened the national DRM capacity. 3. Capacities at the Municipal and Community levels were improved through the creation, organization, and training of Local Committees for Emergency Response; capacity building for communities and municipal personnel; studies for characterization and territorial planning; preparation of Municipal Risk Management Plans, Municipal Emergency Plans and Municipal Land Use Plan; creation of a geoportal; and strengthening of CBEWS. In particular, the creation, organization, and training of the CODELs and CODEMs, linked to the implementation of structural mitigation measures, had a high impact on DRM response capacity and empowerment of communities, as well as to contribute to the sustainability of the structural mitigation works. 89 Inclusive Disaster Risk Management & Gender Equality (https://www.gfdrr.org/en/inclusive-drm) Page 95 4. High impact planning instruments were developed and adopted. Municipal Risk Management Plans and Municipal Emergency Plans were adopted by 18 (target 16) municipalities. These instruments provide a framework for building resilience at the local level. 5. The perception of satisfaction of beneficiaries on the structural mitigation works is high. The interviewed beneficiaries (97%) perceive that the structural mitigation works respond to their needs. Most of the structural mitigation works responded to both risk reduction and infrastructure needs. Since the areas of intervention suffer from a lack of infrastructure and frequent flooding, structures such as bridges and stormwater canals produce a high positive impact on the wellbeing of communities. 6. The capacity for project management improved significantly. After the MTR, the process for implementing the structural mitigation measures was improved, incorporating the supervision of design and construction by a specialized firm. The documentation of the design and construction process of each structural mitigation work also improved dramatically, showing that the PGRD considered most of the recommendations made during the MTR. If systematized and disseminated, these capacities can have an impact at the National and Local levels. 7. Although the structural mitigation works lack an integrated flood risk management approach nor take into consideration climate change and ecosystems-based/nature-based solutions, they provide risk reduction for their design scenarios90. However, under conditions that exceed those of the design scenarios, flooding will occur. It is important to complement the structural measures with nonstructural measures in an articulated and effective way and to clearly explain the limitations of structural measures to the communities to avoid a false sense of security91. 8. Given the high level of involvement of the communities, it is expected that the sense of ownership and appropriation of the structural mitigation measures is high. Therefore, the probability of providing maintenance increases (due to the lack of maintenance by municipalities). However, sustainability will also depend on political will and the availability of resources. 9. Given the strong focus on capacity building, development of instruments, and implementation of risk management measures, it is expected that the livability, sustainability and/or management of cities benefited by the Project improve. However, the degree of improvement is difficult to determine from some indicators. For example, in terms of risk reduction, few measurable targets were set (e.g., reduction of annualized flood damage or people whose risk level was reduced). 90 This conclusion is made under the assumption that the design, construction, maintenance, and operation are carried out appropriately. If this is not the case, risk reduction can be compromised. 91 Overconfidence in flood protection can cause undesirable side-effects. This is so because people living in areas protected by embankments have a false sense of safety, which result in the underestimation of the flood risk and limited preparatory measures. Lechowska (2018) What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements. Page 96 ANNEX 6. STRUCTURAL MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY PGRD Cost Direct Indirect No. Name of the structural mitigation measure Year of construction (In US $) Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Canalization of pluvial water and pedestrian access to reduce vulnerability in the 1 Monte Fresco neighborhood, Colonia Orellana Sector, municipality of Las Vegas 2013 90,594 695 3,617 department of Santa Barbara Construction of box culvert bridge to canalize pluvial water and reduce vulnerability in 2 2013 101,198 8,024 15,000 El Porvenir village, municipality of San Manuel department of Cortes Construction of box culvert bridge to reduce vulnerability in La Tigra Creek in the 3 2013 61,792 1,953 7,382 Municipality of San Antonio in the department of Cortes Canalization of pluvial water to reduce vulnerability in the Suyapa neighborhood, 4 2013 82,909 450 15,000 street to the La Venta village, Municipality of Pimienta Cortes department Canalization of pluvial water to reduce vulnerability in the El Nuevo Higuerito Central 5 2013 100,604 980 150 community, municipality of Potrerillos department of Cortes Canalization of pluvial water to reduce risk in the Barrio Abajo neighborhood, 6 2014 189,105 485 18,000 municipality of El Negrito department of Yoro Construction of stormwater pipe to reduce risk in the San Juan-Rio Pelo neighborhood 7 2014 256,409 14,387 200,000 and nearby areas in the municipality of El Progreso, department of Yoro Construction of gabion wall to reduce risk in the left riverbank of the Cacaulapa river 8 and the Pueblo Nuevo neighborhood of the municipality of Petoa, department of Santa 2014 171,464 895 10,231 Barbara Protection of the left riverbank of the Santa Cruz creek to reduce risk in the Cuyamapa 9 2014 187,255 815 - village, municipality of Morazan, department of Yoro Protection of the left levee, El Zapote sector, Guaruma I, to reduce risk from the 10 2014 208,984 50,000 20,000 Chamelecon river, municipality of La Lima, department of Cortes Construction of stormwater pipe to reduce risk in the El Calvario and El Centro 11 2014 225,067 1,250 5,000 neighborhoods of the municipality of Santa Cruz de Yojoa, department of Cortes STAGE II- Protection of the left levee in El Zapote sector to reduce risk from the 12 2015 194,134 50,000 20,000 Chamelecon river in the municipality of La Lima, department of Cortes Construction of levee on the left riverbank of the San Idelfonso river to reduce risk in 13 2015 189,882 4,500 2,500 the Potrerillos village, municipality of Omoa, department of Cortes Protection of the right riverbank of the metallic bridge on the Chamelecon river to 14 2015 187,029 50,810 50810 reduce risk in the Baracoa village municipality of Puerto Cortes, department of Cortes Page 97 Cost Direct Indirect No. Name of the structural mitigation measure Year of construction (In US $) Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Canalization of pluvial water and protection of the left riverbank of the El Carmen 15 lagoon to reduce risk in the Valle de Sula neighborhood, in the municipality of 2015 235,554 38,395 38395 Choloma, department of Cortes Canalization of pluvial water to reduce risk in the Venecia neighborhood in the 16 2015 244,535 1,216 1,986 municipality of Tela, department of Atlántida Protection of banks of the stormwater canal and repairing of box culvert bridge to 17 reduce risk in the La Independencia neighborhood, municipality of Villanueva, 2016 192,963 1,800 1,200 department of Cortes STAGE II: Construction of gabion wall to reduce risk in the left floodplain of the 18 Cacaulapa river and the Pueblo Nuevo village, municipality of Petoa, department of 2016 161,271 1,204 10,231 Santa Barbara Canalization of pluvial water to reduce risk in the El Plan village, municipality of San 19 2016 234,436 4,144 3,430 Manuel, department of Cortes Canalization of pluvial water to reduce risk in the San Juan Camalote village of the 20 2016 168,799 571 344 municipality of Morazan, department of Yoro Complementary works of the stormwater pipe to reduce risk in the El Calvario and El 2016 57,013 Centro neighborhoods municipality of Santa Cruz de Yojoa, department of Cortes Canalization of pluvial water in the north-east sector of the El Progreso city, 21 2017 233,886 523 1,904 municipality of El Progreso, department of Yoro Riverbank protection works in the Piedras Amarillas creek to reduce risk in the 22 2017 180,023 1,160 942 municipality of Las Vegas, department of Santa Barbara Canalization of pluvial water to reduce risk in the southern sector of the urban area 23 2017 193,670 6,000 - of the municipality of Omoa, department of Cortes Construction of box culvert bridge on the Chasnigua creek in El Sauce community to 24 2018 162,506 2345 1870 reduce risk in the municipality of Villanueva department of Cortes Construction of box culvert bridge on the Naco river to reduce risk in the municipality 25 2018 130,991 2655 4633 of Quimistán department of Santa Barbara Canalization of pluvial water from the Callejas hill in the San Pablo neighborhood and 26 construction of manhole in the Reparto Pedregal and Poder Ciudadano 1 2018 301,154 3225 1500 neighborhoods to reduce risk in the municipality of Potrerillos department of Cortes Construction of levee on the left bank of the Helado river and hanging bridge to 27 reduce risk in the Buenos Aires-La Jutosa village in the municipality Santa Cruz de 2018 342,996 3735 1182 Yojoa, Cortes Page 98 Cost Direct Indirect No. Name of the structural mitigation measure Year of construction (In US $) Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Canalization of pluvial water to reduce risk in the Lara, Independencia, and Subirana 28 2018 314,556 3649 7300 neighborhoods, in the municipality of Santa Rita, department of Yoro. Construction of levee on the left bank of the Chiquito river and canalization of pluvial 29 2018 122,728 1500 1000 water in La Paz neighborhood, in the municipality of San Francisco De Yojoa, Cortes Protection of right riverbank and construction of a pedestrian bridge on the El Sauce 30 creek to reduce risk in Los Angeles neighborhood in the municipality of San Pedro 2019 316,977 1005 5098 Sula, department of Cortes Riverbank protection of the Intersindical creek to reduce risk in the SITRATELH 31 2019 273,161 1175 2214 neighborhood in the municipality of San Pedro Sula, department of Cortes Construction of box culvert bridge on the Toloa river to reduce risk in the Toloa 32 2019 259,415 1500 2243 community, municipality of Tela, department of Atlantida Box culvert bridge and left riverbank protection to reduce risk in the Belen 33 2019 284,367 630 neighborhood in the municipality of San Francisco de Yojoa, Cortes Construction of stormwater pipe and box culvert bridge in the San Martin 34 2019 390,391 1507 2000 neighborhood in Pinalejo municipality of Quimistan, department of Santa Barbara Canalization of pluvial water in the Km 86 municipality of Pimienta, department of 35 2019 211,268 8000 1241 Cortes Construction of bridge on the La Cienega creek to reduce risk in the El Caulote 36 2020 547,602 3000 1400 community and Nueva Union Construction of embankment and canalization of pluvial water in La Esperanza and 37 Nuevos Horizontes neighborhoods to reduce risk in the southern sector of the 2020 418,361 900 5000 municipality of Puerto Cortes, department of Cortés Second stage of the canalization of pluvial water in the southern sector of the Lopez 38 2020 530,402 6871 20000 Arellano neighborhood to reduce risk in the canal of the Carmen lagoon Canalization of pluvial water of the Rosario Nuñez neighborhood to reduce risk in the 39 2020 462,631 1200 6000 Jocomico creek municipality of El Negrito Canalization of pluvial water to reduce risk in the Municipal neighborhood 40 2020 530,363 639 856 municipality of Santa Rita, department of Yoro Complementary works to reinforce the pluvial water canal to reduce risk in the 2020 157,725 Venecia neighborhood TOTAL 9,906,170 283,793 489,659 Source: PFRD - COPECO Final Report (2021), page 28. Page 99 ANNEX 7. BORROWER COMMENTS This document was translated into Spanish and sent to the Government of Honduras (GoH) for review on November 24, 2021. After a 20-day review period, no comments were submitted. The Bank communicated to the GoH that the report was deemed approved. All the documents utilized to carry out this ICR were prepared, validated, and provided by the GoH. Page 100 ANNEX 8. INTERVIEWS UNDERTAKEN AS PART OF ICR PREPARATION In August 2021, the ICR Bank team interviewed: Beneficiaries and Government/PGRD/COPECO stakeholders. The topics addressed were: PGRD impact, project performance, preparation and implementation, coordination, gender equity, structural and nonstructural mitigation measures, and lessons learned. In summary, according to the information obtained from these interviews, the Project PDOs were achieved, despite the different socio-political processes and environmental events related to the disasters of the tropical storms Eta and Iota, the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2019 restructuring, and governmental financial approval delays, among others. Regarding project performance, according to the interviewees, the PGRD was satisfactory and was an excellent experience for Honduras and specifically for the Sula Valley, Region I, generating conditions for an efficient and effective response to natural disasters. In terms of coordination, it was good at all levels; particularly, it is worth mentioning the excellent work of advice and supervision of the WB team in all phases of the Project, as well as the coordination with COPECO, governments, and local organizations facilitated its efficient implementation. According to the interviewees, regarding the structural mitigation works, excellent perceptions were obtained on their efficiency in reducing lives losses and asset losses, such as housing and road infrastructure, in addition to the strengthening of COPECO's DRM technical capacities, derived from the Project's support. The interviewees indicated that the objectives and indicators of the Project were achieved. One of the interviewees highlighted the improvement of the implementation process of the structural mitigation measures or works after the MTR, which was noticeable during the evaluation of the works for this ICR. Also, most of the interviewees considered that despite the very high institutional fragility, the Project contributed to strengthening the local and municipal capacity in DRM. Compared to Hurricane Mitch in 1998, the consequences of Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota would have been much more significant if it had not been for the investment of PGRD in DRM community capacity building. In addition, some mentioned that in a complex socio-political context, the PGRD strengthened the central role of COPECO in disaster response with a more inclusive work model. Regarding PGRD performance, although three project extensions were given, working in a context such as Honduras is difficult; however, the project performance was considered satisfactory. In relation to preparation and implementation, institutions still face challenges; therefore, strengthening civil capacities is important, as well as decentralizing institutions, to better respond to emergencies. However, it was better responded at the local level (response to ETA and IOTA), but it is necessary to strengthen more at the national level. The project's environmental management and occupational safety performance were satisfactory, gradually improving as the project progressed. However, before the MTR, supervision to the contractor companies was needed to generate greater capacities and better performance. The project suffered some understandable delays due to the complexity of its objectives. From the social perspective, reaching out to vulnerable groups, particularly Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples, was difficult in the first years, but with important achievements starting in 2018. The project was implemented in the midst of deep political and institutional crises and violence, widespread in the Sula Valley. It is important to mention that the disappearance of SEPLAN and the internal conflicts during the government change significantly affected the project's implementation at its initial phase. In terms of coordination, it is considered that all the TTLs were very good at addressing their role, despite this difficult context and the reality of Honduras, compared to the Bank's requirements. But despite all the challenges, there was good coordination with the Bank. The project's coordination with the Bank was adequate; it allowed for close accompaniment that made it possible to achieve satisfactory performance due to the capacity and willingness of the PGRD- Page 101 COPECO specialists. Field visits and work meetings were held when necessary, and communications to and from the project were made in a timely manner. Although there were changes of managers and team members, there was closeness and agility in the coordination between both parties. During implementation, the interviewees commented that the coordination between the Government and Bank was appropriate. The Bank was always informed and involved in analyzing and resolving problems. Regarding the structural mitigation measures, they considered that all had positive impacts on the population. For example, there was a municipality that was constantly flooded by a creek, and with a structural mitigation measure that the PGRD built, the population was very happy because the risk of flooding was reduced for the inhabitants of the area of influence. In general, the structural mitigation works, gave the expected impacts to the selected municipalities by the project, reflected on their assets, the physical integrity of the people and health of the community, are now less, in the case of events with rates of return considered in the design of the works. The works were accompanied by improvements in the environmental performance of the contractors. Also, they had a positive impact on the organization of the community through the creation of the CODELs. Positive impacts: quality works with rigorous design and inspection processes. Positive in terms of: (i) protection against floods with short return periods (2 to 5 years), (ii) being able to include in COPECO's actions the supervision of works carried out by qualified professionals, and (iii) the creation of the CODELs as a strategy for the proper use, conservation, and protection of the works. In environmental and occupational safety matters, the participation of women protagonists in the DRM coordination and management was remarkable. Negative impacts: One of the respondents stated that some municipal officials did not support the project when requested because women made the request. However, all the projects implemented included a gender perspective. In the beginning, this discussion related to gender was absent at the institutional level, and the project managed to introduce its relevance. Therefore, it would be essential to be more specific in the actions focused on gender applied in future projects with a similar scope. The results by each group were: Beneficiaries https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScziciaufj480s0w55sdZFsJH7zvYocwECbzFRBYJQA9h1SyA/viewanalytics The information provided by beneficiaries through the ICR survey confirms the findings of the Project Final Evaluation regarding evidence of preparedness following Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota has increased. Community members who historically had suffered from flood damage said that because of this preparedness and the implementation of structural and nonstructural mitigation measures in their Municipalities, their lives and properties are now protected, with no damages following Tropical Cyclones Eta and Iota. One of the interviewees said: “The Project was very helpful, we learned about disaster risk mitigation, and when Eta and Iota struck Honduras, there was no loss of life in our community, alerts were issued to the population in advance, due to the capacity building given to us by the project, and we alerted other neighboring communities” (El Proyecto fue de mucha ayuda, aprendimos sobre la mitigación de riesgos de desastres, y cuando vino Eta e Iota, no hubo pérdidas de vidas en nuestra comunidad, se emitieron alertas a la población, debido a lo enseñado por el proyecto, asimismo, también alertamos a otras comunidades vecinas). This is corroborated by the impact evaluation and the perception surveys where beneficiaries were asked to qualify their degree of satisfaction, as a result of the structural mitigation measures and training carried out by the PGRD - 97% of a representative sample of direct project beneficiaries reported satisfaction with COPECO’s DRM project activities and 97% of sampled female beneficiaries were satisfied with COPECO's DRM project activities. Page 102 The interviewees highlighted the participation of the community in the maintenance of the structural mitigation measures and creation of CODELs and the significant improvement of infrastructure noticed by the communities. They conclude that the PGRD fulfilled its DRM objectives at the community level and strengthened the response and early warning capacities to reduce the impacts of natural disasters. Also, the participation of women in main positions in the CODELs was very important and represented 42%, out of the 40% planned, where the participation of Afro-descendant women stands out (60%). They also mentioned that the interinstitutional coordination strengthened the participation between COPECO, CODELs, and CODEMs. Government/COPECO/PGRD https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc9fkwj-eiypXVWSEwy44MCZu3AIGk4I9eUBzIKdOfa5oI3GA/viewanalytics From the Government/COPECO/PGRD surveys, it can be concluded that the project effectively reached all the target indicators and that the main objective of strengthening national and municipal DRM was achieved. The main goals achieved by the Project that the interviewees' highlighted are: i) adoption of municipal disaster risk management plans and emergency plans; ii) implementation of structural/nonstructural mitigation measures; iii) rehabilitation of monitoring networks; iv) consolidation of the SINIT, RENOT, and SINAP; v) updating and dissemination of the standard methodology for territorial ordering with DRM approach; vi) strengthening of capacities for immediate response; and vii) creation of CODELs. These are consistent with the conclusions of this ICR. Regarding the structural mitigation measures, one of the interviewees mentioned the lack of participation of the municipalities as a negative aspect. This confirms the conclusion of the structural mitigation measures evaluation that the participation of municipalities seems to have been very limited. They also agree that the implementation of the Project was satisfactory, consolidating the DRM capacities and providing equipment and software for managing information related to DRM. All the above was achieved despite several limiting external factors, such as: political, environmental events, and the COVID-19 pandemic. They agree that the coordination was adequate; it was possible to maintain good communication and coordination in the work process, during the implementation of the Project, with national and local actors, and with the World Bank team, which was decisive to achieve significant progress. Regarding the structural mitigation measures, they concluded that it strengthens security against natural disasters and reduces the vulnerability of critical areas, reduces the level of threat, reduces loss of assets, and above all, human lives. An important issue is to consolidate the sustainability of the works. They also commented that there is a desire for participation and leadership among women. There were successful experiences of women who led processes in the CODELs and CODEMs; therefore, it is important to promote a policy of gender equality and interculturality, defining the active participation of women and supporting indigenous peoples and Afro-Honduran communities. Page 103 ANNEX 9. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. Restructuring Paper - Disaster Risk Management Project - P131094 (December 18, 2020). https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/151851608334362625/pdf/Disclosable- Restructuring-Paper-Disaster-Risk-Management-Project-P131094.pdf 2. Restructuring Paper - Disaster Risk Management Project - P131094 (June 10, 2020) https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/441431591828031359/pdf/Disclosable- Restructuring-Paper-Disaster-Risk-Management-Project-P131094.pdf 3. Restructuring Paper - Disaster Risk Management Project - P131094 (April 8, 2019) https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/554381554726698709/pdf/Disclosable- Restructuring-Paper-Disaster-Risk-Management-Project-P131094.pdf 4. First Amendment to the Financing Agreement for Credit 5190-HN (English) https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/153701468040528104/pdf/Official-Documents- First-Amendment-to-the-Financing-Agreement-for-Credit-5190-HN.pdf 5. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 19.5 million (US$ 30 million equivalent) to the Republic of Honduras for Disaster Risk Management Project (November 7, 2012). https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/116561468282846163/pdf/NonAsciiFileName0.pdf 6. 2013-2021 Borrower’s Project Report (August 2021). 7. Borrower’s Project Economic Final Evaluation Report (August 2020). 8. Borrower’s Project Technical, Economic, and Environmental Final Evaluation Report (August 2020). 9. Borrower’s Project Quantity Final Evaluation Report and Impact Evaluation at the household level (August 2020). 10. Borrower’s Project Qualitative and General Final Evaluation Report (August 2020). Page 104