UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
TERMINAL EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT:
"FORMULATION OF A STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
FOR THE INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN AND ITS COASTAL ZONE"
(GF/1010-01-01)
By
Manuel Paulet-Iturri
Consultant
Evaluation and Oversight Unit
September 2005
iii
LIST OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS...................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 2
SCOPE, OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION.............................. 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ...................................................... 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT.................................................................................. 4
Organization for the Formulation and Execution of the Strategic Action
Programme................................................................................................................ 5
PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ................................................................. 6
Motivation for protecting the environment ...................................................... 6
Comparison of planned to actual results .......................................................... 8
The Strategic Action Programme .............................................................................. 8
The Basic Studies ...................................................................................................... 9
Stakeholders Involvement.......................................................................................... 9
Institutional Arrangements...................................................................................... 10
The formation of Basin Councils ............................................................................. 10
Education and Training........................................................................................... 10
Problems Experienced During Project Execution........................................... 11
Efficiency of Project Management ................................................................... 11
Finances and Expenditures ................................................................................. 12
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................. 13
LESSONS LEARNED...................................................................................................... 16
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 17
REFERENCE LIST............................................................................................................ 20
ANNEX I.......................................................................................................................... 1
COFINANCING.............................................................................................................. 1
ANNEX II ........................................................................................................................ 1
FIELD VISIT - ACTIVITIES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER ......................................... 1
ANNEX III....................................................................................................................... 4
WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS ............................................................ 4
List of Tables
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS..............................25
Table II. APORTES DE CONTRAPARTIDA Nicaragua (separate file)
Table III. APORTES DE CONTRAPARTIDA Costa Rica (separate file)
Table IV. Project Expenditure Account (UNEP) (separate file)
iv
Table V. Project Ratings....................................................................47
v
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACAHN - Área de Conservación Huetar Norte
ACG - Área de Conservación de Guanacaste
AGESOLCA - Asociación para la Gestión Sostenible de la Laguna de Las Camelias
AMURS - Asociación de Municipalidades del Río San Juan
APRODEGUA - Asociación de Productores del Cantón Guatuso
ASCOMAFOR - Asociación de Co-Manejo Forestal (Co-management Forestry
Association)
BS Basic studies
CRRH - Central American Committee for Water Resources
DP Demonstration Project
FMAM - Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial
GEF Global Environment Facility
INETER Instituto Nicaraguense de Estudios Territoriales (Nicaraguan Institute of
Territorial Estudies)
LAC Latin American and the Caribbean countries.
MINAE - Ministry of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica
MARENA Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua
NGO Non Governmental Organization
OAS - Organization of American States
PRODEUSA - Productores Unidos para el Desarrollo (United Producers for
Development)
PRODOC Project Document
SJRB - San Juan River Basin
SAP Strategic Action Programme
SINAC - National System of Conservation Areas
TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses
TU - Technical Unit
UDSMA - Unidad de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente de la Organización de
Estados Americanos (Unito of Sustainable Development of the Organization of
American States)
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document presents the terminal evaluation of the GEF San Juan (GF/1010-
01-01) project. The purpose of this project was the preparation of a Strategic Action
Programme (SAP) for the Integrated Management of Water Resources and the
Sustainable Development of the San Juan River Basin (SJRB) and its Coastal Zone.
The area of the San Juan River basin is approximately 38,500 km2. It comprises
the territories that drain into Lake Nicaragua , also called Lake Cocibolca, (occupying
8,183 km2 of the basin) and the San Juan River, plus the coastal areas of Tortuguero and
Indio-Maiz. The river, whose southern bank is the political boundary between Costa
Rica and Nicaragua, originates in the lake with an average discharge of 460m3/sec and
flows in a west-east direction towards the Caribbean Sea, reaching about 1,300m3/sec at
the outlet. Average rainfall in the area ranges from 1,500mm to 5,000mm in the direction
northwest to southeast of the basin. About 85% of the water that drains into the lake and
the river is contributed by Costa Rican watersheds. This area, which is prone to extreme
tropical storm events causing flooding and damage in the lower lying lands, has been
subjected to land deterioration and sedimentation caused by erosion as a result of
overgrazing and poor agricultural and forestry practices in the medium and high slopes
from sea level to about 3,000m in elevation. The waters of the basin are being
contaminated by fertilizers and pesticides, discharge from industries, urban solid waste
and sewage discharge. This is affecting the ecological life and the flora and fauna
associated with the lake, the river and the receiving maritime area and has become a
matter of concern to both countries.
The time allotted for the execution of this project was three years starting in 2001.
Subsequently, an extension of one year in project execution was granted to the end of
2004. At the time of this evaluation the SAP was not available in its final form. Hence,
this evaluation is restricted to the processes of producing the information that was
considered essential for the preparation of the SAP. This evaluation was based on a field
visit at the end of October 2004, reports of component and sub-component activities,
administrative records and documentation provided by the implementing and executing
agencies, including reports of the Project Steering Committee.
The project was to be executed in seven components: one for the actual
preparation on the SAP; one dedicated to basic studies for information gathering
regarding physical, hydrological and eco-biological conditions; and five dedicated to
strategically located and designed demonstration projects. Components 2 to 7 were to
provide the knowledge base upon which the SAP was to be formulated.
With the exception of some activities that were expressly modified or eliminated
by the Project Steering Committee, all components have been accomplished with varying
degrees of success or effectiveness in the context of the original project objectives. In
general, all basic studies were well executed and completed. Water quality variables
were adequately measured indicating that contamination from agriculture, industry and
urban solid waste and sewage are considerable and should be controlled and reduced to
preserve the flora and fauna, fishing and tourist values of these ecosystems. Some
reports contain measurements of current and previous water flows in the river,
sedimentation in the lake and the plume at the maritime outlet, but additional information
2
on hydrology, soils and land use and the locations and degrees of land deterioration by
erosion is still required. The performance of basic studies coordinated by scientific
organizations in both countries was promising.
Demonstration projects were dedicated to the motivation of public and other
stakeholder participation, the strengthening of institutions and institutional arrangements
for the success of the project, and education for natural resources conservation. These
were probably the most difficult activities and where most of the delays occurred. In
general, and this is probably related to the focus of the project document, there was a
tendency to dedicate the core of these activities to poor communities, rather than
involving "all" stakeholders in these activities. This is an important observation that has
to do with the economic sustainability of future actions in the area. With regard to public
participation, the ProDoc might have been misinterpreted by the project coordinators as
implying that the formation of basin councils should be within the municipal councils.
Taking into account that "integrated water resource management" is an objective, it
would have been necessary to design and execute projects focusing on whole watersheds,
especially on the Costa Rican side. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that both
countries have shown, on numerous occasions, their will for the continuation of these
activities, to sign bi-national agreements and to connect them to national policies and
other efforts like the Mesoamerican Biological bi-National Corridor, National System of
Conservation Areas and others.
The educational component was executed in a manner consistent with the ProDoc
(Annex VIII of ProDoc). This aspect of the project was directed at education in the
community rather than setting the grounds for a more specific problem-oriented
education on natural resources conservation tied to research and technical assistance to
implement solutions.
During 2001, when the project was initiated, there were delays regarding the
functioning of the administrative mechanisms and the technical coordination of activities.
This was natural considering the need to make arrangements for political and technical
organizations of both countries and international donor and executing agencies to work
together. By 2002, the project was well under way but this occurred after decisions that
significantly changed its structure. This was a US$5.4 million project, shared 72% by
GEF, 17% by both countries, and 11% co-financing from UNEP, OAS and CRRH.
A satisfactory SAP is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2005. It may
well be able to take into account the conclusions and recommendations of this report.
Among other things, the command structure, the nature of activities and the budget
provisions for both countries should be different as much as there are substantial
differences in the physical and socio-economic conditions of the two countries and the
nature and practices in each of their sectors of the SJRB. The overall joint endeavour of
the two countries is a long-term effort and should be differentiated from supporting
projects financed by international donor agencies that are temporary and respond to
specific objectives. While there is a bi-national board of authorities involved in each
countries activities, project initiatives and on-going projects with international support
should be subject to decisions of this board with regard to their political aspects.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
3
In accordance with UNEP/GEF policy, on completion of the execution of a
project and before requesting any further GEF assistance, all GEF projects are subject to
an evaluation by external evaluator(s) contracted by UNEP. Accordingly, the GEF San
Juan (GF/1010-01-01) project has been subjected to a terminal evaluation that is
documented in this report. The purpose of this document is to report the evaluation of the
San Juan project performed during October and November 2004.
In 1994, the Governments of Costa Rica and Nicaragua requested UNEP and OAS
assistance in undertaking a diagnostic study on the state of the San Juan River basin and
its costal zone as part of UNEP EMINWA programme. That study was carried out during
1995-1996 by MINAE (Ministry of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica) and
MARENA (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua), and
published in 1997 as the "Diagnostic Study of the San Juan River Basin and Guidelines
for an Action Plan". From October 1998 to September 1999, initial funds provided by
GEF through a PDF Block B Grant (US$ 283,000) helped prepare: (1) a TDA; and (2) a
project proposal for improving water resources management of the San Juan River basin
and its coastal zone. In December 2000 (FP submitted to May 2000 Council), the GEF
approved grant funds to the value of US$3,929,820 for enhancing and restoring the
environmental functioning of the San Juan River basin system (project GF/1010-01-01).
This project has been under execution since January 2001 and should terminate in
December 2004. The Organization of American States (OAS) has been designated as the
agency for the coordination of the execution of the project. MINAE and MARENA are
the local executing agencies.
SCOPE, OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION
On the 4th and 5th of October, 2004, a meeting took place in Brasilia organized by
UNEP and supported by the OAS office in Brasilia. The purpose was to establish the
terms and schedule for the evaluations of five GEF supported international waters
projects in the Latin American and Caribbean region. All these projects have the OAS as
the executing agency. The principal evaluator, J.M. Bewers, specified the important
aspects and procedures for these evaluations. He emphasized the need to understand the
project design and objectives, as laid down in the Project Document (or ProDoc) as a
guide to determining whether a project had achieved its objectives. He also stressed the
importance of the scientific or technical perspectives on the projects and noted some of
the aspects where the evaluators would probably not have to spend a great deal of time.
The meeting was also attended by the UNEP LAC project officer from DGEF Nairobi,
the OAS representative in Brazil and each of the consultant evaluators. As agreed at this
meeting, a field visit was scheduled for the San Juan project between 18th - 27th of
October 2004. The first draft of the evaluation was submitted via Internet by the 26th of
November 2004. Subsequently, four two-day meetings were held in Brasilia for each
project evaluator to review the draft with the principal evaluator. The meeting to discuss
the San Juan project was held on the 6th and 7th of December 2004. The final report was
due to be submitted on January 15th 2005.
The actual evaluation included a field visit to the area of the project as
documented in Annex I, supplemented by the review of selected documents from this
4
project that are listed in the References section. Comparing this information with the
ProDoc enabled the construction of Table I, to facilitate the analysis of activities.
The terms of reference for the evaluation state: "The scope of this evaluation will cover
all key activities undertaken in the framework of the project. The evaluator will compare
planned outputs of the project to actual outputs and assess the actual results to determine
their contribution to the attainment of the project objectives. The Evaluation will
diagnose problems if any and suggest necessary corrections and adjustments. It will
evaluate the efficiency of the project management, including delivery of outputs and
activities in terms of quality, quantity, timeliness and cost efficiency. The evaluation will
also determine the likely impact of the projects. The Evaluation will highlight lessons
learned and best practices thus far from the implementation of the project that would
improve the future work in the basin and assess the appropriateness of these projects in
meeting the long-term objectives of the GEF. In this regard, the Evaluation should assess
the extent to which (1) sources of environmental stress in the basin have been adequately
addressed through project activities, (2) mechanisms for joint management of the basin
have been put in place or strengthened through execution of the project, and (3) there has
been a change in environmental state as a consequence of the projects intervention."
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN1
The project area includes all the component watersheds of the San Juan River.
These watersheds comprise: Lake Nicaragua (also called Lake Cocibolca) and its
tributaries; the basin of the San Juan River that flows from the outlet of Lake Nicaragua;
and the watersheds of all the downstream tributaries. Although they are independent
freshwater catchments of the Caribbean Sea, the watersheds of the Indio and Maíz rivers
in Nicaragua and that of the River Tortuguero in Costa Rica are also considered part of
the San Juan basin. The total area of this basin is approximately 38,500 km2 of which
24,500 km2 (64%), including the 8,183 km2 area of Lake Nicaragua, lies in Nicaragua and
14,000 km2 (36%) lies in Costa Rica. By itself, Lake Nicaragua and its tributaries have
an area of 23,731 km2, of which 11,385 km2 lies in Nicaragua and 4,163 km2 in Costa
Rica. Discounting the area of the lake, the area of Costa Rica that contributes to the lake
is the larger. The San Juan River Basin (SJRB) delivers an average 1,300 m3/sec of water
to the Caribbean Sea of which 85% is derived from Costa Rican watersheds. The
catchment is an area subject to tectonic activity and both seasonal and extreme
hydrologic events. Accordingly, the lower catchment is subject to frequent flooding. In
the Tortuguero and Indio Maiz reserves and in the medium and higher lands of Costa
Rica to the east, average annual rainfall increases to about 5,000 mm. With the exception
of the northern part of the Lake, average annual rainfall in Nicaragua is not less than
1,500 mm. Temperature and evaporation rates are typical of the tropics with variations
largely due to elevation.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
General Aspects
1 Information for this paragraph was obtained from references 2 and 7.a.
5
This is a project about the planning of another project. It is a project to improve
the information needed for the next phase of planning and to develop pilot experiences
with selected groups of people communities and government - to provide practical
guidelines to perfect the planning of a longer-term project. The outcome of this project is
a Strategic Action Programme (SAP). As such, the project is divided in seven
components: Component 1, the preparation of the next phase of the project and the
completion of the Strategic Action Programme that would be prepared based on the
results of the other components. Component 2, the information system, was referred to
"Basic Studies"2 and was subdivided in eight subcomponents: (a) hydrometeorology and
water quality; (b) hydrographic survey of Lake Nicaragua; (c) determination of the plume
of sedimentation of the coastal area, Nicaragua/Costa Rica; (d) information for
sustainable management of critical aquatic habitats; (e) study of the Tortuguero and
Indio/Maiz conservation areas; (f) zoning to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards; (g)
study of trans-border migration and new settlements; and (h) the creation of an
information system. Components 3 to 7 are called "Demonstration Projects". These
include: (3a, b, c, d) strategic actions with stakeholder involvement; (4a, b, c, d) public
participation; (5) local national and bi-national institutional arrangements; (6a, b)
capacity building and institutional strengthening; and (7a, b, c) education and training in
conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources.
Organization for the Formulation and Execution of the Strategic Action
Programme
The diagram below shows the organizational arrangements for the planning and
execution of the Project. Starting February 2003 (see the minutes of the IV Steering
Committee Meeting, ref. 27) the Board of Directors (also called the Steering Committee) 3
is chaired by the Vice Ministers of Environment and composed of representatives of the
Ministries of Foreign Relations, FMMA, OAS-UDSMA, a representative of each
association of mayors and the coordinators of the technical units of each country4. After
this date a new institutional structure was approved. The National Directors (paid by the
governments of Costa Rica and Nicaragua) and Project Coordinators, national
professionals paid with international funds, are eliminated. An Executive Binational
Secretariat was created and integrated by two National Technical Units. They are
responsible for the execution of the directives of the Board. The Secretariat was directed
and supervised by a Binational Executive Secretary appointed by the Board. Each unit
having a coordinator appointed by the authorities of MARENA and MINAE, for
Nicaragua and Costa Rica, respectively. The Binational Executive Council coordinated
the directives of the Board within the respective institutions and facilitated direct
communications with the Executive Secretariat and the governmental institutions
2 A printed report of the Basic Studies was prepared and published in July 2004 (see Ref. 6)
3 Before this date the chair-representatives were the ministers themselves. It is the understanding of the
author of this document that the Consejo Director, as written in Spanish and translated to English as Board
of Directors, in fact is the Steering Committee as it is indicated in the PRODOC the top decision maker of
this project.
4 As indicated in the ProDoc, up to the time when this evaluation was made, a total of six Steering
Committee meetings had taken place.
6
involved with the SAP. It was composed of the same members of the Board, with
exception of FMMA and OAS.
ORGANIZATION FOR THE FORMULATION AND EXECUTION OF THE
STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAM
BOARD OF DIRECTORS (STEERING COMMITTEE)
BINATIONAL EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
BINATIONAL EXECUTIVE
SECRETARIAT
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
UNIT - NICARAGUA
UNIT - COSTA RICA (MINAE)
(MARENA)
SPECIALISTS AND
CONSULTANTS
INSTITUTIONS AND PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS
PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Motivation for protecting the environment
7
The boundary limit between the two countries is the southern bank of the San
Juan River. Consequently, all of the surface area and the water of the San Juan River
proper lies within Nicaraguan jurisdiction. Since the beginning of the 19th century, the
River San Juan together with Lake Nicaragua has been an important inter-oceanic
passage for commerce and human migration. In the northwestern part of Nicaragua, in
the provinces of Leon and Chinandega, it has been estimated that there is a potential for
irrigating 750,000 ha of land using water from Lake Nicaragua. Important Nicaraguan
cities like Managua, Masaya, Leon and Granada are close to the lake and others lie in the
surrounding area. The Mayor of Juigalpa5 expressed interest in using the water of the
lake for increased irrigation and for water supplies of cities. Thus, the lake and the river
are vitally important to Nicaragua and, ultimately, to the population and stakeholders,
such as those who run industry and commerce and provide employment for many people.
If the development of the basin is conducted in an equitable and sustainable manner,
there will be increased interest in financial and resource investment for its protection and
management. This is obviously important and presents considerable opportunity for a
country that, for many reasons, such as a previous civil war and natural (hurricane and
earthquake) disasters, has a large proportion of its population below the extreme poverty
line. Because a major portion of the water inflow to the lake and to the river is derived
from Costa Rica, effective management of land use and water resources in Costa Rican
watersheds is very important to Nicaragua.
Costa Rica, on the other hand, is one of the most successful countries of Central
America. Average yearly per capita income is around US$5,000 in contrast to that in
Nicaragua of US$700. The SJRB in Costa Rica is being used extensively for the
production of wood, sugarcane and pineapple and as pasture for milk and meat
production. Tourism is also a growing industry in the area. There is considerable
damage in the form of land erosion due to deforestation and intensive agriculture.
However, the need to improve these practices would be motivated more by the need to
protect the health and productivity of the land rather than to prevent adverse effects on
water resources. The wealth in the SJRB lies predominantly in the higher and medium
slopes of the Costa Rican part of the watershed while the poorest communities,
comprising small landholders, are in the lower parts of the watershed.
This contrasts with the more common situation where the lowlands or valleys in
the lower reaches of a watershed have the most productive agriculture and the major
cities and industries (other than mining) and, therefore, the wealth. Invariably, however,
the lower-lying areas are the beneficiaries of both water flow and the protection of the
upper watersheds. In the case of the San Juan, the population with the least income
occupies these lower reaches. It would therefore normally be logical that a financing
mechanism for the development and protection of the contributing watersheds would
demand a greater contribution from lowland areas. This is not the case in the watersheds
of Costa Rica. Nevertheless, protection of the land per se should be a good enough reason
for the landowners and citizens of the upper watershed to be interested in resource
sustainability and therefore effective water resource management. They should therefore
share, via equitable financial contributions, the responsibility for conserving and using
best land practices on their own lands and in correcting the deterioration of the low-lying
5 Erwing de Castilla, Mayor of Juigalpa and President of the Association of Municipalities of the San Juan
watershed.
8
environment. The conservation of the low-lying areas, of small farming and the health of
the Lake and River for the purposes of maintaining biodiversity, fishing and tourism is
more a matter of concern at both national and international levels. Thus, there exists
adequate justification for international initiatives, specifically GEF interventions, in this
case.
Comparison of planned to actual results
Table I presents the detailed comparative analyses of planned against actual
results. It has been prepared having read the documentation listed in the Reference
section and, for some of the activities listed and noted in column one, enriched by the
experience of having interviewed those responsible for, or directly associated with,
project execution, as described in Annex I. What follows are some highlights of this
experience trying to focus on some of the important issues in this planning process.
In general, it was found that the documentation was abundant. In most instances,
poverty was one of the causes of the problems and its reduction one of the solutions.
Most cases reported contamination of bodies of water by agrochemicals, sewage from
cities and industries and sediment from erosion caused by deforestation and agricultural
practices. Most proposed solutions to these problems were basically similar.
The Strategic Action Programme
The draft SAP document presented in September 2004 (Ref. 20) is very extensive
and descriptive. It defines most of what needs to be done in the area for the conservation
of natural resources and for the reduction of the primary problems in the San Juan River
Basin (SJRB). While this lacks the specifications of a project that can be directly
implemented, this is not altogether inappropriate because such specifications are intended
to be contained in the finalized SAP, due to be completed in early 2005. A Medium
Sized GEF Project is to be proposed for activities in 2005-2007 (see Refs. 17 and 18) as
an intermediate bridge to the next full GEF project phase. There are results and impacts
of the current project, both within the information component and within the so-called
"demonstration projects", that have demonstrated, through experience, the possibilities of
the two countries6 working together towards a common purpose. This is a very important
and major indirect benefit stemming from several of the project activities as distinct from
their direct results and outputs.
An analysis of the TDA was completed as part of this evaluation with the
conclusion that the TDA provides an excellent basis for the development of the strategic
Action Programme. Previous work by the OAS played an important role in the
development of the TDA. However, there were some limitations related to the
information system used in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Data collection was fraught with
difficulties to the point where the process was abandoned and then restarted. As a result,
the most important analysis related to hydrology, and water resources and both countries
suffered due to limited availability of data.
6 Considering the transboundary problems they are due to differences of wealth that promotes migration
from one country to the other and originating conflict.
9
The Basic Studies
The information component was relatively successful in the areas of water quality,
biodiversity, fishing conditions and social conditions of communities associated with
protected natural environments like the Tortuguero, Barra del Colorado, San Juan del
Norte, and Indio Maiz, irrespective of the country involved. They do serve to justify
support from both countries for a bilateral effort and from international organizations in
respect to the protection of these environments. The reports provide quantitative
information on climate, precipitation, water quantity inflows and outflows from the lake
and the River San Juan and contributions from tributary watersheds. However, this
information is gathered from previous records at stations that have now been
discontinued and measurements at two stations that were rehabilitated in the San Juan
River. Accordingly, this information only gives an approximate idea of water flows and
sediment loads. Many conclusions could be derived from a system of information that
continuously reports the water balances in these bodies of water. Also, there is lack of
integrated information on the watersheds in relation to soils, land use, water use and
tenure. There has been inadequate attention to the entire stakeholder community and its
participation in the analysis of problems within the basin. Such participation is vitally
important for the comprehensive analysis and resolution of problems, including the
resolution of conflicts among the sectors, and for ensuring the financial resources
necessary for sustainable use. Such information would be very useful. In fact, it is
indispensable when making plans for integrated management of water bodies and related
land resources and for the sustainable development of the area the objective of this
project. It is also very important, in the first instance, to have a sound understanding of
the conditions of the basin as a whole for the two countries. The diagnosis made by
MINAE-MARENA/OAS in 1997 (Ref. 3) has a technical approach and presents this type
of information. It should however be recognized that even though the hydrological data
are old and some measurements have now been discontinued, this report attempted to
present the available information in the form of graphs, such as precipitation isohyets,
water flows, evaporation rates and water temperatures.
Stakeholders Involvement
When considering the so-called "demonstration project" activities, those related
to actions with stakeholder involvement (especially components 3 and 4), have less
relevance to the project objectives. These demonstration activities have had a tendency
to concentrate on poor community involvement rather than ensuring the involvement of
stakeholder representatives from all relevant sectors. The purpose of stakeholder
involvement is to "develop economic mechanisms contributing to the sustainable
management of natural resources". Self-sustainability is the intention of these
components. It is a logical way of eventually finding a path to sustainable management.
Stakeholders, including substantial landholders of the largest economic means and
potential investors in forest/timber exploitation and modern mining industries, must be
convinced that it is in their best interests to participate equitably in the sustainable
development of their territory. In order to be motivated, they would have to perceive that
10
it would be in their own interests. Together with the state, the attainment of those
country and bi-national objectives that have to do with the environment, tourism and the
maintenance of healthy water bodies, is an achievable possibility. Activity 3.c should
also be part of the last component on "education for natural resources conservation"
because it is part of an educational effort; at the same time it can be an option for many
small peasants (the president of the association indicated up to 5,000 peasants) to take
advantage of offering their natural and well-conserved environments for special types of
tourism. This reflects recognition that such small landholders have little chance of
producing enough income for their families from agricultural activities. The experience
regarding the protection of the banks of Sarapiqui River (Activity 3.d) is of benefit to
landowners but it could have been better designed if it had been part of an integrated
approach to the whole watershed, which is probably the largest water-contributing
tributary to the San Juan River.
Institutional Arrangements
Component 5 is understood as all the actions taken to promote the formation of
national and bi-national bodies in the political arena, such as the technical and
administrative organizations to carry on the SJRB projects in a coordinated manner. In
nine years of activities, 19 international, 14 community and 14 private organizations have
participated in project activities. It is also understood that there has been considerable
progress in these aspects with the participation of both Ministries of Foreign Affairs and
with MARENA and MINAE coordinating more than 221 institutions and organizations
directly involved in the execution of these activities. These included representation of 97
federal government organizations, 29 NGOs, 22 private companies, 20 local governments
and municipalities and 8 press and media organizations. This process required the
signature of 24 memorandum and 12 letters of understanding and 4 agreements (Ref. 17,
p. 6). Such large numbers of organizations involved raises the question: "How is the
Project supervised and monitored?"
The formation of Basin Councils
Component 6 had the purpose of forming basin councils. No basin councils have
been formed. Instead, the project has directed efforts towards strengthening municipal
coordination. It appears that there were no clear proposals of what to expect and how to
design and create basin councils. As in other countries, there are frequently conflicts in
the creation of bodies for the management of areas having natural boundaries that are
based on cooperation among organizations created in a politically-defined context.
Education and Training
Component 7 comprises education and training for the conservation of natural
resources. This is a very relevant component to the objectives of the project. The results
are useful but limited. If integrated water management is the objective, one of the basic
problems is improper land use (also referred to as conflict of use) with respect to the land
use potential, and also, lack of correct land use practices. This problem is addressed in
most activities. Part of the solution is the formulation and implementation of
11
conservation programs. Land use planning is applied by the allocation (proposed) of uses
compatible with the natural conditions of the land (considering soils, topography and
climate) and market possibilities in case of productive uses. Technically proposed plans
based on specific studies should be suggested to landowners and promoted via credit or
subsidies depending on conservation policies for particular individual conditions.
Conservation programs require legislation and strong central government support
coordinated with local government. This needs to cover the conduct of basic natural
resource studies, research into alternative uses, measures of productivity and the
definition of conservation practices. It also needs to ensure adequate technical assistance
to those willing to participate in such programs. By participating in such programmes,
land users and citizens in general become more sensitive to the beauty of the environment
and the need to protect it while using land resources to the best of their abilities. It is
then, also, an educational program with greater possibility of success.
Problems Experienced During Project Execution
The project intended to start in January 2001 but suffered difficulties at the
beginning. These difficulties resulted in delays in the initiation of some sub-project
activities from six to twelve months7 and a few to late 2004. The project was originally
intended to be completed in December 2003 but was subsequently extended by one year
(Ref. 24, item 5). Some of the reasons offered included OAS regulations about
disbursements and the lack of experience of national and bi-national institutions in
working together. Some blamed the complicated structure for the administration and
coordination of the project. It was not until mid 2003, after significant changes in the
local and bi-national administrative organization of the project, that these problems were
resolved (October 17, 2003, Ref. 24).
Efficiency of Project Management
The line authority for the project derived from the headquarters of the
international executing agency (OAS) in Washington, D.C. In Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
there were originally Project Coordinators, paid for by OAS, and National Directors, each
paid by their own organization, MARENA in Nicaragua and MINAE in Costa Rica. For
every expenditure, especially when hiring personnel (considering that numerous
consultants have been engaged), the administrative process was cumbersome because it
required ultimate approval in Washington, D.C. Occasionally, OAS headquarters
required additional information and this resulted in individual cases of requests for
approval and/or allocation of funds having to be repeated. This was solved by eliminating
the Project Coordinators in each country paid by OAS and hiring a single bi-national
coordinator. The bi-national coordinator was in place in an office in San Jose, Costa
Rica, by late 2003. The stringency of the line authority procedures for the execution of
the project were subsequently relaxed.
7 During 2002, the majority of Basic Studies and Demonstrative Projects initiated activities, and many of
them started to produce preliminary results which permit the orientation for the preparation of the SAP (IV
Steering Committee meeting, Feb 13, 2003, Ref. 23)
12
It is difficult to judge these situations with regard to the outcomes of the project.
It is understandable that in a project such as this, involving several organizations in two
countries that have conflicts of national interest in transboundary basin management
would have difficulties in getting adjusted to working together. It is true that the project
has contributed to having many organizations working together. Nevertheless, the heavy
reliance on consultants could have resulted in the project coordinators losing intimate
familiarity with the variety of activities in the project and becoming simple non-technical
facilitators. Establishing the PROCUENCA offices in San Jose, Costa Rica, may have
been a mistake because San Jose is well outside the San Juan River watershed. This was
less of an issue in Nicaragua because Managua is close to the watershed. It sends the
wrong message that central government is the key to all action. In addition, it involved
the inconvenience of requiring a three-hour trip to the area of the SJRB. Also, it was a
mistake to have management and administrative decisions subject to approval at such a
remote location as Washington, D.C. On the other hand, the idea of appointing OAS paid
project coordinators in the two countries could have been sensible if these would have
been given delegated authority. However, they could not have been nationals of each of
the countries participating in the project. The present arrangement seems to work but it
may be that, without the project coordinators in each country and the reduced liaison with
Washington, the technical units are weaker than before.
The working conditions of the personnel involved also merit consideration. In
both countries, the technical units had personnel dependent on their respective
organizations, MARENA in Nicaragua and MINAE in Costa Rica. This could have
worked well in practice if independence of the project facilitated the fluent functioning of
the command structure of the project itself. On the other hand, in this same structure,
there were personnel dependent on external resources with no administrative links to their
mother national institutions. For the effective functioning of the project, it is important
that the contract conditions of these personnel give them the required motivation to
acquire ownership of the project not only in terms of salary but of continuity.
In each country, there are different social-economic and physical conditions that
require a special and integrated approach. If one examines the different reports of each
activity, among them one can find many coincidences, descriptions and recommendations
that are similar, denoting some unnecessary duplication of effort. It seems that a more
technically dedicated central command for the activities in each country was needed for
greater efficiency.
The physical facilities of the project's Technical Unit in both countries were
found to be poor. It seems that little attention was given to comfort, office characteristics
and proper modern equipment to facilitate communications, technical and administrative
work. The spread of responsibilities for the activities of the project gave the feeling that
the Technical Unit did not have control of the entire project. Yet, all of this was
overcome by the excellent disposition and willingness to cooperate of its personnel.
Finances and Expenditures
13
The budgeted contribution of GEF is US$3,929,820 (73%), countries US$984,990
(18.5%), OAS US$175,000 (3.5%) and the cost to CRRH8 US$100,000 (1.5%) (Ref. 1).
During the 2001-2003 periods, Tables 2 and 3 of this report indicate national counterpart
expenditures of US$588,000 from Nicaragua and US$545,000 from Costa Rica. In year
2001, in Costa Rica there were no expenses indicated for either BS or DP activities, only
the expenses for personnel and administration are indicated for a total of US$17,000. In
Nicaragua, a total of US$101,000 was spent of which about half corresponds to expenses
of the Technical Unit (TU). For years 2002 and 2003, expenditures of both countries
have similar trends as regards national counterpart funding indicating that the core of the
activities started in 2002. In total, in the three years, 28% was spent for the TU of
Nicaragua. Table 3 shows expenses for 2004 for the TU of US$48,000. Thus, the total
contribution of Costa Rica for the three years is US$497,253. Of this, 12% was spent for
personnel and administration of the TU.
For the period 2001-October 2004, Table 4 reports actual expenses allocated from
the GEF contribution. The total expenditure is US$3,304,021. Examining this Table, one
can observe for each component a significant variation of the amounts spent relative to
those budgeted, indicating that it was difficult to predict actual requirements.
Nevertheless, the total did not exceed the amount budgeted. From the standpoint of what
was planned, without consideration of timeliness, the international and national
counterpart contributions were duly received. One thing that probably deserves noting is
the fact that conditions in both countries are different and consequently the budgets
appropriate to each would be significantly different. One could speculate that these are
causes of the variations in the relationship between budgeted and actual expenditures.
Just as an example, Nicaragua has lower salaries so that Nicaragua's national
contribution to its TU reflects greater involvement of personnel dedicated to the project.
These tables also show that the initiation of activities was delayed by about one year
many activities show no disbursements during 2001.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The project under evaluation had not yet been concluded at the time of Terminal
Evaluation. The SAP was under preparation and expected to be finalized during the
first quarter of 2005. Hence, this report, and its conclusions and recommendations,
relate to the components and subcomponents that were executed during the period
2001-2004 for the purposes of providing the knowledge base upon which the SAP is
being formulated.
2. The SJRB is a bi-national long-term project provided with additional temporary
externally funded support in activities and projects, from organizations like GEF,
UNEP, UNDP and OAS, with specific objectives such as this GEF project.
3. The project document does not adequately itemize the results and benefits to both
countries of integrated water resources management. The territories within the SJRB
can be differentiated by physical, economic and social conditions. These are different
for Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Motivation for the project in each country is different,
but common interests can be found in improving the bodies of water and soils and in
water and biodiversity conservation, in the SJRB.
8 Funds not administered by UNEP corresponding to the contribution of the Central American Committee for Water Resources.
14
4. The conservation of the low-lying areas, of small farming and the health of the Lake
and River for the purposes of maintaining biodiversity, fishing and tourism is more a
matter of concern at national and international levels. Thus, there exists adequate
justification for international initiatives, specifically GEF interventions, in this case.
5. There are results and impacts of the current project, both within the information
component and within the so-called "demonstration projects" that have demonstrated,
through experience, the possibilities for the two countries to work together towards a
common purpose. This is especially true with the scientific community represented
by several institutions in both countries. One can also say that this project benefited
from other past and ongoing experience in the same field such as the Mesoamerican
Biological Corridor, the Marshes and Fire Programs and the SINAC (National System
of Conservation Areas). In Steering Committee meetings (six were held up to the
time of the evaluation), both countries have indicated a favorable disposition towards
the signature of bi-national agreements and the inclusion of the results of this project
into national policies.
6. The information component was relatively successful in the areas of water quality,
biodiversity, fishing and social conditions of communities associated with protected
natural environments like the Tortuguero, Barra del Colorado, San Juan del Norte,
and Indio Maiz, irrespective of the country involved. They do serve to justify support
from both countries for a bilateral effort and from international organizations in
respect to the protection of these environments.
7. In general, it was found that documentation was abundant. However, sometimes,
different activities reported general descriptions of the context, or problems affecting
them, as being the same. In most instances, poverty was one of the fundamental
causes of the problems and its reduction one of the solutions. Most cases reported
contamination of bodies of water by agrochemicals, sewage from cities and industries
and sediments from erosion caused by deforestation and agricultural practices. Most
proposed solutions to these problems were basically similar.
8. The reports provide quantitative information on climate, precipitation, water quantity
inflows and outflows from Lake Nicaragua and the San Juan River and contributions
from tributary watersheds. This information was gathered from previous records from
stations that have now been discontinued and two stations in the San Juan River that
have been rehabilitated. This information still only gives an approximate idea of
water flows and sediment loads. Many conclusions could be derived from a system
of information that continuously reports the water balances in these bodies of water.
9. There is lack of integrated information on the watersheds in relation to soils, land use,
water use and tenure, and even less on the organizational arrangements needed to
improve and update this information. However, previously gathered information,
although still subject to the same lack of continuity, has proved very useful and
complements the information provided by this project (Refs. 3 and 4).
10. If appropriately supported, the rehabilitated stations and the information gathered in
the San Juan River, the lake, the coastal areas of Tortuguero and Indio-Maiz, and
tributary watersheds, could motivate the installation of a sustainable information
system.
11. There has been inadequate attention to the entire stakeholder community and its
participation in the analysis of problems within the basin. Such participation is vitally
15
important for the comprehensive analysis and resolution of problems, including the
resolution of conflicts among the sectors, and for ensuring the financial resources
necessary for sustainable use.
12. The experience regarding the protection of the banks of the Sarapiqui River, the
largest water-contributing tributary to the San Juan River (Activity 3.d), is of benefit
to landowners but it could have been better designed by being part of an integrated
approach to the entire watershed.
13. Tourism is one of the important options that could be an incentive for many activities
of common interest to both countries. While not neglected, it deserves more intensive
treatment.
14. Solely on the Costa Rican side of the basin, there are about 5,000 small peasants in
low-lying areas that could benefit from conservation programs that provide technical
assistance. This is an activity that seems to be relatively weak for that part of the
country. Also, it is an option for many small peasants to take advantage of offering
their natural and well-conserved environments for special types of tourism. This
reflects recognition that such small landholders have little chance to produce enough
income for their families from agricultural activities and, at the same time, it provides
an incentive for sustainable and ecologically sound management of their land
holdings.
15. In nine years of activities, 19 international, 14 community and 14 private
organizations have participated in project activities in the San Juan River basin.
Considerable progress has been made in these activities with the participation of both
Ministries of Foreign Affairs and with MARENA and MINAE coordinating more
than 221 institutions and organizations. The motivation of national authorities to
engage in bi-national agreements has been present in all instances and expressed in all
Steering Committee meetings (Refs. 24 to 29). The number of organizations that
contributed to this project and participated in the public meetings held to motivate the
community are a good indicator of commitment that shows promise for the success of
future initiatives.
16. No basin councils have been formed. Instead, effort has been directed towards
strengthening municipal coordination.
17. Education and training for the conservation of natural resources has been
concentrated in poor community sectors and has not been related to conservation
programmes and technical assistance for all land users and for urban development.
18. The physical facilities of the project's Technical Unit in both countries were found to
be poor. It is true that the project has contributed to having many organizations
working together. Nevertheless, the heavy reliance on consultants or other
organizations could have resulted in the project coordinators losing intimate
familiarity with the variety of activities in the project and becoming simple non-
technical facilitators.
19. If we examine the different reports of each activity, among them one can find many
coincidences, descriptions and recommendations that are similar denoting
unnecessary duplication of effort. It seems that a more technically-dedicated central
command for the activities in each country is required for improved efficiency.
16
20. Establishing the PROCUENCA offices in San Jose, Costa Rica, may have been a
mistake because San Jose is well outside the San Juan River watershed. This was less
of an issue for Nicaragua because Managua is close to the watershed.
21. In both countries, the technical units had personnel dependent on their respective
organizations, MARENA in Nicaragua and MINAE in Costa Rica. This could work
well in practice if independence of the project facilitates the fluent functioning of the
command structure of the project itself. On the other hand, in this same structure,
there were personnel dependent on external resources with no administrative links to
their mother national institutions.
LESSONS LEARNED
These are "lessons learned" as expressed in the draft SAP presented in September 2004
(Ref. 20, item 1.2.2 p.28). The draft SAP was prepared by a team of nine professionals
of different complementary disciplines.
1. The complicated bureaucracy regarding the administrative aspects between OAS and
the Technical Units was responsible for the long delays in preparing the TDA.
2. In general, the TDA-99 is based on estimates and theory due to the lack of basic
studies. It was expensive and does not reflect the specific problems of the watersheds
with regard to contaminants;
3. Too much effort was put into trying to formulate the SAP and this was in part due to
the lack of knowledge of the FMMA requirements and administrative problems
concerning the hiring of consultants without the approval of the responsible
institutions of both governments.
4. Ninety percent of the demonstration projects of did not provide the expected elements
of transference due to a lack of follow up by the executing agencies.
5. Local governments were not involved sufficiently in "demonstration projects" and
this limited the necessary follow up.
6. There were long periods of `vacuum time' (up to one year) for each change of
government after presidential elections in both countries. This caused a slow process
of involvement of new staff members responsible of the institutions in each country.
7. It would be advisable to strengthen the existing environmental organizations, such as
the "municipal environmental committees" (CAM), and to include the criteria of
watershed management for the sustainable management of natural resources.
8. To design and get consensus with stakeholders, the mechanisms of coordination,
planning, monitoring and follow up of all activities so they are performed efficiently
and effectively in the area of integrated management of hydraulic resources.
9. To consolidate the existing consulting spaces such as the units of environmental
management, municipal environmental committees, watershed committees, local
councils for sustainable development, designing operational instruments, with gender
consideration, for decision making in the execution activities and conflict resolution.
10. To recognize the municipal development plans as a base to prepare the SAP and in
agreement with the national plans.
11. Training of the stakeholders in areas such as legislation, administration and financing,
and technical aspects, to insure adequate water resources management.
17
12. Enlarge the Bi-national Executive Committee with new stakeholders including
producers, natives, fishermen, universities, research centers and non governmental
organizations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The objectives of the GEF project should be distinct and separate from the individual
national objectives. The range of objectives of GEF interventions should be both
limited to major transboundary issues of direct interest to both countries irrespective
of whether they are individual priorities in each set of national objectives.
2. Sustainable integrated water resources management in the San Juan basin should be
the overall objective of GEF-supported interventions. The two countries involved
should decide whether this is accomplished as one programme for both countries, or
two separate ones for each. The view has been expressed that the international
approach funded by the GEF should be the focus of a single program. Clearly,
predominantly at the outlet of San Juan River, there are direct mutual interests in the
benefits that can be obtained from sound integrated management of the river basin.
3. Taking into account basic differences in the physical, political, institutional and
socio-economic conditions, the following immediate actions are recommended:
I. Information
a. The establishment or strengthening of the information system for hydro
meteorological data, land use, water use and natural resources;
b. Creation of inventories and classifications of soils and land-uses,
c. Improvements in land tenure registration and making such information
available for a wide range of management applications;
d. Improved record keeping of residential housing and industrial activities,
including mining, agriculture, animal husbandry and forest enterprises and of
the stakeholders that have an interest in basin management and the potential
for further development;
e. The preparation of these inventories should be a responsibility of a service
such as that indicated in recommendation II.b below in cooperation with
universities and other institutions, as has been the practice in the present
project. This should constitute a contribution of the central governments and
project funds should be devoted to designing them and training personnel in
their creation, maintenance and application.
II. Organization.
a. The formation of basin councils, having no more than 8 members, is a
good concept for representing all basin residents and land and water users,
to facilitate decision-making about what actions should be taken in the
watersheds and how they are to be financed. Watersheds should be
strategically defined in the context of political boundaries and financial
capabilities. There would need to be a legislative framework for their
establishment and the definition of their functions and authority. They
would also have to operate within government constraints regarding water
18
policy and environmental law and any other similar conditions in the
process of executing their authority under central government supervision.
b. The creation and/or strengthening of technical assistance services to
improve support in the areas of hydrology, engineering, environmental
management and conservation practices.
As soon as possible there should be a permanent organization of this type
(in each country) that will be strengthened by this GEF-UNEP project
(and others). These organizations should be the implementing agencies of
government support to the watershed organization (s), and in charge of
technical assistance, lead in the preparation of inventories of natural
resources.
Lack of a permanent organization like these could eventually make a
project like GEF-UNEP fade into nothing, as soon as the money is
finished. It can be done because the Vice Minister of Environment of
Costa Rica said that he could imagine a "permanent" Procuenca office in
each country. The Technical Units are adequate for the coordination and
management of international support. They are just temporary. When the
project has ended they disappear and if there is no permanent office to
accumulate the experience (like it is now) it will be like many other
projects.
The Watershed organizations are those of the stakeholders (as yet
inexistent). Hopefully these organizations, resulting from many others
created for specific purposes, like water and sanitation for municipalities,
irrigation districts, conservation districts, multipurpose districts and so on,
without loosing their individual identity and purpose, could join as
members in a bi-national organization to work on common problems. .
These should raise the funds for investments that are necessary to carry
out the plans, and also, manage their respective resources and be subject of
the work and support that could be done by those "implementing
agencies".
c. A master plan should be prepared to define the required investment to
resolve existing water problems in the basin taking due account of
preparations for extreme events. Tourism opportunities should be fully
taken into account in such a master plan.
d. The technical assistance services, among other functions, should promote
the organization of conservation districts to allow the design of small
watershed conservation areas and to provide a planning framework for
farming, conservation and other activities that involve land use. These
plans would be used with cooperating landowners to guide technical
assistance demands.
III. Financing.
a. For the purposes of executing the master plan, there have to be powers for
the basin council to create financing mechanisms that will require the
payment of equitable yearly contributions by stakeholders. Depending on
19
the degree to which national objectives are potentially satisfied, the central
government should contribute a share of the costs.
b. There should be a program established by the central government to
subsidize, to a certain extent, the execution of conservation plans in
district conservation areas.
IV. Project Administration and Technical Supervision
For the continuation of GEF supported activities, it is advisable to strengthen
the technical units with professional personnel and technical coordinators in
each country who represent the international executing agency. These
individuals should be experienced professionals from other countries.
Particular consideration should be given to streamlining project
administrative procedures. The physical facilities of the technical
coordination units in the two countries should be considerably improved. In
the case of Costa Rica, a component of the coordination unit should be
located within the drainage basin.
20
REFERENCE LIST
1.
GEF PROJECT PAPER GF/1010-01-01. Formulation of a Strategic Action Program
for the Integrated Management of Water Resources, and the Sustainable
Development of the San Juan River Basin and its Coastal Zone. 28 P. In addition,
there are 16 Annexes. Only Annex VIII is included in this list.
2.
Annex VIII of Project Document. Proposed Work Program and Descriptions of
Specific Studies and Demonstration Projects. 12p. MP. There is a Spanish
translation made by Juan José Castro former Technical Coordinator of UT-Costa
Rica.
3.
MINAE-MARENA/OEA. Estudio de Diagnóstico de la Cuenca del Río San Juan
y Lineamientos del Plan de Acción. Gobiernos de Costa Rica y Nicaragua.
Unidad de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente. Organización de los Estados
Americanos. PNUMA. Washington, D.C. 1997. 334p.
4.
ADT-1999. Análisis de Diagnóstico Transfronterizo CRJ. Document received
from J Bonilla y JJ Castro former UT-CR coordinators. 84p MP. Entiendo que
éste es el documento base para la elaboración del PAE. Me parece un buen y
detallado análisis. Lo encuentro cualitativo, como Uds. indican, positivamente,
por falta de información. Así, se podría mejorar el análisis con base a
localización de los problemas en la fisiografía del lugar interactivos con datos de
lluvias, caudales, temperaturas, uso de la tierra. No se indican las fechas y datos
precisos sobre quienes participaron en la elaboración del documento. He puesto
mis observaciones en el Cuadro. Las explicaciones sobre las razones del
problema son características de regiones similares. Los principales problemas
están en las cuencas. No se indica serios problemas en el río San Juan excepto
que es buena fuente de pesca, transporte y turismo. Según mapa hídrico las áreas
de Tortuguero, Río Colorado, Indio y Maíz están desconectadas del río San Juan y
por tanto de su cuenca. El problema principal está en los aportes al lago
Cocibolca por contaminantes, pesticidas y fertilizantes. Encuentro cuestionable el
potencial de irrigación en Nicaragua, 760,000ha. Costa Rica aporta al río
aproximadamente 2/3 del caudal medio de 1,300m3-seg, estimado en la boca del
Sarapiquí. No se dimensiona los usos de la tierra aunque dice que el 92% son
agricultores de subsistencia y que ocupan sólo con el 6.5% de la superficie, y
que el uso de agroquímicos es el principal problema de contaminación y los
pequeños no usan agroquímicos porque no tienen dinero. El problema
institucional, políticas e implementación del gobierno, asistencia y educación son
claves. No hay datos de caudales ni precipitación. La recolección de basura en la
cuenca es del 32%. Se indica que es aporte de sedimentos es de 2 a 8 ton/ha/año
lo que no es muy significativo, salvo que provenga de áreas muy reducidas. No
se dice cómo se midió.
5.
Conjunto de 20 mapas temáticos de Escala variable desde 1/600,000 a
1/1,700,000, de toda la cuenca (archivos JPG). Instituto Nicaragüense de
Estudios Territoriales e Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) y
consultorías.
21
6.
PROCUENCA San Juan. Integración de los Estudios Básicos. Printed Report. Julio
de 2004. 243p MP: It does not include the activity: Hydro meteorological and
Water Quality Monitoring which I received in a disk copy.
7.
Estudio básico. Monitoreo hidrometeorológico y de la calidad del agua en la
cuenca del río San Juan. Componente Monitoreo Hidrometeorológico. INETER,
Nicaragua. 14p y Anexos. MP Datos de dos estaciones en el río, salida del lago,
Loma de Gallo, promedio 476m3-seg, y Castillo a 8km aguas abajo.
Recomiendan la continuidad de las mediciones. Los balances son con datos por
períodos, desde 1970. El mayor caudal se presenta a partir de las confluencias de
los ríos San Carlos y Sarapiquí de Costa Rica más de 1,300m3-seg.
Anexo 7.a. Balance Hídrico del Lago Cocibolca. INETER, 36p.
Anexo 7.b. Análisis de sedimentos en suspensión. INETER, 12p.
Anexo 7.c. Estudio Básico de Levantamiento Batimétrico de Rio Frio,
INETER, 3p
8.
Basic Study. Hydro meteorological and Water Quality Monitoring. Final Report.
MINAE-MARENA. 14p.
9.
Jaime Valverde Rojas. Síntesis final de proyectos demostrativos. Procuenca.
Setiembre 2004. 87p. MP. Has a thorough analysis with observations of each
activity. Among other observations, questions the limited possibilities of the
technical units for follow up.
10.
Proyecto Demostrativo. Restauración de la subcuenca del Río Oyate, Nicaragua.
Informe Final. Carlos Pineda. Presidente de la Asociación de Municipios del Río
San Juan. 37p
11.
Proyecto Demostrativo. Ara ambigua and Dipterix panamensis habitat recovery.
Final Report, Nicaragua. Antonio Ruiz Meléndez. FUNDACION DEL RIO.
21p.
12.
Proyecto demostrativo. Educación ambiental en el municipio de San Carlos con
énfasis en el manejo de los desechos sólidos. Sergio Romero Guido.
13.
Proyecto Demostrativo. Fondo Revolvente para el Desarrollo de Actividades
Agroforestales en el Municipio de Cárdenas. Informe Final. Geovania Morales
Valle. FIDER. 40p.
14.
Proyecto Demostrativo Rehabilitación de la Subcuenca del río Tepenaguasapa,
Nicaragua. Informe Final. Antonio Ruiz. Fundación del Río. 35p.
15.
Proyecto Demostrativo. Saneamiento ambiental de la micro cuenca del río de Oro
en el municipio de San Jorge, Rivas; Una propuesta estratégica para el
saneamiento del lago Cocibolca. Luis Arlen López Alvarez. Alcalde Municipal.
13p.
16.
Proyecto Demostrativo de Participación Pública. Comité de Comanejo.
Conservación y Manejo del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Las Camelias.
Informe Final. Sin Fecha. Comment: tiene actividades pendientes en un 20%. No
se indica quien supervisó la ejecución de este proyecto. No entregaron informes
de supervisión.
17.
PNUMA. Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial (FMAM-GEF). Bases
Conceptuales Para Un Proyecto de Porte Medio (PPM), Relativo a Aguas
Internacionales. 28p. MP. En su fundamentación lo encuentro bien escrito.
Salvo la importancia de las relaciones entre los países, no está clara la necesidad
22
de las acciones en conjunto en toda la cuenca. Parece que los principales
beneficios están en las cuencas y no necesariamente en el río San Juan. Por tanto,
las actividades se justificarían independiente de los acuerdos binacionales -
faltando dimensionar adecuadamente los beneficios en el turismo debidos a un
buen manejo de las cuencas que redunden en pantanos y estuarios protegidos en
su biodiversidad y actividades artesanales productivas. Las actividades indicadas
aquí y en la Tabla anterior son genéricas. No se indica quién haría los planes para
cada una. Cómo se aprobarían? Cómo sería la supervisión para la ejecución de
cada una de las actividades propuestas?
18.
Propuesta Binacional de actividades por componente del Proyecto Porte Medio
2005 2007. MP: Table with activities of qualitative type.
19.
Ayuda Memoria Reunión con Jorge Bonilla y Juan José Castro. Miércoles 20
de Octubre, 2pm, en las Oficinas de Procuenca en Costa Rica. 1p
20.
PROCUENCA. Programa de Acciones Estratégicas (PAE). Documento Final.
Coordinador Jaime Marín. Setiembre, 2004. 283p
21.
Ayuda Memoria. Sesión Extraordinaria del Comité Ejecutivo Binacional.
Montelimar, Nicaragua. 04 De Junio Del 2004. 3p
22.
Ayuda Memoria. III Reunión Comité Técnico Binacional. La Cruz, Guanacaste-
Costa Rica. 20 de agosto del 2004. 3p
23.
Ayuda Memoria. IV Reunión Equipo Técnico Binacional. Managua, Nicaragua.
7 De Octubre, 2004. 3p. Purpose: Report on presentation of Medium Size
Project in Washington, D-C (Set 16-17).
24.
Acta. Primera Reunión del Consejo Director. 18-20 de febrero de 1998.
Managua, Nicaragua
25.
Acta. Segunda Reunión del Consejo Director. 7-8 de junio de 2001. Granada,
Nicaragua
26.
Acta. Tercera Reunión del Consejo Director. 17 de junio de 2002. San José,
Costa Rica
27.
Acta. Cuarta reunión del Consejo Director. 13 de febrero de 2003. Managua,
Nicaragua
28.
Acta. Quinta Reunión del Consejo Director. Hotel San José Palacio. San José,
Costa Rica. 17 de Octubre de 2003
29.
Acta. Sexta Reunión del Consejo Director. Edificio de Servicios Generales.
Secretaría General de la O.E.A. Washington, D.C. 16 y 17 de Septiembre del
2004
1
ANNEX II
CO-FINANCING
Co financing
IA own
Government
EA
Other* (CRRH)
Total
Total
FINAL TOTAL
(Type/Source)
Financing
(X)
Disbursement (y)
TOTAL + TOTAL
DISBURSEMENT
(US$)
(US$)
(US$)
(US$)
(US$)
(US$)
(x+y)
Planned Actual
Planned Actual
Planned Actual
Planned Actual
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Grants
3,929,820
3,929,820
Loans/Concessional
(compared to
market rate)
Credits
Equity investments
In-kind support
175,000 220,000 984,990 641,890 175,000 275,000 100,000 100,000 1,434,990 1,236,890
Other (*)
Totals
175,000 220,000 984,990 641,890 175,000 275,000 100,000 100,000 1,434,990 1,236,890 3,929,820 3,929,820 5,364,810 5,166,710
* Other is referring to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs, the private sector and beneficiaries.
* Missing figures re actual co-financing from Costa Rica - USD641,890 correspond to the actual level of co-financing form Nicaragua alone.
* Missing OAS actual level of co-financing
1
ANNEX II
FIELD VISIT - ACTIVITIES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Monday, October 18th.
Travel from Lima to Costa Rica. TACA 032 - Arrival in the afternoon. Holyday
in Costa Rica. Hotel Parque del Lago, 3star (Address: del Museo del Arte Costarricense,
50m al Este info@parquedellago.com T. (506) 257 8787; F. (506) 223 1617;
US$60/day). Comment: The hotel was recommended by Procuenca. It is used by OAS
representatives and other visitors to the Project. The hotel is satisfactory for the category.
Tuesday, October 19th
Office of Procuenca, Costa Rica. Address: Del Yamuni Sabana-, 100m Sur,
Edificio de CNP, Piso 3, San José, Costa Rica. T. (506) 2571839.
procuenca_sanjuan@racsa.co.cr
9:00 hours, Zadia Trejos, Head of Technical Unit;
12:00 hours, Magaly Castro T.830 8022, magcastro@costarricense.cr Tropical
Biologist. MINAE, about the basic study: Study of the coastal and marine
resources of the Tortuguero Conservation Area and the Indio-Maíz
Reserve.
16:00 hours, Sandra León. T. 3791227. Information Systems Engineer
Sandra.sb@gmail.com Administers the WEB page of the project for Costa
Rica. www.procuenca-sanjuan.org Works in compiling documents and
maps about the San Juan watershed.
Wednesday, October 20th
9:00 hours, Allan Flores, Vice minister of Environment. Together with
Ramakrishna, Zayda Trejos and Jorge Rucks. In the Office of Procuenca,
Costa Rica.
14:00 hours, With Jorge Bonilla, Jorginho@costarricense.cr, (506) 2224798,
Nacional Director up to February, 2003, 5 years; together with Juan José
Castro, Agricultural Economist and MSc in Natural Resources, 7 years
with the project, Technical Coordinator up to February 2003.
jjcastro@racsa.co.cr (506) 2533267¸C. 385 2604.
16:00 hours, Luis Sierra, lsierra@una.ac.cr, T. 506 373 4126, 277 3426, Marine
Biology Professor, Dean of Faculty, Science, Universidad Nacional de
CR, about the basic study: Information for the sustainable management of
critical aquatic habitats.
19:00 hours, meeting at the hotel with Jorge Rucks, OAS, who was in mission to
CR with regard to details about future medium term implementation
project.
2
Thursday, October 21st
Travel to Sarapiqui watershed, tributary of San Juan river, to meet personnel of
demonstration project: Restoration and management of the banks of the
Sarapiquí and Sucio rivers.
Friday, October 22nd
9:00 hours, visit with Wilberth Rojas, Vice Major of San Carlos Municipality.
10:00 - Travel to Cantón Guatuso to visit with farmer members of Productores
Unidos Demonstrative Project: Integrated Project of Peasant
Landholdings. Visit with farmer Julia Gutierrez Gonzalez and Juliana
Espinoza, President of APRODEGUA (Asociación de Productores de
Guatuso). T. (506) 464 1130, mayi23@costarricense.cr
Return to San José
Saturday, October 23rd
8:00 hours, meeting with Mr Mike Bewers, GEF principal evaluator.
10:00 hours, meeting with Ramakrishna, bi-national director of Procuenca.
Sunday, October 24th
11:00 Travel to Managua, Nicaragua. Copa Airlines. Arrival to Hotel Las
Mercedes (Best Western) Km11, C. Norte, RD46, Managua, Nicaragua
in front of the airport. T. (505) 263 1011; F. (505) 263 1083;
www.lasmercedes.com.ni Comment: rustic bungalows in a tropical
environment, US$65. Comfortable and good food.
Monday, October 25th
Office of Technical Unit, in the Ministry of Natural Resources (MARENA). Martha
Gaithan, Secretary.
8:00 hours, meeting at MARENA with Juan José Romero, Head of Technical Unit
in Nicaragua. T. (505) 263 2598; 233 1110. jjromero@marena.gob.ni
9:00 hours, meeting with Marvin Valdivia, Proyecto San Jorge. Left for field trip
in the afternoon.
10:00 hours, meeting with Sergio Cordonero, Recursos Hidricos de INETER,
(505) 249 2756 sergio.cordero@rh.ineter.gob.ni about, Bathymetric Study
of Lake Cocibolca (Nicaragua).
11:00 hours, meeting with Leonardo Somarriba, Vice Minister of MARENA, T.
(505) 263 1343; 263 1968 nayo@ibw.com.ni ; lsomarriba@marena.gob.ni
Comment: the meeting was cancelled.
12:00 hours, travel to San Jorge and Rivas municipalities, watershed of River
Oro, about 90km south border of Lake Nicaragua. Together with Juan
Jose Romero, and Marvin Valdivia.
3
14:00 to 17:00 hours, in the Municipality of San Jorge with the Major Lic. Luis
Arlen Lopez Alvarez. (505) 453 4611 alc_sanjorge@hotmail.com about
the activity: Students for a clean Oro River. Field visit to garbage
disposal facilities constructed in San Jorge and, to garbage disposal site in
Rivas.
Tuesday, October 26th
9:00 hours, visit with Ambassador Mauricio Diaz Davila, General Director of
Organisms and International Conferences, Ministry of Foreign Relations.
Managua, Nicaragua. T. (505) 244 8051,
Mauricio.diaz@cancilleria.gob.ni and with Rosaura Garcia Nuñez, Officer
Multilateral Cooperation, T. (505) 244 8032;
rosaura.garcia@cancilleria.gob.ni
11:00 hours, in MARENA, visit with Erwing de Castilla, Major of Juigalpa and
president of the Association of Municipalities of the San Juan watershed.
T. (505) 812 2788; T/F 812 2254. aljuich@ameri-cable.com.ni
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
4
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
ANNEX III
WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
PRODOC: The major
PRODOC: The SAP will
PRODOC: Its execution The SAP is in the
components of the SAP
create a framework for
is expected to bring both process of revision and
formulation include: i)
future action and a
local and global benefits, its final version is
the strengthening of a
timetable of activities for
such as conservation of
expected for the first
basin-wide information
the protection and use of
the water cycle, the
quarter of 2005.
system that provides the the numerous goods and
preservation of major
mechanisms for
services offered by the
water bodies and of the
gathering and
water resources and
region's biodiversity,
dissemination of data
ecosystems of the SJRB.
and the protection of
adequate to the needs of It will thus promote the
extensive carbon sinks.
decision-making for the
sustainable development
integrated management
of the region.
of the basin; ii) the
creation of a well-
coordinated bilateral
planning process for the
SJRB; iii) the
implementation of a
public participation
process; iv) the
strengthening of public
institutions and private
organizations; and v) the
formulation and
4
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
5
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
implementation of
environmental education
activities.
Project Objective (Ref.
The ultimate objective of
While this evaluation
The objective is wide.
Limit the overall objective of
1): Formulation of a
the SAP is to ensure the
took place, the project
Integrated management the project to Integrated
Strategic Action
availability of the goods
staff were working on
of water resources is
Management of the Water
Program for the
and services provided by
the final version of the
contained in
Resources as a key to the
Integrated Management
water resources for
SAP which should be
sustainable
sustainable development of
of Water Resources and
conserving natural
ready by the first quarter development. There is the SJRB. Selected specific
the Sustainable
ecosystems and social and of 2005.
a 1997 Diagnostic
objectives could be supported
Development of the San economic development in
Study of the San Juan
by GEF.
Juan River Basin and its order to satisfy present
Watershed and
Coastal Zone.
and future demands as
Guidelines for an
agreed by all parties
Action Plan, Ref 3; see
involved.
Tables 6.1 and 6.2
pp.238-251.
Component1:
There is a draft-SAP
The draft-SAP
The project could concentrate
Formulation
published in September
presented is very
on water resources: means to
of the SAP
of 2004 (Ref. 20). The
comprehensive and
administer them for best use
As stated in the Project
document has 283 pages. may be ambitious for a and to provide and manage
Document, Components
See also Ref. 17.
GEF project but good
the investments required to
2 through 7 will provide
as guidelines for
control them, in terms of
the knowledge base
actions to be taken in
infrastructure, land
upon which the SAP
both countries
management, technical
will be formulated.
including GEF support. assistance, and other
activities.
Component 2:
This is a fundamental
The results show that a
In PRODOC: An
Pursue what is stated in
5
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
6
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
SJRB information
component to be able to
good coordination has
outcome should have
PRODOC: Cost-effective and
system
pursue other objectives,
been accomplished
been a quantitative
sustainable methods for
IN PRODOC (Ref. 1,
specially considering that within institutions in and evaluation of the
capturing, storing, analyzing
item 26): Enhance the
this program has to deal
between countries.
region's vulnerability
and disseminating data from
capabilities of existing
with the sustainable use
Activities related to
to erosion,
these various activities within
infrastructure in the
of natural resources where quality and biology of
sedimentation and its
the framework of an
decision-making process water is the cause and
water bodies, lake and
effects on the dynamics environmental information
at all levels of
solution of over 70% of
San Juan river were
of the river system and system(s). This will include
government, and
the problems.
successful. There is also the coastal zone and
hydrology, soils, land use,
encourage technical
progress shown in
linkage to natural
erosion and sedimentation of
cooperation at the
furthering knowledge
disasters, and on water
the basin and existing
national level, by
about natural resources,
quality so that
components such as GIS,
contributing and
especially in the
appropriate measures
plus other functionalities
disseminating
Nicaraguan side.
for point and non-point within a systems and
information among
Creating and or
source mitigation can
communications architecture
stakeholders, while, in
strengthening a
be identified in the
that will be sustainable
the first instance,
coordinated organization SAP.
beyond this project. The
specifically facilitate
for providing continuous
design of the information
data acquisition and
information for the
system should include
sharing through an
whole watershed is
mechanisms for
improved system.
needed.
institutionalization after the
SAP is completed.
2.a Hydro-
Very relevant. For
In written report (Ref 7). Little information on
There is plenty of water in
meteorological and
example, knowledge of
Two stations were
climate trends and the
the whole watershed. Yet,
Water Quality
how much water is
reestablished. Loma de
interactions with
continuous time series of
Monitoring.
delivered to Cocibolca
Gallo at the outlet of the temperature, Relative
complete water balances is
In Annex VIII of
from the different sources lake, and El Castillo
Humidity and water
necessary for the purposes of
PRODOC, (Ref 2, item
and how much is lost by
8km down the river.
demands. Although
further understanding and
7a): To create a reliable
evaporation would lead to Sediment sampling
INETER did make the
considering proposals about
body of data on water
knowledge of how much
showed 190 to 700
required studies to
future uses and development
6
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
7
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
quality, flow volumes
is it attributable to Costa
metric tons-day in Loma define water balances
of the system see
and rainfall patterns in
Rica and Nicaragua
de Gallo, and 425 to
for the watershed of the "relevance". There is the
the SJRB. Includes the
contributing watersheds.
1700 in El Castillo.
lake (see Ref. 7), there
knowledge in both countries
lake, river SJ and
Also, how much of this
Sampling was not
is not enough
to produce this type of
tributaries. Institutions,
water flows out and is
sufficient for yearly
information to make
information and continuously
training and monitoring. available for different
estimates of sediment
continuous estimates of monitor hydrometeorology
For the formulation of
uses. If an amount of
loads. Hydrologic
hydrologic balances.
and water quality about the
the SAP it is necessary
400m3-sec flows out of
balances of 1970, 1980
In previous report of
lake and the surrounding
to define basic patterns
the lake, in theory about
and 1990 were used.
1997, published by the
watersheds. It seems that the
of water discharge,
400,000ha of land could
Flow at same stations
OAS Ref. 3, there is
need of doing this in a
sediment transport and
be incorporated to total
varied from 200 to 700
more information about permanent basis should be
water quality at key
irrigation, or more, if
m3-sec. In written
these variables.
emphasized so the
points in Lake
irrigation is partial. This
report, (Ref 6):
Although it is data
organization (s) to do this
Nicaragua and the San
would not affect the river Information on water
about 10 years old or
could be strengthened.
Juan River and at other
too much, since more
quality is there, but no
more, water balances
set points on tributaries
water inflow comes from
system to get data and to could be estimated and
of the San Juan.
tributaries below, mostly
monitor. Most
some conclusions could
from Costa Rican
contaminators are
be derived. Yet,
watersheds. For this
industries and large
information is average.
information to be valuable agricultural enterprises:
Time series are needed.
it would have to be
banana, sugar, coffee,
Erosion and
continuous in time to
milk and citric fruits.
sedimentation also
show lows and highs.
Only 32% of population needs to be localized
has solid waste
and measured on a
treatment. Erosion is
consistent and
reported in previous
continuous basis so
studies. Lake is
good management of
contaminated with
urban, agricultural and
municipal sewage at
forest lands get the
unacceptable levels
proper interventions.
7
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
8
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
(levels that exceed
applicable standards)
and agrochemicals from
the Costa Rican side.
2.b Hydrographic survey Same as two previous
Is available in the
The lake is 8,260 km2
The SAP should include
of Lake Nicaragua and
activities. In this case, it
published report (Item
in surface area. There
studies about where, and how
the San Juan River In
was important to know
6). The bathymetric
are no studies of
much sediment is deposited.
Annex VIII of PRODOC the nature and relative
study around the shore
contributing watersheds Also, the sediment sources
(Ref 2, item 7b):
quantities of the
of lake Nicaragua was
and rivers. No studies
and degree of risk or
Bathymetric survey of
sediments coming from
made. Sediment is
are reported of San
susceptibility to erosion
Lake Nicaragua and the
the different sources. In
deeper close to the outlet Juan River.
should be identified in order
San Juan River and the
this way, the largest
-about 3m. An
to design and implement
setting up of four
sediment contributing
evaluation of sediment
practices for effective
limnological stations on watersheds would be
deposits at the outlet of
interventions.
the former and five on
identifiable and it would
Frio river was also made
the latter. Twenty-one
help to justify priority
although not included in
hydrographic charts will assignments to future
the plan. No reports
be produced and depths
actions.
found about the
readings will be taken in
installation of
both the lake and the
limnological stations or
river.
the production of
hydrographic charts.
2.c Determination of the This and the next two
In printed report (Ref 6). This investigation was
A more institutionalized
plume of sedimentation
activities are similar in
A qualitative report of
limited due to turbidity presence is needed in these
in the coastal area. CR-
that they also describe the people, activities of
of the water. Some
areas to cooperate and train
NI.
conditions of the San Juan fishermen and
equipment was useless
small fishermen, do research
In Annex VIII of
River, its fauna and the
communities in Barra
due to this problem. It
and design and enact
PRODOC (Ref 2, item
associated communities
del Colorado, CR, and
was mentioned that
regulations to protect the
7c): To establish the
that live there. This study Rio San Juan, NI was
there are ships that
environment.
extent and rate of
was specifically dedicated presented. It was
capture lobsters and
8
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
9
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
sedimentation from the
to the sub-task of the
appreciated that
fish with larger
San Juan Basin in the
sediment plume. It is
sediment was not the
capacity gear. No
coastal receiving area
justified because the
reason affecting reduced investigations of this
and to describe the
plume affects the normal
capture as it was over-
are reported.
behavior of coastal
transit of people and
fishing.
currents.
fauna.
2.d Information for the
These three (c,d,e)
In printed report (Ref 6). Gained better scientific The proposal is a plan of
sustainable management activities are
Performed in
knowledge for the
research to improve fishing
of critical aquatic
complementary and
cooperation UCA-NI.
management of
methods and to protect the
habitats.
successful in terms of bi-
Planned for two years, it threatened or
biodiversity of Tortuguero
In Annex VIII of
national cooperation
had to be completed in
overexploited species,
and Indio-Maiz reserves.
PRODOC (Ref 2, item
among scientific and
one year due to delayed
including Atractosteus
7d): This project will
other institutions. They
disbursement of funds. It tropicus, Joturus
use research and theses
help in dealing with the
worked: coordinated one pichardi, Centropomus
of university students
transboundary issues of
report, one method, and
Parallelus, Tarpon
who will study the
the countries. This
sample sites identified
Atlanticus and
structure, function, and
activity is justified
together. Trained
Carcharinus leucas.
distribution of critical
because it promotes
personnel in both
aquatic habitats and the
cooperation and research
stationary net and trawl
ways to best manage
among educational and
fishing. Found that
them and their
scientific institutions of
smaller fish in the
populations.
both countries.
estuary contribute to
yield of larger ones in
NI. Sedimentation in
lower reaches reduces
section of river
preventing fish
migration. Money was
sufficient.
9
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
10
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
2.e Study of the coastal
These three (c,d,e)
In printed report (Ref 6), In NI, they worked
An important reason for
and marine resources of
activities are
Delayed disbursement of only in the area of
institutionalizing the
the Tortuguero
complementary and
funds, required the study Refugio del Rio San
protection of these areas.
Conservation Area and
successful in terms of bi-
to be completed in 8
Juan Community of
Wildlife and biodiversity of
the Indio-Maíz Reserve. national cooperation of
rather than 18 months as San Juan del Norte
marshes and sea.
Bilateral study to be
institution of scientific
planned. A description
where 989 inhabitants
executed by the
nature. They help address of flora and fauna and
add to the pollution of
Tortuguero
the transboundary issues
main threats was made. river. There is concern
Conservation Area of
of the countries.
Results are valuable to
about not being able to
SINAC/MINAE of
improve fishing and
continue this activity
Costa Rica and
means for community.
that, so far, has been an
MARENA of Nicaragua.
Executors conceded that example of successful
In Annex VIII of
nothing will succeed
cooperation.
PRODOC, (Ref 2, item
without integrated
2e): To gauge current
management.
conditions and monitor
coastal marine species
that are being
commercially exploited
and species being over
exploited: Lobsters and
Robalo, of most
interest.
2.f Zoning to reduce
It was considered that
vulnerability to natural
there is sufficient
hazards.
information on this
subject prepared by
other countries.
2.g A study of
One of main reasons for
In printed report (Ref. 6) Based on existent data
10
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
11
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
transborder migration
the interest of both
Data on internal changes and interviews of
and new settlements.
countries in this project.
in land use and external
selected personnel.
CR-NI,
migration. Land
In Annex VIII of
concentration for animal
PRODOC (Ref 2, Item 7
production and
g): Determine the
migration to cities and
causes, forms, and
services about 5% of
extent of current
landholders have 40% of
migration between Costa
the land.
Rica and Nicaragua and
toward new settlement
outposts and how this
influences the use of
natural resources in the
SJRB.
2.h Information System. This is part of the system
Recompilation of
There is one person
This is a fundamental
In Annex VIII of
of information which
documentation about the dedicated to this
activity. The objective of this
PRODOC (Ref 2, Item
includes other aspects
area of the project.
activity in the
activity would not be
7h): Strengthen the
already mentioned and
Established a WEB
Technical Unit of Costa accomplished unless the
existing information
organized to be
page: www.procuenca-
Rica and one in
other activities attain a degree
system to: a) provide
sustainable.
sanjuan.org
Nicaragua. They are
of sustainability. This
comprehensive
making progress.
activity could lead the
information for the
Goals are yet to be
coordination among different
basin, that is, go from an
developed for next
institutions so an integrated
Information System
phase of the project.
basin wide sustainable
based on discrete data to
information system is
a basin-wide
obtained.
information system; and
b) develop the
mechanisms for
11
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
12
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
information sharing and
exchange to support
decision-making at all
levels: local, national
and bi-national.
Component 3. Strategic One of the most important Ref.9 Most activities
Just concentrated in
Should include strategic
actions with stakeholder components.
were performed as
poor sectors which
actions with representatives
involvement.
Contributions from the
planned with some
mismanage soils and
of all and major productive
IN PRODOC (Ref 1,
private sector and all
exceptions which are
forest and have no
sectors. Important to find out
Item 29): Economic
sectors are needed for
indicated in final reports. economic conditions
the real financial capabilities
mechanisms
sustainable development
for sustainability. From of the area. After that, design
contributing to the
of these territories. Ref 4,
consultant (Ref 9): it is the mechanisms for
sustainable management p.31: 95% of properties
essential to dialogue
sustainable (financially)
of natural resources and
have 6.5% of land; about
with the private sector
development of the area by
to meeting the demands
5% of landowners have
of the region (there are which all residents contribute
of the inhabitants for
40% of the land (Ref.6).
large agricultural
equitably. Pilot activities to
improved living
plantations) which are
be developed should have
conditions. Also,
also responsible for soil demonstrative effects for all
solutions for the
and environmental
stake holders.
conflicts that can arise
deterioration and the
over plans and decisions
contamination of water
affecting resource use
sources. We have not
will be specifically
seen any structured
identified and
information of land
developed. The
use, tenure, and
coordination and
investment by sectors
supervision will be
to identify stakeholders
ensured by the Technical
other than the poor.
Units at MINAE and
12
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
13
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
MARENA.
3.a Conflict
Not executed, by
management for the La
decision of Steering
Virgen hydroelectric
Committee Meeting
project
No. 3, (Ref 26, June,
2002).
3.b Fund for the
It is relevant to the
Ref.9 and 13. Started
(Ref 9) Consultant who The comparative
development of agro-
component objective,
07.2001- finished
wrote the analyses
dimensioning of private
forestry activities in
although it is dedicated to 12.2003. 96% of
says: Lack of
sector and their possibilities
Cárdenas Municipality
the small producers. To
resources were executed. experience ofexecuting in participating in the
In Annex VIII of
be successful, productive
Few credit requests from agency. A better
sustainable development of
PRODOC (Ref.2, Item
activities must be
poor farmers because of
understanding of the
the area should be
8b): Create and test
sustainable. Each group
concerns about their
purpose of this
investigated. This does not
community financing of of land users should
ability to repay.
component was needed. exclude the participation of
agro-forestry activities.
contribute its
Established 56 mzs
This subcomponent
the public sector.
A revolving fund will be corresponding share.
systems "taungya9" with was amended by
formed for small-scale
participation of 35
decision of Steering
producers who want to
producers: banana-fruit
Committee Meeting
raise indigenous
trees-forest in five
No. 3, (Ref 26, June,
commercial species of
communities.
2002).
trees in deforested areas.
- Banana-fruit trees with
An economically viable
live barriers.
strategy for the
- Banana-fruit trees with
sustainable use of local
wind breaks.
natural resources will be
-Crops in corridors.
formulated, with the
- Fruit trees associated
9 The taungya involves the planting of cash or food crops between newly planted forest seedlings in a reforestation project. Farmers raise crops while the forest
trees are still young. After 2-3 years, depending on the tree spacing and tree species, the canopy closes, and light-demanding annual crops can no longer be
planted. The culminating vegetation is a pure tree plantation. Farmers then transfer to other open areas to repeat the process. This can be applied by using
different reforestation species.
13
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
14
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
purpose of halting the
with corn. Training and
migration of small
technical assistance
farmers toward as yet
activities.
uncultivated lands or
into Costa Rica.
3.c Sustainable use and
Ref. 9 It is a watershed of Ref.9 Started 14.3.2002-
Ref 9: Support small
The private sector must
rehabilitation of the Río
bi national and strategic
Finished 11.2003. 100% producers associations. perceive the benefits of
Frío sub-basin. Executed importance as it delivers
of resources executed.
Bad relationship
private sector financing for
by Asociación de
its water right in the
Reforestation of river
between executor and
better management of the
Productores Unidos para nascence of river San
banks, success in
PROCUECA Technical environment. The purpose of
el Desarrollo
Juan (Lake Nicaragua). It community education
Unit. Area of the
reducing deforestation and
(PRODEUSA) .
has a serious problem of
and participation.
Project is very large.
mismanagement of the land
(a)
In Annex VIII of deforestation, erosion and Reduction of sediments
Payment of
in medium and upper sectors
PRODOC (Ref.2, Item
sediment transport in the
in streams, less
environmental services of the watersheds, to reduce
8c): Support the actions
mid sector and upper
contamination by solid
is not mentioned.
erosion and sediment loads,
to conserve and
lands affecting
waste, public
should be emphasized. This
rehabilitate the basin of
ecosystems of the lower
participation including
task, however, requires a
the Rio Frio; help reduce reaches. Besides the
groups of children,
strategy of education tied to
poverty. Plans for the
population and
adolescents, teachers,
financing and technical
management of second-
institutions in general lack and actors of private
assistance.
growth forest and the
environmental education
sector
creation of model farms
and an integral vision of
will be drawn up. Also,
the problems causing
ways to make these
deterioration of quality of
efforts financially
life of inhabitants,
sustainable, such as
accelerated loss of scenic
through the payment for beauty and deterioration
environmental services
of water quality for
will be identified and
human and animal
three nurseries for native consumption.
14
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
15
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
species will be created.
Indigenous groups and
women will take part in
this project.
Small farms Integrated
Most tourism is for the
Ref.9 Started 11.3.2002- Association could
This is the kind of activity
Management.
benefit of agencies
Finished 15.11.2003
enlarge to 5,000
which could be extended for
APRODEGUA
outside the area. There
100% of resources
farmers. Vision is
small and subsistence
(Asociación de
are also ecotourism
executed. Productive
subsistence looking
landholdings, but it has to be
Productores del Cantón
opportunities for small
appropriate activities of
forward for tourism.
accompanied by technical
Guatuso).
farmers and peasants.
little sample small
Unclear about technical and financial assistance.
Cantón Guatuso.
farmers. Fish ponds,
assistance with
Creation of model
biogas, crops, and fruits. Ministry of
farms, same objectives
In general it is
Agriculture.
as above.
considered a success.
3.d Restoration and
Ref. 9. It benefits
Ref.9. Started 8.03.2002- Met in Pueblo Viejo,
Have to check whether
management of the
landowners of the river
Finished 15.11.2003.
Centro Agrícola
dynamic translation of banks
banks of the Sarapiquí
banks which have
95% of resources were
Cantonal. It showed
is due to sediment from
and Sucio rivers.
problems: deforestation,
spent; success of
that the activities had
above. If so, bank
In Annex VIII of
loss of environmental
coordination with many
little relation with
stabilization will cause de-
PRODOC (Ref 2, Item
value associated to forest
organizations; project
upper area producing
stabilization somewhere else.
8d): Appropriate
(scenic beauty), soil
located in lower reaches sediments. S Juan river It would be better if
economic mechanisms
deterioration, erosion and of low energy river;
floods and water back
programmed as part of a
and incentives will be
sedimentation, and
vision that a plan of
up has had serious
comprehensive watershed
designed for the
flooding. The protection
integrated management
consequences in
plan.
payment of an
of river margins was
of the watershed is
flooding and
environmental services
considered justified.
needed. The project was transportation by boats.
fee by landowners
excluded of the area
Watershed is 1,923
benefiting from the
where government
km2, mostly cattle for
project.
would pay
meat and milk, pasture,
15
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
16
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
environmental
services.
and wood extraction. It
This was recognized as a is highest water
mistake of design. This
producing watershed.
among others, originated
little motivation of
landowners towards the
project.
Component 4: Public
Probably the most
We have not seen any
IN PRODOC Ref 1,
The best projects are those
Participation
important component
structured information of Item 31: Success is
which articulate soil, forestry
PRODOC (Ref 1, Item
together with component
land use, tenure, and
dependent on
and biodiversity conservation
31): This component
3. Success is dependent
investment by sectors to identifying and
with productive and better
will foster and support
on identifying and
identify stakeholders
motivating stakeholders possibilities of income for the
the participation of all
motivating stakeholders
other than the poor.
and giving them an
populations.
stakeholders, including
and giving them an
Important to find out the opportunity to
Community management of
the general public, in the opportunity to participate, real financial capabilities participate, including,
forest, linked to small
development and
including, where
of the area.
where necessary,
farmers associations, leading
implementation of the
necessary, financial
financial contributions. rural tourism, should also be
activities carried out
contributions.
Ref.9 Design does not
considered for SAP.
under the SJRB project,
Activities 4.a to 4.d are
show consideration of
and complements the
most relevant if
physical variables of
activities proposed
considered to increase
the territories object of
under Component 3
public awareness of its
the activities to be
responsibility towards
performed.
water and watershed
management.
4.a Conservation of Las
The idea was to generate
Ref 9 and 16. Started
Ref 9. Excessive
Second phase of this project
16
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
17
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
Camelias Wildlife
experience about sharing
23.03.2002- Finished
weight of MINAE.
should enlarge the
Refuge. Coordination of the management of this
15.11.2003 The
"Cultura de hacienda"
participation base with other
Upala Canton /
Refuge with the
research and education
in members of
actors, and also provide
MINAE, Upala, and the
participation of key
components were best
Association (passive
greater coverage. Upala is
Asociación para la
stakeholders at the local
with universities. Better attitude of individuals). one of the poorest areas.
Gestión Sostenible de la level (MINAE;
knowledge of swamp
The objectives of this
Laguna de Las Camelias municipality, and
areas. Limited
activity were not
(AGESOLCA).
community). Most
participation component. accomplished
In Annex VIII of
relevant if considered to
Progress was
completely. The
PRODOC (Ref 2, Item
increase public awareness accomplished in aspects organization of the
9a): Study a co-
of its responsibility
like a place for the
community was weak
management scheme
towards water and
nursing of
and also the limited
between MINAE/
watershed management.
"tepezcuintles10" of 30
municipal participation
Arenal-Huetar Norte
units, a study of fish,
failed to produce the
Conservation Area and
biophysical diagnosis,
expected joint
the community of Las
delimitation of a pond -
management of the
Camelias Wetlands
1600has, counting of
refuge. The excessive
Wildlife Refuge. An
forestry species, working weight of MINAE with
effort will be made to
committee rules, and
its own limitations also
reclaim the basins of the
activities like: solid
counteracted
Gaucaliti and Pizotillo
waste, sewage
possibilities of success.
rivers by formulating a
management, organic
plan to reduce
crops, fire fighting.
sedimentation and
multiply the economic
opportunities and
technical skills of the
local people in the
10 See description in Spanish: http://www.iucn.org/places/orma/publica_gnl/Tras%20la%20huella%20y%20el%20trillo%20del%20tepezcuintle.pdf
17
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
18
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
productive management
of natural resources.
4.b Community
Most relevant if
Ref. 9. Started
Ref. 9. "Cultura de
Ref. 9 Recommended the
organization and
considered to increase
21.01.2003- Finished
hacienda". Weak
expansion to other areas in
education for the control public awareness of its
11.2003; 69% of
alliances with Health
Costa Rica and also to
of fires. Executed in
responsibility towards
resources were spent,
and Education
Nicaragua.
Cantón La Cruz with the water and watershed
Changed direction of
Ministries. MINAE-
cooperation of the
management.
ACG and went on.
MARENA only
Guanacaste
Validated participatory
worked in the end.
Conservation Area
method to prevent and
(ACG) and MINAE.
control fire. The area
In Annex VIII of
suffered fewer fires than
PRODOC (Ref 2, Item
the year before. In
8b): Foster community
coordinated manner
participation and test
activities of
new methods to prevent
environmental
and control forest fires
education, community
in Costa Rica and then
awareness, propagation
share this experience
and communication were
with Nicaragua.
performed.
4.c Reclamation of the
Most relevant if
Ref. 9. Started 08.2001-
Ref. 9 and 14. San
Ref. 9 Projects on the control
Tepenaguasapa River
considered to increase
Finished 12.2003; 98%
Miguelito marshes are
of forest harvesting for
sub-basin.
public awareness of its
of resources executed;
RAMSAR locations.
sustainability are a must for
In Annex VIII of
responsibility towards
generated the tools and
In Nicaragua, the
the future.
PRODOC (Ref 2, Item
water and watershed
methodological
projects with forest
9c): Facilitate and test
management.
instruments for
component were more
different schemes for
participatory watershed
successful as they were
community organization
management;
more comprehensive
18
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
19
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
and management in the
institutional
since they included
area of sub-basin
arrangements were a
fruit trees.
rehabilitation. It will
success; gender
establish a monitoring
considerations were
program, foster
good. 45% women out
alternative land uses and
of 465 participants;
training, and design a
monitoring of water
reclamation plan.
quality by students was
difficult due to
accessibility but
excellent as an
educational and
awareness tool.
4.d Ara ambigua11 and
Ref. 9 and 11. Involves
Ref. 9. Started in Costa
Ref. 11 Lack of
Ref. 9 and 11 It is important
Dipterix panamensis
active participation of
Rica 6.03.2002
enthusiasm about this
that Procuenca San Juan
habitat recovery.
rural organizations, a
Finalized 11.2003. Ref. activity in general,
considers the need to invest
Fundación del Rio en NI requirement to value the
11. Nicaragua. Started
Budget too low in NI.
in research on flora and fauna
y ASCOMAFOR
success of the Project.
01 / 08 / 2002 - Finished
(spent US$4,128)
in the biological corridors of
(Asociación de
The activity is justified as 31/01/03 75% of
Coordination with
the Municipality El Castillo,
Comanejo Forestal) in
promotion of cultural
resources executed;
ASCOMAFOR did not Rio San Juan, to learn about
CR.
ecotourism, an alternative Research, forest
work. Ref. 9
the population dynamics of
In Annex VIII of
activity to obtain financial protection and
Coordination between
endangered species. Reclaim
PRODOC (Ref. 2, Item
benefits for the families.
reforestation, income
Nicaragua and Costa
more permanent presence of
11 The great green macaw (Ara ambigua) has a limited distribution in the Atlantic wet lowlands of Central America, from Honduras south to northern Colombia,
with a small isolated population in Guayaquil, Ecuador. In Costa Rica, this species is currently limited to the Northern Zone, more specifically in the area
between the San Carlos, San Juan, and Sarapiquí rivers extending to the northern foothills of the Central Volcanoes Range. It highly depends on the Almendro
tree (Dipteryx panamensis) both for feeding and nesting substrate. This endangered species, which is listed in Appendix I of CITES, is in serious danger of
disappearing from Costa Rica in the near future.
Ref. http://www.lasuerte.org/conservation.htm
19
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
20
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
9d): Reclaim and save
generation and
Rica was difficult.
technical unit assistance.
the gallery forest habitat
environmental
ASCOMAFOR has
(notice that the origin of
that is home to the green
education. Execution
good management
problems are deforestation in
macaw (Ara ambigua), a
with community partners capacity but weak
most areas).
highly endangered
was positive. Rural
adminsitrative capacity.
species that nests in the
tourism was a success.
almond trees (Dipterix
panamensis).
Component 5: Local,
Through interviews and
Just as an example, in
national and bi-
references 21 to 29, it
the III meeting of the
national level
can be concluded that
Steering Committee
institutional
the relevant authorities
(Ref. 22) the following
arrangements
of both countries have
agreement was reached,
IN PRODOC (Ref 1,
been very active in
in short: .. "to insure
Item 33): Remedy
finding ways to better
the adequate
shortcomings in
coordinate and subscribe integration of
institutions working at
to binational agreements. PROCUENCA-SAN
the local and national
JUAN to the policies of
levels, and to encourage
relations of both
enhancement of bi-
countries, and to
national coordination
advance in a sustained
between institutions
manner towards the
within the SJRB as well
formulation of a
as to ensure that the
proposal for the
prescribed actions of the
binational management
SAP are incorporated
of the San Juan River
into national policies.
Basin."
Component 6: Capacity The formation of basin
Ref. 9. No basin
In general, the
A special strategy is required
building and
councils is an excellent
councils were reported.
competences of
to foster the formation of
institutional
idea towards integrated
municipalities are
basin councils. The
20
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
21
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
strengthening
management of water
limited and, in many
competences of basin
IN PRODOC (Ref 1,
resources. IN PRODOC:
instances, can be
councils should be specific
Item 35) : This
The Federation of Local
considered as urban
and not in conflict with those
component will foster
Border Governments will
users of water. It
of municipalities. Municipal
the formation of basin
be strengthened through
seems that, for this
authorities can support basin
councils in critical sub-
specific activities with
component, a clear
councils, but, basin councils
basins and encourage the clearly defined goals in
conceptual framework
per se could have
participation of such
order to promote the
on what is intended is
competences and authority
councils within the
strengthening and further
needed.
over specific powers related
municipal sustainable
development of
to integrated water
development councils
coordination mechanisms
management. Residents
existing within the
at the local level.
within their boundaries can
SJRB.
be members of municipalities
and basin councils
indistinctively.
6.a Support for local
To have municipal
Started 9.2003- Finished Ref. 9 All cantons of
Clear proposals of what to
environmental
authorities working
11.2003 Only
Costa Rican side
expect and how to conform
management, CR and NI together could be good.
US$49,000 executed out formed a Federation of basin councils should be
AMURS (Asociación de In the case of Nicaragua,
of US$75,000 planned.
Local Governments.
made. Like in other countries
Municipalidades del Río by protecting the lake all
Counterpart money not
New experience.
there is conceptual conflict
San Juan)
can be benefited. In the
accounted. Three months Delayed in part due to
about local government like
In Annex VIII of
case of CR, those that
of execution. Should
administrative
municipalities and basin
PRODOC (Ref. 2: Item
belong to the same
have started 4.2002.
regulations.
organizations. Costa Rican
11a) Develop and test a
watershed would be
Limited results.
side has large watersheds
system that brings
benefited
Municipalities started
compared to those of
municipal authorities
working together.
Nicaragua. The approach in
and representatives of
Environment emphasis is
each could be different;
civil society together.
new and positive. Need
however, basin councils
strengthening.
should be organized to solve,
administratively and
21
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
22
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
financially, defined problems
like those of water resources
with a legal framework that
habilitates them.
6.b Reclamation of the
The idea of this project is Ref. 9 and 10. Started
Interview was general
Considering that Nicaragua
Oyate River Sub basin, NI to involve and strengthen 28 08 2001-Finished Jan Interested in the use of
has smaller watersheds
AMURS Technical Team the Municipal
31, 2004. 99% of
the lake for future
contributing to the basin, it
08.2001-12.2003
government. It was to be resources executed;
water needs. Ref. 9 and might be good to include for
In Annex VIII of
considered a strategic
Validated method of
10. El Morrito were
the analyses several small
PRODOC (Ref. 2, Item
partner to develop
working together.
not a satisfactory
watersheds to conform an
11b): Establish a basin
decentralized and
Participation is
institutional
economical area. If
committee in the Oyate
participative management aggressive and involved. arrangement. Fund
municipalities have same
River sub-basin in order oriented towards the
The experience
delays. The objective
boundaries as the watershed,
to foster reclamation
protection of the
performed in this
of the activity was
this is much better, but, in
actions.
environment.
activity of natural
partially satisfied but
general, powers for water
regeneration increased
little contribution to the management could be more
biodiversity. Activities, objective of the
specific with competences
like planting of tress,
component due to
not in conflict with those of
training, conservation
inadequate planning.
municipalities.
and fire protection, etc.
were made as planned
with normal difficulties.
Component 7:
Educational
The design of this
IN PRODOC: Best
Environmental education is
Education and training
component was general
sustainable production
viable tied to technical
in conservation and the
without previously
practices will be
assistance required for the
sustainable use of
defining specific
identified. The
execution of supported
natural resources
measures to be
information will be
productive and protection
IN PRODOC (Ref. 1,
implemented for the
disseminated in both
plans for activities and
Item 37): This
whole basin.
countries and
landholdings of individuals.
component has been
knowledge will be
It would be better if this
22
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
23
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
designed to provide the
furthered through
technical assistance were
building blocks of an
training for various
structured together with
education and training
kinds of local
research and programs which
program that will make
organizations working
provide funds to implement
the inhabitants of the
in the fields of
policies to promote
SJRB more aware of the
development and
conservation of natural
important role that water
environmental
resources.
resources play in
conservation.
society, in the economy,
and in nature.
7.a Environmental
Educational
Ref. 9 and 12. Started
Ref. 9. Positive and
Environmental education is
education in the
9.2001-Finished 12.2003 replicable.
viable when tied to the
municipality of San
98% of resources
Disbursement
technical assistance required
Carlos (MARENA
executed; activities
procedures were not
for the execution of
delegation in San
concentrated in the
efficient. Some of the
supported productive and
Carlos, NI)
improvement of the
structures were not
protection plans.
In Annex VIII of
recollection and
built because of delay
PRODOC (Ref. 2, Item
treatment of solid waste. in second
12a): Learning by doing,
Education at all levels
disbursement.
children, women, and
and actual doing it.
youth, deforestation,
Good coordination. The
pollution, inappropriate
preparation of organic
use of agrochemicals,
compost and the
sustainable development
cultivation of worm as
of biodiversity, the true
by products were a
value of water, and lost
success. Awareness of
economic opportunities.
the community about the
benefits of management
of organic and inorganic
23
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
24
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
waste.
7.b Environmental
Educational
Ref. 9 18.10.2001-
Ref.9 Feeling that these Environmental education is
education in San Carlos
11.2003. 48% executed; were dispersed
viable when tied to the
Canton, CR., Co-
all educational and
activities.
technical assistance required
Executed by the Area de
practical activities for
Disbursement delays.
for the execution of
Conservación Huetar
soil conservation and
Execution entities not
supported productive and
Norte (ACAHN), and
environment protection
well coordinated.
protection plans.
the Municipality of San
in cities.
MINAE was not
Carlos
prepared. Poor level of
In Annex VIII of
cooperation of Ministry
PRODOC (Ref. 2, Item
of Education for
12b): Complementary to
training of children.
(a) Its purpose is to
Recommended to work
create educational
with higher income
programs showing the
sectors.
unique nature and
importance of the basin
and its ecosystems and
natural resources.
7.c Students for a clean
Educational
Ref. 9 and 15. Started
Ref. 15. At the
Support this type of activity
Oro River, NI.
010704-Finished
beginning there were
promoting grassroots
In Annex VIII of
30/08/04 Observed
members of the
education and awareness of
PRODOC (Ref. 2, Item
improvement in the
municipal board
environmental impacts of
12c): Involving
collection of solid waste against it. This reports mismanagement of solid
secondary-school
by giving work to
just two months of
waste and other contaminants
students in community-
carters. Waste
work. Same type of
of water sources. Look for
based efforts to clean up
deposited and delivered
activities as (a). It is
multipurpose benefits, like in
the river.
to a collection centre.
considered a success, in this case, getting benefits out
24
Table I. WORK PROGRAM COMPARATIVE RESULTS
25
Component/Activity
Relevance to Project
Results
Observations
Recommendations
Objective
Objectives
Impacts
Problems
The waste was then
all aspects: educational of recycling.
separated / treated /
for the community,
composted for the
gives jobs to small
purposes of recycling to
entrepreneurs, gets to
the extent possible.
clean the environment
Successful in spite of
and promotes best
disbursement and other
practice in disposal of
delays due to external
solid waste. It is not in
reasons.
the summary report.
25
Timeliness:
3
Most activities started late but have been meeting
deadlines on time with regard to granted
extensions.
Achievement of
4
At the time of this evaluation, the SAP final
results/objectives
report is still under preparation. The deadlines
have not been met and timing has been extended
two times. Hence, there is no final product to
assess. However, considering the difficulties
that delayed the execution of the activities in this
planning stage and the fact that most of them,
although having started late, were completed or
close to completion there was even a draft SAP-
, this rating is given with the assurance that the
results will allow the preparation of a good SAP
and be useful for the execution of the project.
Attainment of outputs:
3
The basic studies were reasonably done.
Demonstration projects were marginally
satisfactory.
Completion of activities:
3
Some of the activities were finished in a very
short time as they started late, some are
unfinished.
Project executed within
2
Very Good.
budget:
Impact created by the
2
There is enthusiasm about the bi national project
project:
at the political and technical levels. There is
willingness to commit.
Sustainability:
4
Costa Rica and Nicaragua have conditions that
will enable them to continue pursuing these
objectives. The environment and tourism are
their most valuable resources they have to sell.
This is recognized in Costa Rica and Nicaragua,
especially in the political, professional and
business sectors. Although the project has added
to this endeavour, at this point it has not
motivated the institutionalization that is required
to be able to manage the watersheds in a
sustainable manner.
Stakeholder
3
The project made more emphasis on activities to
participation/Public
benefit the poor. Stakeholder participation
Involvement
should be looking at the possibilities of
economic and social sustainability of watershed
development including the integrated
management of the basin. Thus those who can
26
pay or those with potential, individual and
juridical persons, in cities and rural areas should
be included.
Monitoring & Evaluation:
3
Although, we were told that this was the first
formal evaluation of the project. I personally
was contacted to participate in the midterm
evaluation, but it was never carried out. In fact
we have received in Nicaragua and Costa Rica
complaints that, although they were requested,
there had not been any contacts before this
evaluation. Yet, we must recognize that we
found lots of useful information not only with
regard to the activities but, from summary report
documents written by consultants which evaluate
and critique the project by components.
The following rating system is applied:
1=Excellent
(90% - 100% achievement)
2=Very
Good
(75%-89%)
3=Good
(60%-74%)
4=Satisfactory
(50%-59%)
5=Unsatisfactory
(49% and below)
GEF rating system: Highly satisfactory (80%-100%), Satisfactory (65%-79%),
Marginally Satisfactory (50%-64%), Unsatisfactory (49% and below), N/A.
27
28