| Entidad De Financiamiento | Compromisos |
|---|---|
| IDA Credit | 3.00 |
| Borrower/Recipient | 0.81 |
Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project
Resumen*
The project aims to build the capacity Government agencies and natural resource users in Guinea-Bissau to collaboratively manage coastal environments and biodiversity for both conservation and sustainable development ends. Towards this objective, the project comprises three inter-related components plus one component for project management. There are four project components. Component 1 will both strengthen the institutional framework and management... Ver Más
Objetivo de desarrollo
The capacity of Government agencies and natural resource users in Guinea-Bissau is strengthened to collaboratively manage coastal environments and biodiversity for both conservation and sustainable development ends
Llave Detalles
Proyecto Detalles
P083453
Closed
Liba C. Strengerowski-Feldblyum
N/A
21 de octubre de 2002
(a partir de la presentación ante el Directorio)
9 de noviembre de 2004
14 de marzo de 2005
US$ 3.81 millones
N/A
2005
US$ 3.00 millones
B
N/A
31 de marzo de 2011
BANK APPROVED
15 de enero de 2013
Finanzas
Financiamiento (millones de US$)
Financiamiento total del proyecto (millones de US$)
| Línea de productos | BIRF/AIF |
|---|---|
| Compromiso del BIRF | No Disponible |
| Compromiso de la AIF | 3.00 |
| Compromiso del BIRF + AIF | 3.00 |
| Instrumento de Financiamiento | |
|---|---|
| Monto a título de donación | No Disponible |
| Costo total del proyecto** | 3.81 |
Resumen del financiamiento del Banco Mundial (millones de US$) al 31 de marzo de 2025
No hay datos disponibles.
Actividad financiera detallada al 31 de marzo de 2025
No hay datos disponibles.
Ratings
CALIFICACIONES DE LA EJECUCIÓN
| Name | Review | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Procurement | Moderately Unsatisfactory | 2011-03-29 |
| Counterpart Funding | Satisfactory | 2011-03-29 |
| Project Management | Moderately Satisfactory | 2011-03-29 |
| Overall Safeguards Rating | Moderately Satisfactory | 2011-03-29 |
| Progress towards achievement of PDO | Moderately Satisfactory | 2011-03-29 |
| Financial Management | Moderately Satisfactory | 2011-03-29 |
| Monitoring and Evaluation | Moderately Satisfactory | 2011-03-29 |
| Overall Implementation Progress (IP) | Moderately Satisfactory | 2011-03-29 |
| Overall Safeguards Rating | Moderately Satisfactory | 2011-03-29 |
CALIFICACIONES DE LA TERMINACIÓN
| INDICADOR | INFORME DE LA TERMINACIÓN DE LA EJECUCIÓN Y DE RESULTADOS: 10-26-2011 |
|---|---|
| Resultados | Moderately Satisfactory |
| Riesgo para los resultados de desarrollo | Modest |
| Desempeño del Banco | Moderately Satisfactory |
| Desempeño del prestatario | Moderately Satisfactory |
| Desempeño del Gobierno | Moderately Satisfactory |
| Organismo Ejecutor | Highly Satisfactory |
CALIFICACIONES DE EVALUACIONES INDEPENDIENTES
| INDICADOR | REVISIÓN DEL ICR: 04-30-2013 | INFORME DE LA EVALUACIÓN DEL DESEMPEÑO DEL PROYECTO: |
|---|---|---|
| Calificación De Los Resultados | Moderately Satisfactory | N/a |
| Riesgo Para Los Resultados De Desarrollo | High | N/a |
| Desempeño Del Banco | Moderately Unsatisfactory | N/a |
| Desempeño Del Prestatario | Moderately Satisfactory | N/a |
| Desempeño Del Gobierno | Moderately Unsatisfactory | N/a |
| Organismo Ejecutor | Moderately Satisfactory | N/a |
| Calidad Del Ife | Satisfactory | N/a |
| Calidad De Sye | Modest | N/a |
Marco de resultados
INDICADORES DE OBJETIVOS DE DESARROLLO DE PROYECTOS
| INDICATOR | LÍNEA DE REFERENCIA | EN CURSO | OBJETIVO |
|---|
METT score: Management effectiveness score of the 5 protected conservation areas (KPI) Valor 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar 3,500 sq km of land and water under improved management measured through the METT see scores in the next section.This is the KPI - the METT scores are not indicators, but a tool to measure effectiveness end target was set at mid-term only in response to management demands, it was never part of the original M&E package for theproject in the PAD. Targets were overly ambitious. Sub- (micro) projects funded by FIAL satisfactorily achieved their objectives (KPI) Valor 0.00 81.30 75.00 Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar Data from internal evaluation from the project team Infringements of the applicable regulatory framework related to the Reserved Fishing Zones by fishing vessels decreased (KPI) Valor regulatory framework not established 10 % decline at community level (framework adopted No. of infringement declined by 10% Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar framework was signed on March 16, 2010 Government provides sufficient financial resources to cover the operational and maintenance costs of all fisheries surveillance activities, including surveillance stations (KPI) Valor no operational and maintenance funds the Government has started to contribute financial Full coverage of operational costs of project - fu Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar The Government in the last year provided what was necessary to operationalize the surveillance post of Caravela such as salariesfor staff based in Caravela, supplied the post with two vessels and funds for maintenance. Public or private development projects eligible for review submitted for EIA review prior to being implemented (KPI) Valor 0.00 100.00 100.00 Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar Instituion to conduct such reviews is being created at project start based on data from CAIA All eligible projects submitted for review Cacheu Valor 56.00 107.00 136.00 Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar The KPI is: 3,500 sq km of land and water under improved : the METT scores are not indicators, but a tool to measureeffectiveness. It must be noted that although the end target was not achieved, it made quantifiable progress almost at 100% (almostdoubled from the baseline). It should also be noted that when using the METT scores, progress is not Linear. end target was set at mid-term only only in response to management demands, it was never part of the original M&E package for theproject in the PAD. Targets were overly ambitious. Cantanhez Valor 40.00 56.00 70.00 Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar The KPI is: 3,500 sq km of land and water under improved : the METT scores are not indicators, but a tool to measureeffectiveness. It must be noted that although the end target was not achieved, it made quantifiable progress for a Park that wasestablished during the project's tenure end target was set at mid-term only only in response to management demands, it was never part of the original M&E package for theproject in the PAD. Targets were overly Cufada Valor 54.00 75.00 70.00 Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar although end targets were overly ambitious, Cufada managed to surpass the target value end target was set at mid-term only only in response to management demands, it was never part of the original M&E package for theproject in the PAD. Targets were overly ambitious. Joao Vieira Valor 65.00 105.00 139.00 Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar The KPI is: 3,500 sq km of land and water under improved : the METT scores are not indicators, but a tool to measureeffectiveness. It must be noted that although the end target was not achieved, it made quantifiable progress almost at 100% (almostdoubled from the baseline).It should also be noted that when using the METT scores, progress is not Linear. end target was set at mid-term only only in response to management demands, it was never part of the original M&E package for theproject in the PAD. Targets were overly ambitious. Orango Valor 63.00 114.00 139.00 Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar The KPI is: 3,500 sq km of land and water under improved : the METT scores are not indicators, but a tool to measureeffectiveness. It must be noted that although the end target was not achieved, it made quantifiable progress almost at 100% (almostdoubled from the baseline).It should also be noted that when using the METT scores, progress is not Linear. end target was set at mid-term only only in response to management demands, it was never part of the original M&E package for theproject in the PAD. Targets were overly
INDICADORES DE RESULTADOS INTERMEDIOS
| INDICATOR | LÍNEA DE REFERENCIA | EN CURSO | OBJETIVO |
|---|
75% of community development micro-projects funded by the Community Fund, FIAL, each year considered to have satisfactorialy achieved their objectives. Valor 0, as no micro-projects have been funded yet 81.3% 75% of micro-projects considered satisfactory. Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar Target overly achieved. Ecosystem health and function maintained or improved within protected areas, their buffer zones, the Biosphere Reserve and fishing reserves. Valor Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 Comentar This indicator will be monitored through the same measurements as PDO indicator 1, the PA and MPA tracking tool (see values forPDOindicator 1). Sector policies, procedures and regulations required for EIA prepared Valor Not prepared Prepared Fecha 14 de marzo de 2005 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar The Environmental Impact Assessment Law was approved by the Parliament in May 2010 and was promulgated and published in theofficial gazette in September 2010 Quality and timeliness of project implementation Valor Fecha 28 de enero de 2011 31 de marzo de 2011 Comentar Project implementation is progressing well, indicators are close to their targets and Financial reports are delivered on time -there was a delay in submitting the audit report for 2009.