Page  1
1
A
GENCY
’
S
P
ROJECT 
ID:
 P085488 
GEFSEC P
ROJECT 
ID:  
C
OUNTRY
:
Honduras/Nicaragua 
P
ROJECT 
T
ITLE
:
Corazón Transboundary Biosphere 
Reserve Project 
GEF A
GENCY
:
World Bank 
O
THER 
E
XECUTING 
A
GENCY
(
IES
): 
Comisión 
Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo
 (CCAD)
 
D
URATION
:
6
years 
GEF F
OCAL 
A
REA
:
Biodiversity 
GEF O
PERATIONAL 
P
ROGRAM
:
Forest Ecosystems 
(OP3), Mountain Ecosystems (OP4) 
GEF S
TRATEGIC 
P
RIORITY
:
Catalyzing 
Sustainability of Protected Areas (BD-1), 
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production 
Landscapes and Sectors (BD-2)
 
Pipeline Entry Date:
 9/9/2003
 
E
STIMATED 
S
TARTING 
D
ATE
:
11/15/05 
IA F
EE
:
1,116,000
 
CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS OF 
THE BUSINESS PLAN:  
Deforestation of core areas (1.2 million ha) of each PA decreases from 2%/year (estimated baseline) to 
<0.4 %/year; Increase of 25% in number of ha under sustainable management 
 
R
ECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE 
G
OVERNMENT
(
S
): 
 
PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
GEF C
OUNCIL  
S
UBMISSION
 
FINANCING PLAN (US$)
 
GEF P
ROJECT
/C
OMPONENT
 
Project 12,000,000
PDF A 
     
PDF B 
400,000
PDF C 
     
Sub-Total GEF 
12,400,000
C
O
-
FINANCING
*
IBRD/IDA/IFC 16,000,000
Government (Cash and in-
kind) 
5,000,000
Bilateral 
     
NGOs 
     
Others 
     
Sub-Total Co-financing: 
21,000,000
Total Project Financing: 
33,400,000
F
INANCING FOR 
A
SSOCIATED 
A
CTIVITIES 
I
F
A
NY
:
L
EVERAGED 
R
ESOURCES 
I
F
A
NY
:
21,000,000 (IDA financing, government)
 
*Details provided under the Financial Modality and 
Cost Effectiveness section 
(Enter Name, Position, Ministry)
 Date
:
(Month, day, year)
 
Arturo Harding, Minister of the Environment, 
MARENA (Nicaragua) (FSP Endorsement) 
3/9/2005 
Patricia Panting, Minister of the Environment, 
SERNA (PDF-B Endorsement, which did not 
stipulate that FSP endorsement was 
contemplated) 
1/31/2003 
Page  2
2
Approved on behalf of the World Bank. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF 
policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for work 
program inclusion 
 
Steve Gorman
GEF Executive Coordinator, The World Bank 
 
Project Contact Person: Jocelyne Albert 
Date: 3/16/05 
Tel. and email: 
jalbert@worldbank.org
,
(202) 473-3458 
Page  3
3
1. PROJECT SUMMARY 
a) 
Project rationale, objectives, outputs/outcomes, activities
 
The largest remaining area of humid tropical forest north of Colombia is found along the eastern 
border between Honduras and Nicaragua. This 34,000 km
2
area encompasses much of the 
remaining habitat of many threatened and endangered species that require large intact areas of 
pristine forest, such as Harpy Eagles, jaguars, and tapirs, and contains more than 50% of the 
ecosystems of the two countries. It is also home to approximately 41,000 Tawahka, Mayangna, 
Pech, Garífuna, and Miskito indigenous peoples. This is the area proposed for the Corazón 
Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (CTBR). The Reserve name reflects its location in the “heart” 
of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC). The proposed Corazón Reserve encompasses 
four protected areas: the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve in Nicaragua and the Tawahka Asangni 
Reserve, Patuca National Park, and Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve in Honduras.  
 
However, the management of these protected areas has not been efficient in protecting the 
ecosystems and populations they contain from encroaching threats
.
The area’s integrity is 
threatened by a lack of sustainable income-generating activities and weak protection and 
enforcement practices. Deforestation continues to be a problem, with rapid losses still occurring 
at the agricultural frontier. While local agricultural and forest management techniques are 
partially responsible for the loss of forest cover, the greatest problem is seen along the western 
agricultural frontier, where recent arrivals are clearing land for farming and cattle ranching at 
alarming rates. Among the indigenous communities, poverty and a lack of economic options 
contribute to sub-optimal land use practices. 
 
The objective
of the Corazón Project is to strengthen the management of this binational area in 
order to better preserve the important biodiversity of the Corazón Reserve, in part through 
improving the sustainability of the national protected area systems. 
 
The Project consists of six components. (See Annex 4 of the Project Brief for a detailed 
description of each component.) The components are, with a very brief description of outputs, 
outcomes, and activities: 
 
A) Consolidation of the Corazón Transboundary Biosphere Reserve
:
Different activities involved 
in the consolidation of the binational administration of the entire area. Subcomponents include 
the consolidation of the process of nomination and recognition of the CBTR by UNESCO and 
the implementation of a strategy for establishing administrative mechanisms and coordinating 
the CBTR’s binational management mechanisms 
 
Outcomes: At the end of the project the CTBR is expected to have been consolidated, with 
binational institutional mechanisms that guarantee the adequate coordination of policies, 
strategies, and activities in the Reserve area.  
 
Activities: Include workshop with stakeholders; strengthening of binational institutional 
arrangements; binational monitoring of the nomination and recognition process; the design, 
implementation, and monitoring of administrative mechanisms; consultation with actors 
responsible for the administration and coordination of the CBTR; training and exchanges; 
Page  4
4
implementation of a communication strategy to publicize the creation of the Reserve; and 
management of the CBTR through other international programs. 
 
B) Sustainability of the National Protected Area Systems (SINAPs)
:
More than half of the 
geographic area of the protected areas systems of Honduras and Nicaragua is included within the 
Corazón Reserve. This component will support policy reforms, legal reforms, training, and 
advances to financial sustainability through environmental service payments and other 
mechanisms. Subcomponents include the development and strengthening of financial 
sustainability mechanisms of the National Protected Areas Systems and the technical, legal, and 
administrative strengthening of the National Protected Areas Systems. 
 
Outcomes: The result of work under this component is expected to be stronger National 
Protected Areas Systems which are politically, financially, technically and administratively 
effective and sustainable. 
 
Activities: Include the design and implementation of an economic valuation strategy for 
environmental goods and services; support for the creation or consolidation of long-term 
financial mechanisms; the strengthening of and support for national Protected Areas Funds; 
Evaluations of the effectiveness of SINAP management and administration; improvement of the 
institutional management capacity of the SINAPs; support for the review, update, and 
rationalization of the protected areas; facilitation of legal, technical, and administrative 
instruments to strengthen the SINAPs; and the integration of the national Protected Areas 
Systems into the Central American System of Protected Areas. 
 
C) Implementation of PA Management Plans
:
This component will help the four specific 
protected areas of Nicaragua and Honduras implement individual protected area plans, through a 
community-based co-management structure and ensuring coordination under the umbrella 
structure of the Corazón Reserve. Investments will include equipment and infrastructure, 
additional demarcation where necessary, dialog on management plans, and development of better 
community-based management structures. Subcomponents include the programmatic integration 
of the management plans of the Corazón Reserve and the implementation of management plans 
of the four protected areas with strong community participation.  
 
Outcomes: At the end of the project, management plans for the four protected areas included in 
the CTBR are expected to have been harmonized and effectively implemented with the 
participation of local communities. 
 
Activities: Include the proposing ways to update, harmonize, and simplify the management plans 
of the four protected areas; facilitating consultation and dialog on the update and harmonization 
of the plans; drafting the operational and management plans for the four protected areas; 
assessing management effectiveness; training technical personnel and community members to 
participate in the implementation of management plans; improving basic infrastructure; 
supporting guard, protection, and control programs in the core zones; and implementing a 
communication strategy to disseminate information on management plans.  
 
Page  5
5
D) Community-Based Natural Resource Management (NRM)
:
This component focuses on local 
communities in their own management of natural resources to mainstream biodiversity 
conservation into everyday productive activities. This component will be closely linked and 
jointly implemented with major financing from IDA projects with similar goals. Indigenous 
groups (
Tawahka, Sumu/Mayangna, Pech, Garífuna, and Miskito) will be one of the primary 
beneficiaries of this component. Subcomponents include strengthening local organizations, 
especially indigenous organizations; promotion of sustainable production systems for goods and 
services, and commercialization of the goods; and strengthening of formal and informal 
environmental education. 
 
Outcomes: The outcome expected under this component is a better sustainable management of 
natural resources by local populations, facilitated by stronger community organizations. 
 
Activities: Include an assessment of administrative and operational capacity for comanagement 
and territorial management; support for a strategy of territorial coordination and management; 
creation of local conflict resolution mechanisms; provision of training in sustainable natural 
resource management; collection of data on productive practices; producing models of and 
implementing community and farm productivity plans;  training on traditional sustainable 
practices; creating an environmental education strategy, including materials, campaigns and pilot 
activities; small grants for institutional strengthening and education activities; exchange 
opportunities; and subprojects involving children in NRM.  
 
E) Monitoring and Information Management
.
Effective management of the Corazón Reserve and 
the protected area systems of both countries needs monitoring and management of environmental 
information. This component will coordinate and be based on existing programs at national 
levels (e.g., the National Environmental Information System (SINIA) in Nicaragua) and at 
regional levels: the Mesoamerican Environmental Information System (SIAM) and the Inter-
American Biological Information Network (IABIN). Subcomponents include socioeconomic and 
biodiversity monitoring, linkages to information systems, and support to research.  
 
Outcomes: The result of this component is expected to be a stronger monitoring and information 
management capacity of the National Environmental Information Systems, which will benefit the  
management needs of the CTBR. 
 
Activities: Include the harmonization of monitoring indicators and methods; training of local 
residents in monitoring; provision of necessary monitoring equipment; installation of 
meteorological stations; implementation of monitoring programs; strengthening of coordination 
mechanisms among existing information management systems; training of key personnel; 
coordination of efforts to establish local National Environmental Information System nodes; 
support for a permanent water quality monitoring program; work with the Regional Biodiversity 
Institute; provision of small grants to support scientific research; interaction with the 
international scientific community; and disseminate information generated through research.  
 
F) Project Coordination and Administration
.
This component supports the effective and efficient 
administration and operation of the Corazón Project.  
Page  6
6
Outcomes: This component is expected to lead to an effective and efficient project 
administration.  
 
Activities: Include project coordination; periodic financial audits; procurement and financial 
management; coordination of small grants activities through an existing program; 
implementation of a communications program; publishing of material produced by the project; 
systematization of project information; participation in appropriate trips or conferences; a Mid-
Term Review; and project closing activities. 
 
Key indicators, assumptions, and risks (from Logframe)  
To measure progress in achieving the project development objective of managing the binational 
Corazón area, the Project will use scorecard indicators that measure the enabling environment 
and the institutional management capacity. These indicators, which are explained in Annex 3 of 
the Project Brief, include an improvement in the enabling environment indicator from an 
estimated baseline of about 2.5 to 3.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5); an improvement in the institutional 
management capacity indicator from an estimated baseline of 1.5 to 3.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5); 
and a reduction by at least half of the deforestation of core areas of the Reserve from the 
estimated baseline value of 2%/year. Scorecards, including the WWF-World Bank Alliance 
Tracking Tool for Protected Area Management Effectiveness, will also be used to measure the 
management effectiveness of the Corazón Reserve, and of the SINAPs. Please see the Results 
Framework in Annex 2 for the explanation of these indicators and the outcome indicators for 
each component. 
 
The binational nature of the project makes implementation more complex, and therefore 
increases potential risks. However, this binational identity is also one of the most innovative and 
attractive aspects of the project. Existing binational coordination structures should help mitigate 
much of this risk. Other potential risks include a lack of government support, social conflict, or 
limited coordination with associated projects. Measures are in place to address these risks, and 
all are rated as low.  
 
2. COUNTRY 
OWNERSHIP 
a) C
OUNTRY 
E
LIGIBILITY
 
Both Honduras and Nicaragua are eligible to receive GEF funding. Both are member countries of 
the GEF, Honduras since September 20, 1994 and Nicaragua since May 19 of the same year. 
Honduras is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), having signed the 
convention on September 13, 1992, and ratified it on July 31, 1995. Nicaragua is also a party to 
the CBD, having signed it on the same day as Honduras and having ratified the Convention on 
November 20, 1995.  
 
b) C
OUNTRY 
D
RIVENNESS
 
The Corazón Project was conceived and proposed jointly by Honduras and Nicaragua in support 
of the proposed Corazón Transboundary Biosphere Reserve. The proposal to establish this 
Biosphere Reserve was submitted jointly by the two countries to UNESCO in August 2004, and 
cross-border coordination mechanisms are established. The governments of Honduras and 
Nicaragua are committed to establishing and consolidating the Corazón Reserve, and this project 
Page  7
7
represents critical support from the GEF and World Bank to achieving this objective. The 
growing dedication of the governments of these two countries to conservation is reflected in the 
recently-approved protected areas strategy in Nicaragua, as well as the new Honduran Protected 
Areas Fund and the fore
stry and protected areas law currently before that country’s congress.  
 
3.  PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY 
a) F
IT 
T
O
GEF O
PERATIONAL 
P
ROGRAM AND STRATEGIC PRIORITY
 
The Corazón Project responds directly to the Operational Programs for Forest Ecosystems (OP3) 
and Mountain Ecosystems (OP4) within the Biodiversity Window of the GEF. The strategic 
priorities for the Biodiversity Focal Area underlie the fundamental concept of the project: SP-1,  
sustainability of national protected areas systems;  and SP-2, mainstreaming of biodiversity 
conservation in productive landscapes. 
 
b) S
USTAINABILITY 
(
INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
)
This project seeks to improve the management of the reserve area and promote better 
management of natural resources by local populations. By increasing protection efforts in the 
protected areas, providing communities with tools for securing land rights, and promoting 
sustainable productive activities, the project will help to address some of the most pervasive 
problems on the Corazón Reserve, including migration, illegal land use, poverty, and 
environmental degradation. This in turn will contribute to a more effective and sustainable 
conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems in the area. An emphasis on strengthening the 
SINAPs of Honduras and Nicaragua, particularly on financial and institutional sustainability; 
incorporating conservation into the productive sector; promoting sustainable income-generating 
activities; and promoting community ownership of the initiative will help ensure the 
sustainability of these efforts.  
 
c) R
EPLICABILITY
 
The Corazón Project has substantial potential for replicability throughout the region, and perhaps 
in other parts of the world. In particular, two areas that are unique to this project may be of 
interest to a diverse set of countries: i) binational conservation projects; and ii) mainstreaming of 
biodiversity conservation issues into the forestry sector. The close coordination of the project 
with current and emerging projects, exchanges between local residents and people elsewhere 
with similar situations, and a proactive communications strategy are expected to promote 
dissemination of lessons learned from this project and facilitate their adaptation, multiplying the 
benefits seen here. 
 
d) S
TAKEHOLDER 
I
NVOLVEMENT
 
Participation of local communities has been key at all stages of project design, and will continue 
to be an integral part of the project through implementation. This is especially true in the drafting 
and implementation of management plans and support of productive activities. Communities will 
also be instrumental in carrying out social and biological monitoring. Socioeconomic indicators 
have been built into the monitoring framework, and will be used to assess the progress of the 
project.  
 
e) M
ONITORING AND 
E
VALUATION
 
Page  8
8
One of the subcomponents of the Corazón Project is Monitoring and Information Management. 
Effective management of the Corazón Reserve and the protected area systems of both countries 
needs a continuing emphasis on monitoring and management of environmental information. This 
subcomponent will coordinate and be based on existing programs at national levels (e.g., the 
National Environmental Information System (SINIA) in Nicaragua) and at regional levels: the 
Mesoamerican Environmental Information System (SIAM) and the GEF-supported Inter-
American Biological Information Network (IABIN).  
 
The project expects to use the WWF-World Bank Tracking Tool to measure the effectiveness of 
protected area management in the Corazón Reserve. Baseline values are being established during 
project preparation, and assessments will be made at regular intervals during project 
implementation.  
 
4.  FINANCIAL MODALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS 
 
Co-financing Sources 
Name of Co-
financier (source) 
Classification Type 
Amount 
(US$) 
Status* 
Governments of 
Honduras and 
Nicaragua 
Government 
Cash and in-
kind 
5,000,000 $3 
million 
commitment 
to Protected 
Area Fund 
and $2 
million in in-
kind 
counterpart 
financing 
Forests and Rural 
Productivity 
Project (Honduras) 
IDA Partially-
Blended Project 
12,000,000 Reflected 
in 
project and 
legal 
documents 
Support to the 
PRORURAL 
SWAp (Nicaragua)
IDA Partially-
Blended Project 
4,000,000 Being 
reflected in 
project and 
legal 
documents 
Sub-Total Co-
financing 
 
21,000,000**
*
Reflect the status of discussion with co-financiers. If there are any letters with expressions of 
interest or commitment, please attach them. 
 
**Please note that discussions on cofinancing are being held with other donors including the 
European Union and German Cooperation, and there is the potential for another $10 to $15 
million of cofinacing that will be very closely coordinated and possibly co-executed with the 
Corazón Project. However, since no letters have been signed at this time, these sources have not 
been included as cofinancing but rather considered as part of the baseline costs.
Page  9
9
5.  INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT 
a) C
ORE 
C
OMMITMENTS AND 
L
INKAGES
 
The Corazón Project is responsive to many of the critical issues identified by Honduras and 
Nicaragua, and by the Bank, as of strategic priority.  Nicaragua’s CAS focuses on the four pillars 
of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP): a) broad based economic growth with an 
emphasis on productive employment generation and rural development; b) greater and better 
investment in the human capital of the poor; c) better protection for vulnerable populations; and 
d) the strengthening of institutions and good governance. These four pillars are intertwined with 
three cross-cutting themes: a) a reduction in environmental degradation and ecological 
vulnerability; b) an increase in social equity; and c) further decentralization. The Corazón Project 
specifically addresses rural development, the protection of vulnerable populations, and a 
reduction in environmental degradation and ecological vulnerability.  
 
Similarly, the Honduran CAS reflects the six pillars of that country’s PRSP: a) accelerating 
equitable and sustainable growth to levels consistent with the income poverty reduction targets; 
b) reducing rural poverty; c) reducing urban poverty; d) enhancing investment in human capital; 
e) strengthening social protection for specific vulnerable groups; and, f) ensuring the 
sustainability of the strategy through governance and institutional reforms and enhanced 
environmental sustainability. Again, the Corazón Project responds to many of these objectives, 
including reducing rural poverty, strengthening protection for vulnerable groups, and enhancing 
environmental sustainability.  
 
This project is also closely coordinated with, and complimentary to, other GEF and Bank 
operations in the two countries. The Corazón Project is partially-blended with two IDA projects: 
the Forests and Rural Productivity (PBPR) Project in Honduras and the Support to the 
PRORURAL SWAp Project (PRORURAL) in Nicaragua. These projects have been developed 
together. The PBPR is recently underway; PRORURAL is nearing completion of project design. 
Annex 4 of the Project Brief further discusses the integration of these projects with the Corazón 
Project. Particularly close collaboration has also been assured with the Bank’s GEF-financed 
regional Integrated Management of Ecosystems Project, and the closing Bank-implemented 
Atlantic Biological Corridor Project in Honduras and Biodiversity in Priority Areas Project in 
Honduras. 
 
The Corazón Protect team has also held meetings with the staff of other major projects working 
in the Corazón Reserve area in order to ensure that the activities of the Corazón project are 
coordinated with these projects, that there is no overlap, and that lessons learned by these 
initiatives have been incorporated into Corazón’s work. To date, meetings have been held with 
the European Union, and German Cooperation, as well as with the staff of USAID’s Integrated 
Environmental Resource Management Project.  
 
b) C
ONSULTATION
,
C
OORDINATION AND 
C
OLLABORATION BETWEEN 
IA
S
,
AND 
IA
S
AND 
E
X
A
S
,
IF APPROPRIATE
.
The project team has been in contact with the proposed GEF UNDP-implemented project to 
strengthen the National Protected Areas System in Nicaragua, in order to achieve a 
harmonization and coordination of objectives, strategies, and activities. Other GEF projects in 
Page  10
10
Honduras and Nicaragua are coordinated by MARENA and SERNA allowing for harmonized 
preparation with the Corazón Project. It is notable also that the World Bank and UNDP are co-
implementing the Biodiversity in Priority Areas Project in Honduras. 
 
C
.
P
ROJECT 
I
MPLEMENTATION 
A
RRANGEMENT
 
Although executed by the Central American Commission for the Environment and Development 
(CCAD), the counterpart agencies in Nicaragua are MARENA, the Ministry of Environment and 
in Honduras, the Ministry of Environment (SERNA) and the Forestry Agency (AFE-
COHDEFOR). These agencies, working under the coordination of CCAD, have designed the 
project. The responsibility of managing project funds and dealing directly with the World Bank 
will fall to the project administration unit of CCAD, which has successfully executed the PDF-B 
Grant.  
 
Some funds will need to be managed nationally, so second-tier funds will be set up in each 
country to ensure more efficient use and management of locally-executed funds. National 
coordination units will have limited financial management and procurement responsibilities. In 
Honduras the coordination unit will be attached to the Protected Area Fund of Honduras (FHAP, 
for its acronym in Spanish) which has is managed by a consortium of protected areas interests 
that does not include a majority representation of government. In Nicaragua, the coordination 
unit will be attached to the Technical Secretariat of Bosawas (SETAB), which has been in 
operation for many years as a forum for managing the diverse projects and initiatives underway 
in Bosawas. It is chaired by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA) but 
includes all important stakeholders from the Bosawas Reserve. 
 
Two existing institutional structures will be strengthened under the project to provide 
coordination and oversight to CCAD at the binational level. The Binational Forum has led the 
process over the last several years to have the Corazón area declared as a reserve. It represents a 
wide range of governmental and non-governmental interests, including indigenous groups. 
Secondly, a smaller Binational Technical Committee, created for the PDF-B, will be maintained 
under the Project as a mechanism of providing government overview and guidance to CCAD. 
(Please see Annex 6 of the Project Brief for more details on implementation arrangements.) 
 
Page  11
11
A
NNEX 
A: I
NCREMENTAL 
C
OST 
A
NALYSIS
 
Introduction 
 
1. 
The largest remaining area of humid tropical forest north of Colombia is found along the 
eastern border between Honduras and Nicaragua. This 34,000 km
2
area encompasses much of 
the remaining habitat of many threatened and endangered species that require large intact areas 
of pristine forest, such as Harpy Eagles, jaguars, and tapirs, and contains more than 50% of the 
ecosystems of the two countries. It is also home to approximately 41,000 Tawahka, Mayangna, 
Pech, Garífuna, and Miskito indigenous peoples. This is the area proposed for the Corazón 
Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (CTBR). The Reserve name reflects its location in the “heart” 
of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC).  
 
2. 
The proposed Corazón Reserve encompasses four existing protected areas: the Bosawas 
Biosphere Reserve in Nicaragua and the Tawahka Asangni Reserve, Patuca National Park, and 
Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve in Honduras. The Corazón Project will strengthen the 
management of this binational area in order to better preserve the globally important biodiversity 
of the Corazón Reserve. In addition, the Project will strengthen the national protected area 
systems. 
 
Baseline Scenario 
 
3. 
Scope
:
Under the Baseline Scenario, the area of the project, the future Corazón 
Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, continues under formal protected area status but, except for 
isolated patches which have some effective protection (core area of the Río Plátano Biosphere 
Reserve and some areas of the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve and Tawahka Asagni Indigenous 
Reserve conserved by indigenous populations under traditional conservation practices and 
benefiting from GTZ and EU investments), there is no effective protection or official presence of 
the state. Areas that are protected by their remoteness or low population density will remain 
essentially unchanged in the near future but the periphery of the entire reserve will continue to be 
impacted by a fast-moving agricultural frontier.  
 
4. 
Human populations in and near the Corazón Reserve are poor and although dependent on 
natural resources of the area, their use of the resources is inefficient, contributing to the erosion 
of biodiversity and to a cycle of poverty. There are some ongoing investments in Corazón 
communities but these tend to be focused in small areas and most communities, particularly 
indigenous communities, do not benefit from any external support. 
 
5. 
Under the Baseline Scenario, the four areas of the Corazón Reserve will continue to be 
managed as independent units with little coordination between them and virtually none across 
the international boundary. This contributes to inefficiencies in terms of costs and impact but 
also means that this single ecoregional unit, from a conservation science perspective, does not 
benefit from a uniform management regime nor does it benefit from a promotion of shared 
traditions and practices of indigenous peoples. 
 
Page  12
12
6. 
In summary, the situation is expected under the Baseline Scenario to change little for the 
next six years. There would be a continuing and ongoing loss of biodiversity attributable 
principally to few and uncoordinated investments in this huge area of the Mesoamerican 
Biological Corridor. 
 
7. 
Costs
($20.6 million): The table later in this section provides the expected baseline 
investment in the Corazón area for the next six years under the Baseline Scenario. This analysis 
has not quantified every small project or ongoing activity as there are a large number of these but 
it does include all major sustained sources of financing. In summary, investment levels are 
expected to be about $4.2 million in total in the next 6 years from governments ($0.7 
million/year) and $16.4 million from international donor projects ($2.7 million/year). The 
Baseline Scenario includes donor projects of GTZ, the European Union, and USAID which will 
be very closely coordinated with the Corazon Project over the next six years. Although they are 
not included as part of the proposed project costs because no formal cofinancing agreements 
have been signed due to the projects being on different timelines, they are part of the Baseline 
Scenario as they contribute to the conservation efforts in the project area. 
 
8. 
The Baseline Scenario more specifically in regard to each of the project’s components is 
summarized below and in the table at the end of section: 
 
9. 
Component A - Consolidation of the CTBR ($0.1 million): 
Under the Baseline Scenario, 
although both countries are committed to the concept of the binational Corazón Reserve and 
would continue to lobby UNESCO, there are only minimal funds available for actions of 
promoting binational management and coordination. We estimate these as no more than 
$100,000 over the next 6 years, all being government funds, in the absence of an externally 
funded project. 
 
10. 
Component B: Strengthening of SINAPs ($3.6 million)
:
The Baseline Scenario provides 
for minimal investments in the SINAPs of each country. Current national budgets for the 
protected area systems range from about $250,000/year in Honduras to about $400,000 per year 
in Nicaragua. However, virtually all of these resources are targeted to meeting the minimal 
investment needs necessary in critical protected areas, and funds are not available for the needed 
strengthening of the national systems. Various projects supported by other international donors, 
in particular by GTZ, the EU and USAID, do provide some funding for strategic considerations 
and strengthening at the national level. Therefore, under the Baseline Scenario, each country will 
be benefiting from about $300,000 per year in direct donor investments in strengthening the 
SINAPs for a total of about $3.6 million over 6 years. 
 
11. 
Component C: Implementation of Protected Area Management Plans ($1.6 million)
:
Under the Baseline Scenario, the four individual protected areas making up the Corazón area 
would benefit from investments that would allow their individual management plans to be 
implemented. Resources available for each area from national budgets are negligible as overall 
SINAP budgets are so low and are fragmented among the 170 protected areas in both countries; 
at best each country can maintain a single director on each side of the border and a handful of 
park guards. More substantive resources will be invested from various programs of international 
cooperants but this varies substantially from area to area.  
Page  13
13
 
12. 
The best endowed area is that of
 the Río Plátano Reserve in Honduras. It is, however, the 
most complex area to manage as it is the largest and has a large human presence in buffer zones, 
which are a dynamic mix of indigenous and mestizo populations. The Río Plátano Reserve will 
continue to benefit from German Cooperation investments of about $1 million over the next 6 
years, specifically for the implementation of the management plan. 
 
13. 
The Tawahka and Patuca protected areas in Honduras do not benefit from any focused 
project in protected area management, with the expected closing in 2005 of the GEF Protected 
Areas in Priority Areas Project (PROBAP). PROBAP provided support for the creation of the 
Tawahka Reserve and also provided minimal but key support to the management of both 
protected areas. The Baseline Scenario includes the investments in implementing the two 
existing management plans for these areas which is estimated to be about $200,000 over the next 
6
years. 
 
14. 
Finally, the Bosawas Reserve in Nicaragua does receive a large number of scattered 
investments from the Government of Nicaragua, NGOs, and international donors, in particular 
GTZ and USAID. The Baseline Scenario includes about $400,000 of these investments over the 
next 6 years.  
 
15. 
Thus the total of the Baseline Scenario investments under this component are estimated at 
$1.6 million of which $1.5 million from externally funded projects. 
 
16. 
Component D: Community-Based Sustainable NRM ($15 million)
:
There are 
substantial investments under the Baseline Scenario for sustainable natural resources 
management, in particular in working with indigenous and non-indigenous populations in and 
around the four protected areas. Particularly, investments are expected in the Río Plátano (GTZ), 
the Tawahka and Patuca areas (EU, USAID), and in Bosawas (GTZ, USAID, TNC, and many 
other smaller projects). The total investment for the four areas that have been included in the 
Baseline Scenario is $15 million (of which $1 million being government’s own resources) - $5 
million, $5 million, $2 million, and $3 million respectively for the four areas. Although 
substantial, it is noteworthy that this is an enormously large area of extremely difficult access 
with large populations of very poor people. In addition, because the various investments across 
the four areas are currently moving forward as individual non-coordinated investments, there are 
great potential drawbacks in sharing the most innovative technologies, ensuring coordination, 
and providing guarantees that all these investments are indeed moving in the direction of more 
sustainable natural resource management. 
 
17. 
Component E: Monitoring and Information Management ($0.3 million)
:
Under the 
Baseline Scenario, both countries will make meager investments in biological monitoring in the 
Corazón area. Small investments under scattered projects will be carried out (e.g., St. Louis Zoo 
in Bosawas, GTZ in Bosawas and Río Plátano Reserve) for an estimated $200,000 over the next 
six years. Nicaragua also has a dynamic and effective SINIA at the national level which is 
contributing to better overall management of environmental information. Honduras is only at the 
earliest stages of having an effective national environmental information system. Finally, 
although at a hemispheric level, the GEF-funded IABIN project will be yielding important 
Page  14
14
benefits for each country in terms of providing tools and guidance for more efficient and focused 
management of biological information. It would seem extremely difficult to quantify the 
monetary value of these investments for the Corazón area but with a conservative estimate, it is 
about $100,000 for the overall Corazón area. Therefore, an overall total of $300,000 is included 
in Baseline Scenario under this component. 
 
18. 
Benefits
:
While the Baseline Scenario would generate national and limited global 
benefits, it would have very limited global impacts due to fragmented approaches in conservation 
efforts and without coordination at the landscape level. It would not be sufficient to address the 
existing threats to the most critical areas of the highest biodiversity and international 
conservation importance. Moreover, it would not adequately integrate biodiversity conservation 
on a broader, landscape-level, which is necessary for long-term ecosystem management and 
biodiversity conservation. Total expenditures under the Baseline are estimated at $20.6 million.
 
2. Global Environmental Objectives of the GEF Alternative 
 
19. The 
objective
 of
the GEF Alternative is to ensure the long-term conservation of the heart 
of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, the largest contiguous area of natural habitat that 
remains in Mesoamerica and perhaps the best hope for maintenance in Mesoamerica of 
ecological dynamics and processes at large ecoregional scales. This objective cannot be achieved 
only through isolated national actions but requires concerted binational actions for the entire 
region.  
 
20. 
Scope
:
The GEF Alternative will provide the means (above and beyond the Baseline 
Scenario) for creating the institutional, technical, and socio-economic conditions for enabling the 
sustainable conservation of the globally significant biodiversity resources of the Corazón 
Reserve. Since the area is huge and the threats are significant, it is not likely that the GEF 
Alternative will stabilize the agricultural frontier. However, the proposed GEF Alternative, 
principally by increasing investments, leveraging training and natural resources management in 
rural communities, and better coordinating binational management, will substantially improve on 
the Baseline Scenario and set in place the basis for a long-term investment over the next 
generations in conserving the biodiversity and cultural richness of this area. 
 
21. 
Costs
:
The GEF Alternative, in addition to the Baseline Scenario described above, 
includes a proposed $12 million grant from the GEF, $16 million of investments from the 
partially-blended IDA credits that have been prepared jointly with the Corazón Project, and $5 
million from the two national governments. Although the project will also leverage and 
significantly influence additional donor resources, such costs under the Baseline Scenario have 
not been presented as co-financing for the proposed project. This additional financing presented 
under the Baseline Scenario would likely take place in any event, albeit in a less coordinated and 
less focused environment. 
 
22. 
The GEF alternative thus includes a wide set of activities organized under six 
components with the following corresponding costs and focus (see also Annex 4 for a more 
detailed explanation of the project design and the table below with additional information on the 
national and global benefits): 
Page  15
15
 
23. 
Component A: Consolidation of the CTBR ($0.6 million: GEF $0.5 million):
 This 
component of the proposed GEF Alternative will be focused on the consolidation of the 
binational management an
d
coordination of the Corazón Reserve. For efficiency and effective 
management to achieve global environmental objective, it is important to have a consolidated 
approach to the management of the whole area that lies in both countries. The component is 
almost entirely funded by GEF resources. 
 
24. 
Component B: Strengthening of SINAPs ($14.1 million: GEF$ 2.5 million)
:
A
key 
objective of this component is strengthening of national protected area systems which is 
consistent with the GEF strategies, in addition to investments in smaller targeted areas. It ensures 
the sustainability of an investment in a specific area such as the Corazón, but also yields 
important global benefits as the overall management and financial sustainability of all protected 
areas in both countries improves. To avoid duplication of efforts under this component, in the 
case of Nicaragua, the Corazón Project will be coordinated with an expected UNDP-
implemented GEF project to strengthen the SINAP. The cost of this potential GEF investment 
have not been included under this GEF Alternative. 
 
25. 
Component C: Implementation of PA Management Plans ($6.8 million: GEF $2.8 
million): 
The objective of this component under the GEF alternative is to ensure the more 
effective management of each of the four individual protected areas, albeit under the concept of a 
well-coordinated binational transboundary biosphere reserve.  
 
26. 
Component D: NRM Management ($ 28.1 million: GEF US 2.6 million): 
The objective 
of this component is to provide support to indigenous and non-indigenous communities in the 
project area in the more sustainable management of natural resources. Where necessary, this also 
implies capacity-building investments and better coordination of programs seeking to further 
clarify indigenous territorial claims. It is estimated that activities (worth at least $10.5 million) of 
the two World Bank financed projects will fully compliment the Corazón Project activities.  
 
27. 
Component E: Monitoring and Information Management ($1.4 million: GEF $1.1 
million):
 Largely financed by the GEF Project, the GEF Alternative Scenario aims to ensure the 
global and national benefits of carefully designed and implemented biological monitoring 
systems across the two countries and coordinated schema of environmental information 
management.
 
28. 
Component F: Project Coordination and Administration ($1.6 million: GEF $1.5 
million): 
This component will ensure effective coordination of project activities and information 
dissemination among ministries, national commissions, stakeholders at all levels and donor 
groups. 
 
29. 
Benefits
:
The GEF Alternative incorporates the benefits of the Baseline Scenario, and 
will enable further locally and globally beneficial outcomes to be achieved. In addition to the 
Baseline benefits, incremental benefits to the global community include the ability to conserve 
and sustain globally significant and representative biodiversity, despite competing economic 
pressures on the resource base. GEF assistance will enable conservation and protection of a vast 
Page  16
16
area of globally significant habitats. Global benefits will include enhanced monitoring and 
information exchange through improved record-keeping at the bi-national level, and the 
development of significant new effective capacity at both the systemic and site levels to preserve 
endangered species and habitats. Continued protection of many additional ecological functions, 
and of option and existence values is an unquantified but a large benefit to the regional and 
global community. Furthermore, it also provides institutional benefits that remove a number of 
the barriers to long term biodiversity conservation in this important bi-national transboundary 
resource. 
 
Incremental Costs 
 
30. 
The incremental costs are those that would not have existed in the absence of the GEF 
Alternative and are above and beyond what was estimated under the Baseline Scenario. Some of 
these costs are financed by the two partially-blended World Bank funded projects as they have 
both been 
prepared incorporating the concept of the Corazón Project and as a result of the latter, 
are directing resources toward the Alternative Scenario that would not otherwise have happened. 
Other costs of the Alternative Scenario are being assumed by the two national governments. 
 
31. 
The incremental cost, the difference in cost between the Baseline Scenario (US$20.6 
million) and the GEF Alternative (US$53.6 million), is US$33.0 million. In addition to global 
biodiversity benefits, the project will generate national and local benefits. Of the incremental 
expenditures (costs) of $33.0 million, the GEF is requested to fund only $12.0 million; the 
balance of US$21.0 million will be funded by the two governments (through the World Bank 
loans and budgetary allocations). 
 
Page  17
17
Incremental Cost Matrix 
Project 
Components 
Cost 
Category 
Cost $ 
millions 
Domestic Benefits 
Global Benefits 
Component A: 
Consolidation 
of the CTBR
 
Baseline 
0.1 
Very limited because of 
low levels of available 
financing 
Very limited because 
of low levels of 
available financing 
 
GEF 
Alternative 
0.6 
More efficient use of PA 
management resources; 
improved bilateral 
relationships 
More efficient use of 
international 
cooperation 
resources and better 
protection of this 
area of globally 
important 
biodiversity 
Incremental 0.5 
 
 
Incremental 
(GEF) 
0.5  
 
Component B: 
Strengthening 
of SINAPs  
 
Baseline 3.6 
Current 
minimal 
investments in national 
systems are yielding 
some benefits in 
efficiencies; PA Fund in 
Honduras is being 
established 
As both national 
systems remain 
weak, global benefits 
are minimal 
GEF 
Alternative 
14.1 
Consolidating funds and 
decentralizing 
management will yield 
efficiencies and long-
term availability of some 
funds for recurrent costs 
Strengthened 
administrative 
systems and 
gradually increasing 
availability of 
operational funds 
will benefit all 
protected areas in 
both countries 
Incremental 10.5 
 
 
Incremental 
(GEF) 
2.5  
 
Component C: 
Implementation 
of PA 
Management 
Plans
 
Baseline 1.6 
Minimal 
investments 
will mean the status quo: 
a
continuing and gradual 
loss of the protected 
areas to the agricultural 
frontier 
Continuing erosion 
of key areas of 
global biodiversity 
importance 
GEF 
Alternative 
6.8 More 
effective 
implementation of 
management plans 
should allow for 
stabilization of protected 
areas with corresponding 
The overall project 
and this component 
in particular provide 
for the maintenance 
of the integrity of the 
Corazón Reserve and 
Page  18
18
benefits in terms of 
environmental services 
and tourism 
maintenance of 
large-scale 
ecological processes 
in the largest 
remaining area of 
pristine habitat in 
Central America 
Incremental 5.2 
 
 
Incremental 
(GEF) 
2.8  
 
Component D: 
NRM 
Management 
 
Baseline 15.0 Expected 
levels 
of 
investments will at best 
maintain current levels 
of poverty and will 
allow for minimal 
advances in more 
sustainable NRM 
No measurable 
global benefits are to 
be expected under 
the Baseline 
Scenario 
GEF 
Alternative 
28.1 Resources 
of 
the 
partially blended sister 
projects plus the GEF 
investment will allow for 
more efficient use of 
NRM management 
resources with some 
corresponding benefits 
in poverty alleviation. 
Better coordination of 
land titling issues should 
allow for progress in 
settling traditional land 
claims. 
Ensuring progress in 
more sustainable use 
of biodiversity in the 
area, along with 
progress in resolving 
land titling issues, 
yields global benefits 
in increasing 
likelihood that the 
protected areas will 
remain protected and 
in the use of 
biodiversity, also a 
global goal 
Incremental 13.1 
 
 
Incremental 
(GEF) 
2.6  
 
Component E: 
Monitoring and 
Information 
Management 
Baseline 
0.3 
Benefits are negligible 
as monitoring 
investments are low-
level, scattered, and have 
minimal coordination 
No discernable 
global benefits under 
the Baseline 
Scenario 
GEF 
Alternative 
1.4 Better 
coordinated 
and 
more effective 
monitoring programs 
allow for better national 
decision-making. More 
effective SINIAs have a 
similar impact on good 
stewardship decisions 
country-wide. 
Better monitoring 
and knowledge about 
biodiversity allows 
for better decisions 
to be made about use 
of international 
resources 
Incremental 1.1 
 
 
Incremental 
1.1  
 
Page  19
19
(GEF) 
 
Component F: 
Project 
Management 
Baseline 0 
N/A 
N/A 
GEF 
Alternat
ive
1.6 
Efficient use of 
resources under the 
project as well as more 
efficient resources of 
partially blended and 
thematically related 
projects 
Good management 
of the project will 
support attaining the 
overall global 
benefits of the 
project. 
Increme
ntal
1.6 
 
Increme
ntal 
(GEF)
1.5 
 
Totals* 
Baseline
20.6 
Overall, expected 
resources allow for at 
best the maintenance of 
the status quo, i.e., an 
ongoing erosion of the 
biodiversity of the 
Corazón and 
unsustainable use of 
NRM by human 
populations. 
 
The immense global 
biodiversity value of 
the Corazón Reserve 
will not be entirely 
lost but will suffer 
significant erosion 
and likely impacts on 
the integrity of some 
large-scale 
ecosystemic 
processes 
GEF 
Alternative 
53.6 Stabilization 
of 
existing 
protected areas of 
national priority and 
improvements in use and 
allocation of poverty-
focused investments. 
Long-term benefits in 
terms of environmental 
services and tourism 
potential. 
 
Stabilization of 
existing protected 
areas through better 
coordination 
between countries 
and PAs and more 
efficient use of 
poverty-targeted and 
NRM-targeted 
investments leading 
to measurably more 
effective 
conservation of 
biodiversity 
Increme
ntal
33.0  
 
Increme
ntal 
(GEF)
12.0  
 
*
The amounts in the total GEF Alternative and total incremental financing include $1.0 million of “Unallocated” (pending final 
decisions of the two countries in the pre-Appraisal phase of preparation). 
Page  20
20
A
NNEX 
B: P
ROJECT 
L
OGICAL 
F
RAMEWORK
 
Results Framework 
 
PDO 
Outcome Indicators 
Use of Outcome 
Information 
Improved management of the 
Corazón Transboundary 
Biosphere Reserve area 
 
-
Enabling environment indicator 
improves from an estimated 
baseline of about 2.5 to 3.5 (on a 
scale of 1 to 5) [see details in 
Annex 3 of Project Brief] 
-
Institutional management 
capacity improves from an 
estimated baseline of 1.5 to 3.5 
(on a scale of 1 to 5) [see details 
in Annex 3 of Project Brief] 
-
Deforestation of core areas of 
the Reserve is at least halved 
from the estimated baseline value 
of 2%/year  
 
To varying degrees, the measured 
indicators are subject to influence 
from the GEF Project or from the 
suite of related WB investments. 
Less than expected improvements 
in the enabling environment will 
trigger interventions in policy and 
will require enhanced 
management capacity role of the 
two governments. If overall 
deforestation of core habitats is 
not being slowed, the project’s 
overall orientation would need to 
be reviewed at the MTR. 
 
Intermediate Results 
One per Component 
Results Indicators for 
Each Component 
Use of Results Monitoring 
Component A:
 
CTBR consolidated, with 
binational institutional 
mechanisms that guarantee 
adequate coordination 
 
Component A:
 
-
%
of the management activities 
(as measured by $ cost) in the 
four PAs of the CTBR that is 
coordinated through joint POA 
exercises or other coordination 
mechanisms increases from an 
estimated baseline of about 10% 
to 75% at end of project 
 
Component A:
 
A
failure to meet targets of inter-
institutional coordination and 
binational coordination could 
indicate systemic coordination 
issues that would need 
strengthened attention under the 
project and strengthened 
commitments from governments 
and local actors 
 
Component B:
 
National Protected Areas Systems 
strengthened politically, 
financially, technically and 
administratively 
 
Component B:
 
-
Overall effectiveness rating of 
management of the two SINAPs 
using a national system protected 
area scorecard (to be chosen) 
improves by end of the project 
 
Component B:
 
The overall strength and 
effectiveness of the national 
protected area systems will to a 
large degree be beyond the 
sphere of influence of the project 
but failure to at least improve in 
this area would trigger a 
reassessment of government and 
international donor priorities 
Page  21
21
 
Intermediate Results 
One per Component 
Results Indicators for 
Each Component 
Use of Results Monitoring 
Component C:
 
Management plans for the CTBR 
protected areas harmonized and 
effectively implemented with 
local participation 
 
Component C:
 
-
Overall effectiveness rating of 
management of each area using 
the GEF’s WWF/WB protected 
area scorecard increases from an 
ineffective rating to a moderately 
effective rating 
 
Component C:
 
Less than expected 
improvements in any given PA 
will trigger a reassessment of the 
allocation of project resources 
and an evaluation of area-specific 
problems that are perhaps not 
being adequately addressed 
through management plans and 
project activities. As the project 
will not be prioritizing the Río 
Plátano Reserve in Honduras for 
on-the-ground investments, the 
monitoring results for that area 
would need to be dealt with in 
the dialogue between Honduras 
and German Cooperation. 
Component D:
 
Local communities more 
sustainably managing natural 
resources 
Component D:
 
-
Increase of 25% in number of 
ha under sustainable management 
(such an indicator has been used 
with success in the Río Plátano 
Reserve and will be adapted for 
more widespread use) 
Component D:
 
Any unexpected delays in 
reaching goals of sustainable use 
of natural resources would 
require analysis to determine the 
cause (land titling problems, 
marketing, organization, etc.) and 
would allow for fine-tuning of 
project investments and those of 
related projects 
Component E:
 
Monitoring and information 
management capacity of National 
Environmental Information 
Systems strengthened and 
benefiting management needs of 
the CTBR 
Component E:
 
-
%
of field data from biological 
and socioeconomic monitoring 
programs that are integrated into 
coordinated and accessible 
database increases from 5% 
(estimated baseline value) to 90% 
by end of project  
Component E:
 
The effectiveness of Corazón 
monitoring programs will be a 
measure not only of local 
monitoring programs but also of 
the level of integration, nationally 
and binationally, of the SINIA 
Component F:
 
Project administered efficiently 
Component F:
 
-
To be measured by output 
indicators such as audits, 
disbursement reports, reports, etc. 
Component F:
 
Any failures in project 
administration would require 
coordinated corrective measures 
taken between CCAD, the World 
Bank, and the national 
governments
 
Page  22
22
 
A
NNEX 
C: R
ESPONSE TO 
P
ROJECT 
R
EVIEWS
 
a)  STAP expert review and IA/ExA response 
 
The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) External Reviewer was Dr. Sonia Lagos 
Andino de Witte. She provided these comments on March 12, 2005 on an earlier version of the 
proposal. Observations/responses of the Project proponent appear in italics. 
 
I. SUMMARY 
 
This document provides the World Bank with a Technical Review (Phase I) of the proposed 
“Corazón Transboundary Biosphere Reserve” GEF Project. The importance of the binational 
approach of this project can’t be overemphasized, particularly considering that the principal 
beneficiaries of the project are the indigenous people of the Corazon Reserve. In order to have a 
complete overview of the planned project the review of the Indigenous Peoples Development 
Plan (IPDP) is urgently needed. 
 
Team Response: The Indigenous Peoples Development Plan is being prepared and will be ready 
by Appraisal, near the end of May 2005. 
 
II. KEY ISSUES 
 
In order to present a logical framework for the Technical Review, the information of the present 
document follows the questions sent with the TOR’s for this Project review. 
 
Scientific and technical soundness of the project
1.  Is there sufficient ecological and technical information available to give the project a sound 
scientific base? 
·
The project areas have been identified as having global and/or regional conservation 
priority by several authoritative assessments. These areas are among the highest 
priority areas for conservation, based on estimates of biological diversity, endemism, 
and rate of habitat and species loss. It is recommended to introduce references that 
can support the information presented in the project document. 
 
Team Response: This information has been added in Annex 1. 
 
2.  Is there a need to develop indicators to achieve the objectives? 
 
·
It is necessary to introduce indicators referred to social aspects, especially referred to 
poverty/ income and basic needs development within the project context; 
·
Other important aspects are the institutional cooperation and coordination among 
local, regional and national levels, degree of involvement and consolidation of 
negotiation mechanisms of local stakeholders, especially indigenous groups, local 
 
Page  23
23
Team Response: This The reviewer received an earlier version of the indicators. The current 
version addresses these issues. Inter-institutional coordination is measured by the 
Component A indicator. The Component C indicator specifically measures local 
participation (through the protected areas scorecard) as does the PDO indicator. We have 
not included poverty indicators because this has not been stated to be an explicit outcome of 
the project. 
 
3.  Will appropriate monitoring be put in place? 
·
The national policy decision makers in Honduras and Nicaragua should be 
encouraged to integrate GEF, WWF/ WB protected area scorecard (or some of its 
essential elements) as national policy instruments with its respective application 
mechanisms.  
·
The monitoring system of the development objectives in general should be a shared 
system among national and local stakeholders, so that sustainability through 
appropriation will be more probable. 
·
The monitoring systems for the successful project implementation on an operational 
level could be based on a shared impact monitoring of each of the so-
called “change 
sub-project”, each one of which requires appropriation and endogenous efforts by the 
local actors. 
 
Team Response: The use of appropriate management effectiveness techniques will certainly 
be promoted by the project. Care has been taken to include community participation in the 
monitoring process.  
 
4.  Will the approach taken in the project proposal achieve the objectives of conserving 
biodiversity? 
·
If there is not an essential focus on productive sustainable forest use, local population 
hardly will see the short or medium term socioeconomic benefit needed for the 
motivation to protect their natural resources. The project proposal still seems weak on 
this aspect, which could be presented under the perspective of territorial 
competitiveness, including local public and private – partially external - stakeholders 
(for instance in the area of ecotourism).  
 
Team Response: This Greater resources have been allocated to Component D, Community-based 
natural resource management to better achieve this goal of generating local socioeconomic 
benefits. $10.5 million of counterpart financing, the largest amount for any component, is also 
dedicated to sustainable productive activities under Component D.  
 
5.  Is there any area weakness, gap in the project? 
 
·
The conceptualization and operationalization of the special benefit of the binational 
project character which is indicated in a general form (chapter B., point 6., p.9), 
should be more specified.  
·
Conflicts between ethnic groups need more attention, particularly in BOSAWAS 
where the indigenous people has autonomous territorial regulations  
Page  24
24
·
Integration of traditional knowledge of forest use is not sufficient in the project 
components. Component D focuses on agricultural subsistence activities, while the 
potential use and commercialization of non-timber forest products could bring 
economic benefits to local people (medicinal plants, handicrafts, fibers etc.). More 
information about this issue is needed and it is recommended to incorporate specific 
aspects on traditional knowledge on non-timber forest products and conservation of 
endemic species into the component D and E. 
·
Clarification of benefit sharing 
·
The project structure is lacking control mechanisms to avoid corruption in the 
implementation of the project 
 
Team Response: The project has been modified to explicitly include non-timber forest products 
as an additional investment area and to better focus on conflict resolution. The project structure 
control mechanisms will be put in place prior to Appraisal. 
 
6.  Are there any controversial aspects about the project? 
·
Concession and permission system for natural resource exploitation: it seems still to 
be highly centralized and should open up to guarantee consideration of local interests 
and criteria as one of the serious inputs for the final concession decision. 
 
Team Response: Neither area will have commercial forest concessions; decisions on local 
resource exploitation are best handled through the process of the local protected area 
management plans, which the project will support. 
 
7.  How will the drops in revenue as a result of conservation measures be compensated? 
·
This point has not been mentioned in the project appraisal and should be included in 2 
ways: presenting preliminary ideas of what revenue drops are to be expected, and 
indicating which potential alternatives may be available.  
 
Team Response: In no area is it expected that there would be revenue drops because the project 
is on the contrary attempting to maximize income for local stakeholders. However, in the event 
such were to happen, the project is preparing an involuntary resettlement framework (covering 
economic displacement) to be ready by Appraisal. 
 
8.  How effective will the proposed model be in the local situation? 
·
This depends to a high degree on its socioeconomic benefit and on its “structural 
institutionalization”, both of which should be more emphasized.  
 
Team Response: We agree with this and have attempted to make it more explicit in the document.  
 
How does the project fit within the context of the goals of GEF
The project meets the goals of GEF in the context of the OP 4. 
 
Team Response: We agree that the project responds to OP3 and OP4, as well as SP-1 and SP-2.  
 
Page  25
25
Regional Context
·
The regional implication of this project is well understood in the document. The role 
of the Binational Technical Committee in the implementation of the project activities 
is crucial for the coordination of such a complex and extensive area, despite the 
political changes and new governments of both project countries to be elected in the 
next months.  
 
Team Response :We agree that the Binational Technical Committee will play a key coordinating 
role. 
 
Replicability of the project
Refers to the scope for replication of the intervention. If successful, could the intervention be 
replicated elsewhere on the basis of experience and learning? 
 
·
Lessons learned out of this project, specific in the context of direct involvement of 
indigenous people and reinforcement of Protected Areas System could benefit other 
regions in Latin America with similar vulnerable ecosystems and ethnic groups, 
particularly from the perspective of unification of management, coordination and 
monitoring mechanisms. It is recommended to network on similar experiences in Asia 
and Africa.  
·
The CORAZON Reserve Project can be considered an initiative in support of the 
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 
and in particular with its Target 13 
–
The decline of plant resources, and associated 
indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices that support sustainable 
livelihoods, local food security and health care, halted
 (by 2010) – and with Goal 7 
of the Millennium Development Goals – 
Ensure environmental sustainability
.
Team Response: The dissemination of lessons learned will be very important, and has been 
emphasized by the project. It is very much in keeping with Convention on Biological Diversity 
Targets and Goals.  
 
Additional issues  
 
Linkage to other programmes and action plans at the regional or subregional level
Are adequate links established with relevant ongoing regional or subregional programs and 
action plans? Is there evidence that the GEF intervention will be considered with other ongoing 
initiatives? 
 
·
According to page 39, at the bottom, and page 40, on the top, the Corazon Project will 
have limited activities in the Río Plátano area, because it is already attended by GTZ 
and KfW. The fact that the coordination among both projects will be limited to “day 
to day activities, planning and likely to project implementation arrangements”, 
presents the risk that both projects could manage a different conceptual approach, 
which could be rather dangerous and confusing for the local development actors in 
this area.  
Page  26
26
 
Team Response: This is an important observation and we will discuss this further with the 
Government of Honduras and German representatives in the work leading up to Appraisal. 
 
Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project
1.  Are the participatory schemes adequate? 
 
·
The role and territorial responsibility of local governments for facilitating the local 
planning processes, as a regulatory instance for land use conflicts and local basic 
infrastructure procurement should be especially focused to improve the sustainability 
perspective. If local governments together with local indigenous and other local 
interest groups do not appropriate themselves of the project and Biosphere protection 
mechanisms on local level and sustain and continue them, then the project impact will 
finish after its termination. The “integration” of project mechanisms into the local 
cooperation processes supported by the other projects - not only by IDA, but also by 
the Social Funds FISE (Nicaragua) and FISH (Honduras) and other programs active 
in the Corazon Biosphere Reserve will be essential. 
 
·
On the other hand, the great distances between local communities and municipalities 
in the very extensive “municipio” territories, often make the presence of the local 
government in these communities nearly invisible. But, as there is no alternative to 
legitimate public institutionality on local level, the project should try to support the 
installation of visible municipal presence within its territory (for instance in form of 
“Oficinas de Enlace Comunitarias”).  
 
·
In this sense, it is recommended that on the local and possibly ‘intermunicipal” level, 
local actors constitute their own coordination committee under the municipal 
government as the (legally) territorial lead agency which procures that local 
implementation of the different local plans integrates the supported local investment 
and other projects, and that a local development planning process under the guidance 
of local government will be the basis or reference point for all projects which aim at 
the local development promotion.  
 
Team Response: The above points have been noted. Creating new local coordination 
“instancias” has generally failed but the Project will have to make a more concerted effort 
during implementation to work within existing local structures. 
 
2. Have conflict issues been dealt with? 
 
·
Interest conflicts which originate from historically grown domination structures 
between the ethnic groups must be always present in the project mechanisms.  
 
Team Response: This is quite valid. The implementation of conflict resolution mechanisms has 
been incorporated into Component D. 
 
Page  27
27
 
Capacity building aspects
One of the activities GEF is funding is supporting capacity building efforts that promote the 
preservation and maintenance of indigenous and local communities, knowledge, innovation, and 
practices relevant to conservation of biodiversity with their prior informed consent and 
participation. 
 
One of the outputs of GEF projects should be stronger institutions and well-trained staff to 
address these issues. 
 
1) Has adequate attention been paid to capacity building aspects? 
·
Training activities are enclosed in Components C,D and E, but indicators for those 
activities are missing in the document 
 
Team Response: 
Indicators for local capacity are included in the “umbrella” indicators 
used at the PDO level and in the protected area scorecard. Additional information 
specific to capacity will be “extractable” from the indicator reports. 
 
2) Is there sufficient human capacity to tackle the issues addressed in the project? 
·
The Corazon Project will be executed through CCAD and this might guarantee that 
the project staff will have the required capacity and skills to implement the project 
activities at all levels, despite de changes in the Governments of Honduras and 
Nicaragua during the project period. A review of the qualification of the staff already 
in place for the project is not possible at this stage, since this information is not 
provided by the project appraisal. 
 
Team Response: Project staff have a high level of capacity and strong experience in 
implementing similar projects. Some degree of turnover is inevitable; however it is expected that 
the project will continue to attract highly-qualified staff.  
 
Innovativeness of the projects
In which respect are the approaches of the project innovative? 
 
·
The unification of project approach towards 4 different, until now independently 
treated Reserves, is an important innovation (although its specific benefits on the 
conceptual and operational level should still be stated more clearly).  
·
On the other hand, the appraisal should resume the basic relevant results of the other 
project experiences mentioned (especially previous GEF projects, as well as current 
GTZ, USAID, IDA projects), and indicate that the approach really takes into account 
the lessons learned by those projects. Chapter B, point 5 (p. 7 and 8) seems to be 
rather general in this aspect.  
 
Team Response: The section on Lessons Learned in the main text is subject to severe 
length restrictions in the Bank’s format so it was not possible to go into this level of 
Page  28
28
detail. However the point is well taken that the document needs to better take into 
account the lessons learned in similar projects. This will be reflected in detail in the 
Recipient’s PIP. Note that draft reviews of lessons learned have been completed for both 
the Bank’s previous GEF projects in this area: the Nicaragua Atlantic Biological 
Corridor Project and the Honduras Biodiversity in Priority Areas Project. 
 
b) 
GEF Secretariat and other Agencies’ comments and IA/ExA response 
 
The following comments from the GEF Secretariat were expected to be addressed at 
Work Program entry. Task team responses are in italics. Comments provided by the GEF 
Secretariat on April 4, and the responses to these questions, are in 
bold
.
Program Designation and Conformity 
1)  The project should seek to estimate and indicate the level of resources (especially 
GEF resources) associated with SP# 1, and SP#2. 
 
Team Response: 
Most of the work of the Corazón project is aimed at Strategic Priority 1 
(Catalyzing the Sustainability of Protected Areas), and Strategic Priority 2 
(Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors). Approximately $7.3 
million of GEF funding benefits SP 1 (Components A, B, C, and part of E), while $4.7 
million benefits SP 2 (Component D and part of E). Project administration funds are 
considered divided between these strategic priorities. Of the total project funding, 
approximately $16.7 million is dedicated to SP 1 activities, while $16.3 goes to SP 2 
activities.  
 
Project Design 
1)  The relationship and contribution in concrete terms of this project to the MBC. 
Achievements of previous support, and rationale for continued support provided. 
Please indicate clearly the rationale for continuity of support, and ensure that the GEF 
is not providing support for aspects which have been supported through its earlier 
support. 
 
Team Response: While previous World Bank GEF-financed MBC projects in Honduras 
(PROBAP) and Nicaragua (ABC) have made valuable contributions to biodiversity 
conservation, much of area included in these projects (about 40% in Honduras and 75% 
in Nicaragua) falls outside of the current project area. While building on the successes of 
these projects, the Corazón project will i) work in previously excluded areas of the 
Corazón Reserve; ii) bring an innovative binational approach to the conservation of a 
border region; iii) harmonize management of protected areas that were previously 
isolated under different projects; and iv) address remaining issues in the consolidation of 
the NPAS. Continued support for these countries will help ensure the conservation of the 
heart of the MBC.  
 
Page  29
29
2) The evaluations of the GEF Biodiversity in Protected Areas Project (Honduras) and 
Atlantic Biological Corridor (Nicaragua) should be made available. In addition lesson 
learnt should be fully reflected. 
 
Team Response: PROBAP and ABC consultants played important roles in the 
prep
aration of the Corazón Project to ensure continuity and the incorporation of lessons 
learned. The IA’s Task Manager of the previous Nicaragua and Honduras GEF Projects 
is also the TM of the Corazón Project. The formal evaluations of the PROBAP and ABC 
Projects are being finalized; draft copies, which helped in the design of the Corazón 
Project, are available in project files.  
 
3) Provide the long-term vision to PA management in the two countries, and how the BR 
contributes to that vision. Confirm if the area has been accorded B.R. status. 
 
Team Response: Both countries have prepared protected area strategies (available in 
project files). In Honduras, the protected areas fund (FHAP), facilitating direct financing 
of local non-governmental protected area managers, is a cornerstone of the policy. The 
Corazón Project will be the government’s principal support over the next five years to 
implement their policy. The Nicaragua strategy also seeks to gradually decentralize 
protected area management and seeks GEF support to implement the policy, first through 
this Corazón Project and then through a UNDP-implemented project to support the 
SINAP, now under preparation. A proposal to establish the Biosphere Reserve was 
submitted jointly by the Honduras and Nicaragua to UNESCO in August 2004, and may 
be approved as early as June 2005. Section C4 of the PAD addresses this question in 
more detail; approval or not by UNESCO is not considered essential to achieving the 
objectives of the project.  
 
5)  Project should explain how the B.R. will be managed as a single unit in conservation 
terms. 
 
Team Response: Component C is dedicated to the harmonization and implementation of 
management plans for the four protected areas (PAs) which comprise the Corazón 
Reserve. A strategic decision has been made by the two governments not to subsume the 
four PAs under a single management plan, but rather to harmonize the management 
plans for the individual areas by coordinating their updating, modifications, 
implementation, and monitoring. Component A is dedicated to strengthening the 
concerted cross-border, and cross-PA, management effort between the two countries. 
 
6) The links with the forestry loans ($40 million) should be clear, in particular how 
biodiversity considerations will be mainstreamed. Specific indicators to track the 
mainstreaming should be provided. 
 
Team Response: During the preparation phase of the project, the orientation of the 
project’s role in community-based natural resource management in and near the parks 
evolved from a focus on forestry to one that is more inclusive and based on demands and 
needs of the communities. Although the project will support community forestry activities, 
Page  30
30
these will likely be no more important than other activities intended to mainstream 
biodiversity i
nto productive activities. The links between the Corazón Project and the two 
partially blended operations are explained in detail in the PAD; the latter in both 
countries support forestry activities as well as productive activities in the agricultural 
sector. The indicator on number of hectares under sustainable management is intended to 
capture the mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns into forestry work in the area; it will 
be designed and measured in such a way to also allow specific monitoring of project-
supported forestry activities. 
 
8) The links of this project to projects under preparation should be addressed where 
relevant (CEPF, Regional Mesoamerican GEF project for Indigenous Mgmt of 
Natural Areas?) 
 
Team Response: Section C1 and Annex 2 address the linkage of the Corazón Project to 
other projects that are active or under preparation, including the Regional Integrated 
Ecosystem Management Project and the UNDP project on strengthening the NPAS in 
Nicaragua. There are no investments under the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund 
(CPEF) in the area of the project. 
 
Sustainability (Including Financial Sustainability) 
1)  The project should outline the longterm sustainability needs of the area, and spell out 
what is anticipated to be achieved through this project. Specific benchmarks and 
indicators should be developed to track this progress. 
 
Team Response: This guidance is reflected in the overall project design and particularly 
in the indicators. 
 
Replicability 
1) Project needs to demonstrate what it has learnt from ongoing/related projects and what 
is being applied in this project in terms of replication. 
 
Team Response: The Corazón Project is fortunate to have a body of experience to draw 
from, including lessons learned from the ABC and PROBAP projects. A summary of 
lessons learned which informed project design can be found in section B5 of the PAD.  
 
2)  The scope for this project to inform other interventions in the MBC. 
 
Team Response: There is substantial potential for the experiences of this project to 
inform other activities in the MBC. One area, that of cross-boundary protected areas, is 
especially important in Central America, and the possibility of replicating innovations 
made under this project is high. The potential for disseminating lessons learned about 
incorporating biodiversity conservation into other productive sectors is also good. This 
issue is addressed in section C4.  
 
Stakeholder Involvement 
Page  31
31
1) Clear description of the processes used to engage and involve the indigenous 
communities during preparation and for the implementation of the project. 
 
Team Response: Participation of local communities has been key at all stages of project 
design, and will continue to be an integral part of the project through implementation. 
This is especially true in the drafting and implementation of management plans and 
support of productive activities. Communities will also be instrumental in carrying out 
social and biological monitoring. Please see Annex 4 for more information on 
community-based activities. The stand-alone Social Assessment and Indigenous Peoples 
Development Plan (IPDP) of the Recipient describe the role of indigenous peoples in 
more detail.  
 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
1) There should be clearly defined indicators to monitor and track the achievements and 
impact of the project, including its contribution to the MBC. 
 
Team Response: Please see the Results Framework in Annex 2 of this document for 
project indicators which monitor project achievement and impact. There is no specific 
indicator that trac
ks the contribution to the MBC, as the MBC’s success falls beyond the 
scope of the project, but it could be argued that the overall project goal of consolidating 
the heart of the MBC is a fundamental contribution to the long-term survival of the 
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. 
 
2) Specific indicator to track the mainstreaming of biodiversity into the forestry sectors 
should be provided. 
 
Team Response: This point is addressed in the comment above under links with the 
partially blended loans.  
 
3)  Specific indicators should be developed to track the progress towards long-term 
sustainability. 
 
Team Response: Please see the Results Framework in Annex 2 of this document for 
details on project indicators. All indicators, and especially the outcome indicators for 
the project development objective, are designed to track progress towards the long-term 
sustainability of the Corazón Reserve and of the SINAPs. 
 
Financing 
1)  GEF funding should be incremental in nature and for harnessing global 
environmental benefits only. 
 
Team Response: Please see the incremental cost analysis in Annex 1 of this document for 
a
discussion of incremental costs. As per this guidance, GEF funding is being requested 
only for incremental activities aimed at securing global environmental benefits.  
 
Core Commitments and Linkages 
Page  32
32
1)  These should be clearly defined for the B.R. as a whole, especially those relating to 
the collaborative elements in the two countries. 
 
Team Response: Details on institutional arrangements, including binational coordination 
mechanisms, can be found in Annex 6 of the Project Brief. Component A of the project 
also seeks to consolidate the established binational coordination mechanisms and other 
institutional arrangements for the Reserve.  
 
2)  The capacity and absorptive capacity of the countries to deal with the growing 
portfolio needs to be addressed. 
 
Team Response: Although often under difficult political, fiscal, and institutional 
constraints, both Nicaragua and Honduras are implementing successfully all their 
ongoing GEF projects. In addition, Component B of the Project focuses on institutional 
and systematic strengthening and sustainability, which will help the two countries absorb 
any future portfolio growth.  
 
Consultation, Coordination, Collaboration between IAs, and IAs and EAs, if 
appropriate 
1) 
TNC
(MOPAWI) is doing extensive work in the Rio Platano B.R.in 
Honduras and Bosawas B.R in Nicaragua. In these areas TNC and 
partners are supporting indigenous communities as they 
establish legal claim to their lands. The Conservancy is also 
working on transboundary initiatives in the mosquitia which will 
be an area covered by the proposed Corazon transboundary 
initiative. These activities have not been described in the 
document. Please provide an explanation for the lack of 
mentioning of TNC’s work and explain the relation between this 
work and this proposed project. 
 
Team Response: Annex 2 of the Project Brief contains information on major projects 
under preparation or implementation in the project area, including the Regional 
Integrated Ecosystem Management in Indigenous Communities Project, which is being 
executed by MOPAWI and the TNC Parques en Peligro Project. Conversations have 
been held with both TNC and MOPAWI throughout project preparation, and have 
informed the design of the project. MOPAWI participated in workshops with CCAD, 
the national preparation teams, and several consultants involved in project 
preparation, and conversations on the coordination of activities are ongoing. A former 
TNC staff member who had been intimately
 involved in discussions with the Corazón 
Project team throughout preparations served as a peer reviewer for the project.  
 
Further Processing 
Please clarify the issues outlined in project review for WP inclusion. Mainly; 
 
Page  33
33
1)  Please provide an explanation of  whether or not the Corazon project might 
be duplicating the efforts of others in the Mosquita and if the IA has 
considered possible collaboration with TNC. 
 
Team Response: As mentioned above, the project team has taken great care to 
coordinate with other institutions working in the project area, and these discussions 
have informed the project design. Conversations have been held with USAID, 
DANIDA, TNC, MOPAWI, German Cooperation, and the European Union, among 
others. The idea is to compliment, rather than duplicate, existing efforts in the 
Corazón Reserve area. Extensive discussions have been held with TNC and, while 
no formal agreement has been signed to date, there is the possibility that the 
relationship will be formalized in the near future.  
 
2)  Please provide complete GEF tracking tools for this project. 
 
Team Response: The project team understands that the at the GEF Executive 
Coordinators Meeting on Feburary 23, 2005:
 
It was agreed that the Biodiversity tracking tool would be used in a 
voluntary manner by the agencies until such time as there was firm 
agreement on any additional monitoring tools to be used by the 
agencies.  In this regard, it was suggested that it might be useful to see 
if the tracking tool could be incorporated into the log frame for 
biodiversity projects. 
 
However, the project had already planned to incorporate the Tracking Tool into 
the project as a means of evaluating protected area management effectiveness. A 
baseline is being established during project preparation, and the Tracking Tool will 
be put into use once implementation begins, with regular updates to track progress 
throughout the life of the project.   
 
3)  Reviewing manager(S.Tambi Matambo) will recommend CEO approval for 
Work program entry once issues highlighted above are addressed and 
highlighted in a revised draft to be submitted at the agreed time. 
 
c)  CBD Secretariat Comment and IA/ExA response 
 
1)  We could not see clearly from the Executive Summary how the project 
will address guidance from the COP to CBD (see the guidance: 
http://www.biodiv.org/financial/guidance.shtml
)
Team Response: We appreciate your comment. The team feels that this project 
addresses biodiversity conservation and protected areas management in a manner 
that is entirely consistent with the guidance provided by the COP to the CBD. The 
project addresses a number of programme priorities, including protected areas and 
in-
situ 
conservation, traditional knowledge and local and indigenous communities, 
sustainable use, biological diversity of mountain ecosystems, and forest biological 
Page  34
34
diversity.  If there is a specific issue raised by COP guidance about which the CBD 
Secretariat would like more detailed information, we would be very happy to 
provide it.