Document of TheWorld Bank

Report No: ICR0000655

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-42600)

ON A

LOAN

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 66.7 MILLION

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA

FOR A

RURAL AND MAIN ROADS PROJECT

December 21, 2007

Sustainable Development Sector Management Unit Central America Country Management Unit Latin America and the Caribbean Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ii

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective November 20, 2007)

Currency Unit = Quetzal (Q) Q 1.00 = US$ 0.13 US$ 1.00 = Q 7.64

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Asociación para el Desarrollo Integral de las Municipalidades del Altiplano Marquense

ADIMAM

Consejo Nacional para Reducción de Desastres CONRED Country Assistance Strategy CAS Dirección General de Caminos DGC Encuesta de Condiciones de Vida ENCOVI Fondo Nacional para la Paz FONAPAZ Fondo Vial Regional FVR Food and Agriculture Organization FAO Implementation Completion Report ICR Implementation Status Report ISR Internal Economic Rate of Return IERR Instituto de Fomento Municipal INFOM Interamerican Development Bank IADB Internacional Bank for Reconstruction and Development IBRD Japan Bank for International Cooperation JBIC Ministerio de Comunicaciones, Infraestructura y Vivienda CIV Net Present Value NPV Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund OECF Peace Investment Program PIP Programa de Conservación Vial COVIAL Project Appraisal Document PAD Project Coordination Unit PCU Project Development Objective PDO Public Expenditure Review PER Ruta Nacional RN Social Investment Fund FIS Task-team Leader TTL Unidad Técnica de Asistencia Vial UTAV United Status Agency for International Development USAID

iii

Vice President: Pamela Cox Country Director: Laura Frigenti, Makhtar Diop (Acting)

Sector Manager: Jose Luis Irigoyen Project Team Leader: Cecilia Corvalán

ICR Team Leader: Cecilia Corvalán

iv

GUATEMALA Rural and Main Roads

CONTENTS

A. Basic Information...................................................................................................... ivB. Key Dates ................................................................................................................... vC. Ratings Summary ....................................................................................................... vD. Sector and Theme Codes .......................................................................................... viE. Bank Staff.................................................................................................................. viF. Results Framework Analysis ..................................................................................... viG. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ................................................................... ixH. Restructuring (if any)................................................................................................ ixI. Disbursement Profile .................................................................................................. x 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design............................................... 12. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 83. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 125. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ............................................................ 236. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 257. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 26 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing.......................................................................... 28Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 30Annex 3. Implementation Timetable ............................................................................ 32Annex 4. Economic and Financial Analysis................................................................. 33Annex 5. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 36Annex 6. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 38Annex 7. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................... 47Annex 8. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR..................... 58Annex 9. Mid-Term Evaluation and Analysis of ENCOVI Survey Data..................... 69Annex 10. List of Supporting Documents .................................................................... 83

MAP

A. Basic Information Country: Guatemala Project Name:

GT RURAL & MAIN ROADS

Project ID: P035737 L/C/TF Number(s): IBRD-42600 ICR Date: 12/21/2007 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA

Original Total Commitment:

USD 66.7M Disbursed Amount: USD 65.0

v

Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Instituto de Fomento Municipal (INFOM) Dirección General de Caminos (DGC) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF, Japan) B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s)

Concept Review: 03/06/1997 Effectiveness: 06/01/1998 12/11/1998 Appraisal: 06/29/1997 Restructuring(s): N/A Approval: 12/11/1997 Mid-term Review: 05/25/2001

Closing: 06/30/2003

06/30/2005 06/30/2007

C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Preparation: Highly Satisfactory Government: Moderately Satisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance: Satisfactory Overall Borrower

Performance: Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators

Implementation Performance Indicators QAG Assessments

(if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality at Entry (QEA):

None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality of Supervision (QSA):

None

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status:

Satisfactory

vi

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 23 23 Roads and highways 77 77

Theme Code (Primary/Secondary) Rural services and infrastructure Primary Primary Conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction Secondary Secondary Other financial and private sector development Secondary Secondary E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Pamela Cox Shahid Javed Burki Country Director: Laura Frigenti Donna Dowsett-Coirolo Sector Manager: Jose Luis Irigoyen Danny Leipziger Project Team Leader: Cecilia Claudia Corvalán Guillermo Ruan ICR Team Leader: Cecilia Claudia Corvalán ICR Primary Author: Julieta Abad F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The main objectives of the project were: (i) to support the long term process of building up the country's institutional capacity to administer and maintain rural roads; (ii) to improve the rural road system in the ZONAPAZ Region, Department of San Marcos (where the Government was focusing on a major post-conflict development effort), critical to providing access to social and other public services and fostering economic development through integration to markets; and iii) to continue to improve the efficiency of the main and secondary networks. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The original Project Development Objectives did not change during project implementation. (a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Improved institutional capacity to administer and maintain rural roads Government strategy

for rural roads and Road policy including

vii

transport is completed and adopted. Complete functional and jurisdictional classification of roads Funding mechanism for the maintenance of roads under the pilot project is developed and implemented

classification of roads has been formulated but not yet adopted Specific funding mechanism not yet adopted. Resources are being made available by central government but these are not sufficient

Date achieved 06/30/2005 Comments (incl. % Achievement)

Indicator 2 : Improved rural roads system in the ZONAPAZ Region (Department of San Marcos)

Limited road access in San Marcos

91 km of main roads in San Marcos rehabilitated 160 km of secondary roads rehabilitated 375km of municipal roads in San Marcos rehabilitated

Main roads: 65 km rehabilitated (RN12) Date of completion: June 2007 Secondary roads: 28km rehabilitated 380km of municipal roads rehabilitated (101 % rate of completion)

Date achieved Municipal roads: June 2005. Main and secondary roads: June 2007.

Comments (incl. % achievement)

Although the target was not formally revised, the engineering designs for works in RN12 (as well as the signed works contracts) established the actual target of 65km to be rehabilitated. Secondary Roads: please refer to section 1.6 for details.

Indicator 3 : Improved condition of the main and secondary networks

Main and secondary roads in poor condition.

370 km of main and secondary roads would have been rehabilitated or improved. 174km would be rehabilitated with Project financing and balance to be rehabilitated by OECF

174 km rehabilitated with IBRD funding

Date achieved 05/30/2003 Comments (incl. % Achievement)

The objective was 100% achieved

viii

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Improved rural and main roads administration at the central and local levels

Low capacity at the local level

Create technical unit that is fully operational and capable of carrying out planning and monitoring investments in the road sector

Unit - Unidad Técnica de Asistencia Vial (UTAV) - is fully operational, providing technical assistance in multiple infrastructure issues

Date achieved 01/30/2003 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Low capacity at the central level

Design and implement strategies related to key issues in rural roads management in order to strengthen INFOM and DGC’s institutional capacity

Specific consultancies oriented to enhance agencies capacity for management of rural roads completed

Date achieved 06/30/2005 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Indicator 2 : Increased rural road access and reduced transport costs in the ZONAPAZ area

Access is inadequate, transport costs are too high.

100% of cabeceras municipales are interconnected 10% decrease in passenger and agricultural produce transport costs

100% interconnection will be achieved once all planned works are completed Anecdotal evidence gathered from beneficiaries suggests transport cost reductions have been achieved

Date achieved Expected March 2008 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Indicator 3 : Improved condition of main and secondary roads

Average IRI (roughness) of 6.2 in 1998 for the roads scheduled for rehabilitation under the project.

Average IRI of 2.45 in 2007 for roads rehabilitated under the project

Date achieved 05/30/2003 Comments (incl. %

ix

achievement) Indicator 4 : Increased private sector involvement in the road sector

Insufficient involvement of the private sector

10 contracts let to local contractors and 10 road maintenance micro-enterprises are established in pilot project area

5 local contractors on road improvement projects. Micro-enterprise establishment delayed – carried forward under Second Rural and Main Roads Project

Date achieved 06/30/2005 Comments (incl. % achievement)

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived DO IP

Actual Disbursements (USD millions)

1 05/13/1998 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 12/23/1998 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 3 03/22/1999 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.03 4 11/16/1999 Satisfactory Satisfactory 8.89 5 03/06/2000 Satisfactory Satisfactory 11.17 6 09/08/2000 Satisfactory Satisfactory 15.70 7 02/01/2001 Satisfactory Satisfactory 24.08 8 07/31/2001 Satisfactory Satisfactory 31.91 9 01/15/2002 Satisfactory Satisfactory 37.13

10 05/31/2002 Satisfactory Satisfactory 38.26 11 11/27/2002 Satisfactory Satisfactory 41.30 12 05/30/2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory 44.74 13 11/29/2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory 47.31 14 05/28/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 48.05 15 11/30/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 48.51 16 04/22/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 49.62 17 02/21/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 52.92 18 10/03/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 54.36 19 03/16/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 56.59 20 06/14/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 57.77

H. Restructuring (if any) None

x

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal Aftermath of civil conflict A historical pattern of social, economic, and political exclusion 1 that prevented many Guatemalans (particularly indigenous groups) from bettering their incomes, gaining access to social services, and having a greater role in deciding their own development paths, was a catalyst for the 35 year long civil strife that riddled the country between 1960 and 1995. The comprehensive Peace Accords signed in 1996 recognized that sustaining peace would require fundamental changes in the economy and society and presented a comprehensive Peace Investment Program (PIP) to bring these about. This Program laid the basis for transformation to a more inclusive nation, recognizing that reducing poverty, particularly among rural and indigenous peoples, was essential for lasting peace. The international donor community, including the World Bank, pledged important contributions to the PIP2. The Program involved an ambitious and somewhat controversial decentralization agenda: while it was definitely necessary for political reasons, decentralization was risky due to the lack of capacity at the local level. This agenda entailed the transfer of decision-making and implementation responsibilities to municipalities coupled with capacity building strategies. This was considered essential for two main reasons: it would help to improve the targeting and ownership of social investments at the local level and would foster inclusion. Because of its role in facilitating access to services in a country with rugged terrain, relatively long intercity distances and the traditional isolation of most poor communities, the provision of roads was identified as the main basic infrastructure necessity in the context of the Peace Accords. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that physical connectivity and the elimination of geographic isolation were critical for creating an integrated society and consolidating peace. Thus, improving road access in the rural areas where the population most affected by the civil conflict was concentrated became a critical part of the government’s poverty alleviation strategy. Social context in the area of project interventions At the time of appraisal, Guatemala had the second-worst GINI coefficient among 64 low-to-middle income countries, and widespread poverty akin to that of much poorer nations. Poverty was concentrated in rural areas3, particularly those in the north and north-western region of the country. Geographic isolation and the after-effects of prolonged conflict on their assets and communities compounded the poverty affecting rural people.

1 This pattern of exclusion can be traced through the nation's history, including factors such as the early concentration of land ownership, which paralleled the emergence of coffee as the dominant export product, and more than a century of military dictatorships, which preserved socio-political rigidities

2 About US$ 1.9 billion for the period 1997-2000.

3 At the time of appraisal, approximately 86 percent of the rural population was poor.

2

The government’s post-conflict development efforts were thus concentrated in the area known as “ZONAPAZ”4 , which comprised eight of the poorest departments in the north and northwest of the country (the Department of San Marcos being one of them) and was a rebel stronghold during the civil war. Physical access in this area, as measured by the percentage of households experiencing road closures and the percentage of households without access to a motorable road, was amongst the highest in the country. It is important to highlight that the conditions in ZONAPAZ at the time of appraisal were extremely challenging: its traditional isolation, coupled with the consequences of civil conflict and decades of underinvestment in basic infrastructure, were all factors that put in question the sustainability of any new initiative in the area and even created logistical problems for project preparation activities. An additional difficulty was given by the overall mistrust that 35 years of conflict had generated between the central government and the communities in the area of intervention. In this environment, the Project was intended to be a first step towards putting together a sustainable rural development agenda in the spotlight and bringing together central and local authorities in a combined effort to improve the livelihoods of the rural population. Road network size, administration and condition Guatemala's road system comprised approximately 26,000km at the time of appraisal of which only 14,000km were classified. The classified network consisted of nearly 4,000 km of main and secondary roads (mostly paved) and 10,000 km of tertiary and rural roads (mostly unpaved). This infrastructure base was considered weak when compared to other Central American countries. Jurisdictionally, there were four types of roads: main, secondary, departamental, and rural. The DGC (Dirección General de Caminos), under the aegis of the CIV (Ministerio de Comunicaciones, Infraestructura y Vivienda) was responsible for building, rehabilitating and maintaining a large part of the “classified road network” comprising mostly main and secondary roads. At the time of appraisal, a significant part of the main and secondary road network (58 percent) was still in need of rehabilitation. Consequently, transport costs remained high and service unreliable on large parts of the system. Rural roads represented about 63% of the entire road system of the country, and were largely “unclassified”. At appraisal less than half of these roads were in maintainable condition and a large percentage became impassable during the rainy season. The absence of all-weather roads resulted in considerable losses, especially for the rural poor, further compounding their condition. Rural roads were precariously maintained by municipalities, communities, DGC, finca owners or others (Social Investment Fund or FIS, National Fund for Peace or FONAPAZ, etc.) and rarely got financing for maintenance from the central government. In fact, at appraisal, most road works had had an urban bias as these tended to concentrate on the paved network which usually coincided with urban areas.

4 ZONAPAZ consisted of eight provinces in the north and northwest of the country: Quetzaltenango, Huehuetenango, Quiche, San Marcos, Totonicapán, Sololá, Alta Verapaz, and Baja Verapaz.

3

The government lacked a clear strategy for the rural roads sub-sector, which was characterized by a large number of financing and implementing agencies. The outcome was an array of ad-hoc, often unsustainable interventions.

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators The original Project development objectives and their links to the 1998 Country Assistance Strategy and Government Program are shown in the table below: PDO Government Strategy and CAS objectives 1. To support the long term process of building up the country's institutional capacity to administer and maintain rural roads

CAS: Build social cohesion and strengthen participatory decision-making processes by decentralizing decision-making and implementation to municipalities. Central level: expansion of present public sector reform, with emphasis on increasing efficiency in the execution of public investments Local level: create adequate capacity for management and maintenance of basic social infrastructure Government Strategy: need to address situation in rural roads sub-sector, characterized by a large number of agencies working in an uncoordinated fashion.

2. To improve the rural road system in the ZONAPAZ Region, Department of San Marcos.

CAS: improve access to productive opportunities by upgrading and expanding the road network, especially rural links. Government Strategy: improve physical connectivity and eliminate geographic isolation of poor rural areas, particularly in the ZONAPAZ region, as a means to creating an integrated society and consolidating peace

3. To continue to improve the efficiency of the main and secondary road networks

Government Strategy: Need to reduce transport costs in the main network and to decrease the rehabilitation backlog, with a focus On main roads of the ZONAPAZ region.

As the table above shows, the project objectives were closely aligned with those set out by the Government in the aftermath of the conflict and with the CAS; and they were relevant and responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries.

1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification There were no revisions to the project objectives during implementation.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries The target population was firstly the country as a whole which was expected to benefit from a better administered rural roads system and improved main road corridors and secondly the rural poor of the ZONAPAZ Region which lacked adequate access to public services and markets. The project thus had a strong poverty focus as ZONAPAZ had income levels well below the national average, as indicated by the most recent Poverty Assessment Report (1995) at the time of appraisal. In addition to benefits arising from improved access and reduced travel costs, the rural poor were expected to benefit from increased employment opportunities created through both road construction and maintenance activities and through expansion in transport intensive industries. As detailed in the following section, interventions under the Rural Roads Pilot focused

4

in the Department of San Marcos while the Main and Secondary Roads component benefited mostly the Departments of Huehuetenango and Totonicapán (both part of ZONAPAZ).

1.5 Original Components (as approved) The project was prepared and financed by the Bank, the government and the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund from Japan (OECF). OECF financed rehabilitation works in two sections of Main Roads (Component 1) in the ZONAPAZ region5, separate from those financed by the Bank under the Project. There was no co-financing of road works with OECF under this project.

Component Subcomponent Objective Activities Implementing Agency

1. Rural Roads $30.2 m

National Rural Roads and Transport Strategy $0.5 m

To address rural roads sector situation, characterized by multiple actors and a lack of standards and sustainable maintenance arrangements

- Design and implementation of Strategy

Instituto de Fomento Municipal (INFOM)

Rural Roads Pilot $29.7

To improve rural transport conditions in the Department of San Marcos.

- Rehabilitation of Municipal Roads -375km - Rehabilitation of Main (RN12) and Secondary Roads in San Marcos – 91km and 160km, respectively - Design of new technologies for cost-effective strengthening of rural roads -Institutional framework for management and maintenance of municipal and community roads

INFOM Dirección General de Caminos (DGC) DGC INFOM

2. Main and Secondary Roads $ 29.5 m

To continue to improve the efficiency of the main and secondary network, badly in need of rehabilitation.

- Rehabilitation of approximately 180km of main and secondary roads along the Interamerican Highway which links Guatemala with southern Mexico (north) and Honduras and El Salvador (south), with focus on a section located in ZONAPAZ region (Departments of Huehuetenango and Totonicapán).

DGC

* Contingencies under Bank financing were $8.01 million. Given that the Rural Roads Pilot was the most innovative component of the Project, it is important to explain in more detail the rationale for the activities it comprised and its implementation arrangements.

5 The sections financed by OECF were CA1W: Chimaltenango-Tecpán (36km) and RN7W: San Cristobal Verapaz-Chiantlas (161km).

5

The Pilot was intended to finance the rehabilitation of interconnected rural, secondary, and main roads forming a network within San Marcos. This strategy entailed the removing of transport bottlenecks in rural areas, due to the lack of connectivity of rural roads to the secondary and main network and was intended to maximize the beneficiary population resulting in greater social and economic impact than would come from isolated interventions. Moreover, the Project supported the concept of “network” management to the participating local governments, essential to improving transport services. It is important to highlight that this was one of the first projects to introduce the network approach into a rural roads project in any country. The new approach was adopted with a clear view of the challenges it faced in terms of local capacity, as it represented a major shift from the usual practice where municipal functions were in effect limited to ad hoc road emergency works. To address this challenge, this component included, in addition to the investment program, an institutional strengthening strategy and the design of maintenance arrangements tailored to the environment of rural municipalities. Activities to be undertaken under the Pilot were as follows: (i) Municipal roads rehabilitation

• Sections to be rehabilitated were to be selected using a multi-criteria analysis known as “Optimal Road Network”. These criteria included: connectivity of each section to the secondary and main networks, potential number of beneficiaries, average traffic per day, and, most importantly, the input of local communities.

• In order to foster local ownership of the project, it was agreed that each municipality would finance 15 percent of the cost of rehabilitation of rural roads under their jurisdiction (the remaining 85% being financed by the Project)

(ii) Main and secondary road rehabilitation in San Marcos

• San Marcos has only one main road (RN 12) which connects the department with the rest of the country making it essential in terms of accessibility. The importance of RN12 was also clearly perceived by the people of San Marcos, who considered works on this road as one of the most important initiatives under the project (see Summary of Beneficiaries Survey).

• Additional road links would be identified among the 160km of secondary roads for rehabilitation. About 50km of these were to be rehabilitated using alternative technologies (see iii below) and the remaining 110km would be improved to gravel standard. These secondary roads were in poor condition at the time of appraisal and had to be in passable condition in order to ensure connectivity between rural roads and the main road network (RN 12).

(iii) Design of new technologies for cost-effective strengthening of rural roads

• Given that annual precipitation in the area of San Marcos is very high, causing great stress to all roads (particularly to earth and gravel roads in hilly areas), this activity was aimed at developing and testing alternative cost-effective technologies for the surfacing of rural roads. These would be tested in 50km of the secondary roads under (ii).

(iv)Institutional framework for municipal and community roads

• At the time of appraisal, 12 municipalities from San Marcos had agreed to form the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Municipalidades del Altiplano Marquense (ADIMAM or the Mancomunidad) to handle issues of common interest and pursue joint efforts towards the development of the area. These municipalities had on average a municipal road network of 90km each; too small to justify the build-up of technical capacity for each municipality separately. Hence, the rehabilitation and maintenance of rural roads was one of the issues that brought the municipalities together, in order to achieve scale and be able to efficiently provide road infrastructure.

6

• Thus, the institutional arrangement for municipal roads to be designed and financed by the project envisaged a Roads Technical Unit (UTAV for its name in Spanish) and a Regional Roads Fund (FVR), both under the leadership of the Mancomunidad. The UTAV would provide technical advice to the municipalities for the planning, programming and management of the Mancomunidad’s roads. This Unit would be set up by a consultancy firm, which would play the role of the future UTAV for two years and would be responsible for training local engineers to continue with the advisory function once the contract was completed. The FVR was to receive a fixed annual contribution from the Municipalities to finance UTAV’s functioning and routine maintenance works. It would have a manager, whose main mission would be to raise additional funds from different sources.

• Rural road maintenance arrangements: it was expected that UTAV would provide training to existing comités vecinales for routine maintenance of rural roads, and that a scheme of local micro enterprises would be designed and implemented under the project to perform periodic maintenance activities once the rehabilitation works were completed.

In terms of Project implementation arrangements, the Pilot presented a particular challenge given that: most rural roads were unclassified; and that there were not any clear institutional responsibilities regarding their management and maintenance. The establishment of the Mancomunidad, which coincided with the project preparation phase, was extremely timely and helped in part to address the institutional weakness. However it was felt that some external assistance would be needed and thus it was that INFOM came on board to partner with the Mancomunidad in the implementation of the Pilot. INFOM’s specific functions were to serve as an overall coordinator and to take on the fiduciary responsibilities (financial management and procurement). INFOM had extensive experience coordinating national and local development efforts –particularly in the water and sanitation sector—and in managing external funds, but had never executed roads projects before. Hence it had to receive training to develop technical expertise in the roads sector to fulfill its role adequately. The role of the Mancomunidad in Project implementation was twofold: through the to-be-created UTAV, it had a technical function that is: to apply the concept of “Optimal Road Network” to select the sections of rural roads to be rehabilitated, to review the technical proposals during bidding processes for works, and to plan for maintenance activities once these were completed. On the other hand, it had to play a central role in the dialog on institutional and financial issues related to the rural roads sector that that came up during project implementation. An additional challenge came from the involvement of multiple actors in the implementation of the Pilot: DGC (in charge of works in RN12 and secondary roads), INFOM, the Mancomunidad, and its member Municipalities. However complex and challenging these institutional arrangements may seem, they proved to be well suited to the particularities of the rural roads sector in Guatemala and effective in the creation of local capacities for their adequate management and maintenance.

1.6 Revised Components The design of the Project did not change substantially during implementation. However, there were two important changes in terms of the technical specifications envisaged respectively for RN 12 and the secondary roads both within the scope of the Pilot in San Marcos:

7

• RN 12: based on appraisal estimates, the length of the section to be rehabilitated was 91km. However, when detailed engineering designs were undertaken, it was determined that the section to be rehabilitated was in fact 65km long. This is also reflected in the two rehabilitation contracts signed for works in RN12; nevertheless, the formal target in project documents was never formally changed. In addition, according to the original designs, double treatment was to be applied to the surface of the road. However, the technical specifications were changed to asphalt pavement, at the request of the municipalities in ADIMAM. This change caused the first of a number of delays in the execution of the works, as explained in the following Section.

• Secondary roads in San Marcos: originally, 110km of these roads were to be upgraded to gravel standard while the remaining 50km were to be tested for use of the alternative technologies developed under the Pilot. Given that the alternative technologies could not in the end be tested, it was decided that all of the 160km would be rehabilitated using gravel. However shortly after the bidding process for these works had started, Hurricane Stan hit the area and it was decided that the surface conditions in the area required a different kind of treatment. As a result, double surface bituminous treatment was applied; hence the number of km of secondary roads that could be accommodated for rehabilitation under the Project dropped from 160km to 28km. The works that could not be completed before closing are currently being undertaken with Bank and government’s financing (please refer to Section 2.5.)

1.7 Other significant changes

The project’s original closing date was June 30, 2003. However, due mainly to delays in road works in RN12 (to be explained in further detail below) the closing date had to be extended twice. First Extension Original closing date: June 30, 2003 Revised closing date: June 30, 2005 Extension granted in: February 2003 Reasons for extension: Additional time was needed to complete the following works:

• RN 12 and a section of secondary roads in San Marcos, which had been slowed down due to changes in the technical specifications.

• Main road section of Inter-American Highway, which had been delayed due to the need to carry out additional geological and hydrological studies.

• Testing of low cost alternative technologies for secondary roads in San Marcos, which had been slowed down due to tender and implementation delays.

Second Extension Revised closing date after first extension: June 30, 2005 Revised closing date: June 30, 2007 Extension granted in: April 2005 Reasons for extension: Additional time was needed to complete works in RN12 and secondary roads in San Marcos.

• Further delays in the rehabilitation of RN12 were the result of important financial and administrative problems faced by the contractor in charge of the works which resulted in works coming to a halt at the end of 2001. All the government and Bank’s attempts to reactivate works in the following years were unfruitful and the contract was finally revoked in November 2004. As a result, the Borrower requested an additional two-year extension of the project’s closing date to restart the bidding process and finalize the planned rehabilitation works.

8

• The change in the technical specifications for secondary roads explained in the previous Section also resulted in additional time needed to complete works in a 28km section using bituminous treatment.

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry The overall quality at entry and preparation is rated as highly satisfactory. The Project was central to the achievement of the Government’s strategy towards the consolidation of the peace process in the rural sector and was among a very small group of projects that were approved the National Assembly in the aftermath of the Peace Accords. Project design was sound and in line with the government’s priorities and the Bank’s CAS at the time of appraisal. This was commendable given the extremely challenging conditions in the area of intervention at the time of preparation. The design took into account multiple lessons learned from Bank wide operations in the rural roads sector, particularly those related to problems in achieving sustainable results such as: (i) institutional weaknesses, particularly at the sub-national level; (ii) lack of a well established rural roads strategy, resulting in dispersed efforts and piece-meal interventions, and (iii) low priority assigned to road maintenance needs. In terms of (i), local capacity was to be strengthened under the Pilot with support from INFOM, and arrangements were put in place to involve the private sector in areas in which local capacity was constrained in the short-medium term. To address (ii), a rural roads strategy was to be developed with inputs from INFOM and DGC, hence ensuring coordination. And finally in regard to (iii), the Pilot responded to the need and importance of maintenance by proposing specific arrangements, tailored to the local environment. The project components were well targeted to attain the project development objectives. Their design was technically sound, based on comprehensive technical, economic and fiduciary assessments. Critically in view of the social context of the times, extensive consultations were conducted at the local level (involving beneficiaries, community groups, indigenous leaders, and local authorities) and these resulted in multiple expressions of support towards the project and thus ensured ownership and the likely sustainability of the project’s investments. The Project brought attention to the rural roads agenda (which had been neglected so far); in doing so, it introduced innovative elements in terms of social issues and rural accessibility:

- The concept of Optimal Road Network on which the Pilot was based on, encompassed rehabilitation works in interconnected sections of main, secondary and rural roads thus creating a network that ensured adequate access and avoiding isolated, low-impact interventions.

- Extensive social participation at the local level. The concept of Optimal Road Network included criteria based on the opinion of beneficiary communities, thus helping to foster ownership at the local level.

- Implementation arrangements that included two separate implementing agencies and relied in a new type of institution (Mancomunidad) to provide technical and institutional support at the local level also represented an innovative approach towards project execution.

- The involvement of INFOM as an implementing agency, which helped to established appropriate linkages among the stakeholders involved in the rural roads sector.

9

No quality of entry review was carried out as the Project pre-dates the introduction of the QAG process at the Bank.

2.2 Implementation Factors outside control of government or implementing agency Hurricane Stan

The hurricane had a negative impact on the implementation and the outcome of the Rural Roads Pilot: the fourth (and last) package of works had just been completed when the hurricane hit the region. The UTAV, which was already fully operational, produced an excellent inventory of the infrastructure damage that was essential to define the reconstruction needs. According to this inventory, of the 121 sections of rural roads that had been rehabilitated, 97 had been affected by hurricane Stan to some degree and 52 specific points needed additional rehabilitation works to restore access. It is necessary to highlight however that only a limited number of these roads became impassable due to flooding or landslides, and hence the impact on accessibility was not as negative as that on the quality of the roads. This was confirmed by UTAV and communicated to beneficiaries during workshops to assess project’s impacts with local communities and authorities.

The effects of the hurricane on the implementation of the Pilot were twofold: on one hand, additional funds were required to repair the costs of the damage incurred; on the other, new studies on the condition of the surface of secondary roads had to be conducted post-Stan to identify the appropriate treatment to be applied to ensure sustainability.

The reconstruction works are already under way6 with financing for a total of US$3.1 million reallocated from the Second Rural and Main Roads project. These entail mostly the re-graveling of surfaces and reconstruction of curbs and drainage systems destroyed by the hurricane. These works are expected to be completed by March 2008.

6 Works started in March 2007 and are scheduled to be completed by March 2008. Five contracts have been awarded to contractors from San Marcos and the neighboring department of Huehuetenango and the remaining seven to firms from Guatemala City.

On October 4, 2005, Hurricane Stan made landfall in Mexico and generated separate tropical storms across southern Mexico and Central America. Stan spawned torrential rains that lasted for over five days causing widespread and severe flooding and deadly mudslides. On October 5, the government of Guatemala declared a national disaster.

The highest death toll was in Guatemala, which suffered more than 900 landslides, some that buried entire villages. Half of the country was hit hard; fifteen of the 22 provinces in both the northwest highlands and southern coastal areas of the country were severely affected. The highland provinces generally had higher poverty and malnutrition rates prior to the disaster, rendering these communities especially vulnerable during the relief and recovery phases. According to the government’s National Council for Disaster Reduction (CONRED), San Marcos was one of the most affected Departments by the natural disaster.

10

Factors generally subject to government control Delays in the decision-making process (specifically within DGC and CIV) to resolve contractual problems related to works in RN12. As described in previous paragraphs, works in RN12 had stopped due to contractor’s financial and administrative difficulties at the end of 2001. However, the contract was only finally terminated three years later, resulting in two project extensions and delaying the benefits resulting from connectivity of rural and secondary roads to the main network. Delays in the decision-making for the reallocation of funds from the Second Rural Roads Project for the reconstruction of rural roads damaged by hurricane Stan. It took the government two years to sign-off on the reallocation of funds for the reconstruction of rural roads from the Second Rural and Main Roads project. As a result the works had yet to be completed at the closing date of the Project. Slow progress in the implementation of the national decentralization agenda. The lack of capacity of local governments (particularly those in rural areas) for the administration of basic social and infrastructure services is a barrier for social and economic growth. At the time of project appraisal, there were major expectations on the government’s decentralization agenda, particularly on two aspects: clarification on the distribution of responsibilities among the central and local governments and, most importantly, on the increase of financing availability at the local level. Lack of progress in these areas has had a negative impact on the rural roads sector, specifically in that the lack of resources for maintenance at the municipal level remains today as a serious problem. Inefficiencies in the legal framework for the contracting of infrastructure works. The Guatemalan law for public works contracts contains elements that hinder the efficiency of both the contracting and execution of public works. First, increases of up to 40 percent of the total value of the contract are allowed, providing a perverse incentive for contractors who consider the amount in question as “given” when preparing their offers. Second, there are no mechanisms for the government to penalize contractors that do not comply with their contractual obligations; and the revocation of a contract is extremely difficult to process. This leaves technical agencies with little “teeth” to fulfill their oversight role on the quality of public works contracts. Factors generally subject to implementing agency control Frequent turnover of key staff in the project implementation teams: The heads of DGC and INFOM changed multiple times during project execution resulting in the subsequent turnover in PCU staff (Project Coordinators in particular). This turnover adversely affected the institutional memory and fiduciary capacity of PCUs (particularly in issues related to the procurement of works) creating additional delays in the implementation of the Project. Cost increases incurred in regard to civil works: Most of the civil works carried out under the Project (particularly under the main roads component) experienced cost increases in relation to estimates. These were attributable mainly to: (i) additional tasks identified during works execution not contemplated during road engineering designs; and (ii) changes needed due to problems in engineering designs and to considerable lags between the dates of design preparation and of works execution. Please refer to Annex 3 for an overall implementation timeline.

11

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization

The Project Design Summary presented in the PAD provides for a variety of indicators against which to measure project implementation. There were several attempts to implement additional impact assessments but this proved difficult and, as a result, specific ad-hoc initiatives were undertaken: first, the ENCOVI 2000 survey included a Transport Module which was designed with support from the Project team and was intended to measure linkages between rural poverty and transport; second, a mid-term evaluation of the Pilot’s interventions in rural roads was financed by the Project to assess its impact in San Marcos. These two initiatives proved helpful to maintain the rural agenda on track and build consensus about the need to scale up the Rural Pilot (this led to preparation of second operation). In preparing an assessment of the outcome of the Project in relation to expectations, it was decided to reinforce information provided by and through the project implementing agencies by additional data in regard to changes in the livelihoods of households in the Project area during implementation and in regard to the qualitative views expressed by the beneficiary communities. This supplementary information comprised primarily:

- Statistical comparison of ENCOVI 2000 and 2006 data in the area of influence of the Pilot to identify relevant trends in terms of expected outcomes, focusing on possible impacts at the household level. This analysis includes a brief summary of the mid-term impact analysis of the Pilot, financed by the project, conducted in 2002 and mentioned earlier. This analysis is presented in Annex 9.

- Focus groups with community leaders and technical staff from ADIMAM’s municipalities, in order to assess their perception of Pilot’s impact on accessibility, its influence in terms of institutional development and their perceptions as regards of rural roads maintenance arrangements.

- Workshops with beneficiaries and local authorities to gather their impressions on the Pilot’s impacts on their livelihoods.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

Safeguards: The project was rated Category B. The rehabilitation works carried out remained within the existing rights of way and hence the risks of negative impacts were minimal. The Project roads did not require any resettlement to be carried out. However and in compliance of Bank’s policies, the government developed a resettlement framework to provide appropriate compensation to families potentially affected by the project.

The project assisted DGC and the municipalities of ADIMAM in the development and implementation of sound environmental and social management tools tailored to rural roads projects. No safeguards compliance issues arose during implementation.

Financial Management: Financial management of the project was carried out in accordance with Bank procedures and as set out in the Loan Agreement and project’s Operational Manual. Financial management arrangements were found to be generally satisfactory.

Procurement: Procurement management is considered to have been satisfactory and in compliance with Bank procedures. However, delays in the preparation of bidding documents and tender processes did have a negative impact in the pace of execution. These delays were mainly the result of the lack of experience in handling procurement of works under Bank procedures at

12

the early stages of implementation, particularly in the case of INFOM). Later on the main causes of delays were time-consuming internal administrative procedures and decision making processes.

From a procurement standpoint, works in RN12 were a long protracted process which involved the revocation of the first awarded contract. However time consuming the process was, it is important to mention that in the end, it was correctly handled and resulted in the successful completion of the expected road improvements.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase The relevance and acceptability of the underlying project concept have been demonstrated by the agreement of the government and the Bank to initiate and then approve a Second Rural and Main Roads Project. The Project, currently under operation, became effective in November 2004, after a long Congress approval process. It adopts the same institutional arrangements and extends the coverage of works to be carried out to other areas of the ZONAPAZ Region and with the mancomunidades of Mamsohue and Huistas in the Department of Huehuetenango. In addition a Project to support the Rural Economic Development Program in the amount of US$60 million of which 50% financed by an IBRD Loan became effective in November 2007 and will start implementation in 2008. The new project builds on the lessons learned from the rural and mains roads projects and extends the menu of options for infrastructure financing in support of productive activities to raise incomes and increase employment. The new project extends then geographical areas of intervention to 8 departments, including San Marcos and Huehuetenango, in which a large proportion of the rural poor reside. The three main roads financed under the project are already in operation and are reported to be performing adequately and receiving maintenance from COVIAL (Programa de Conservación Vial, the National Roads Fund administered by CIV) under its annual regular operations and investment plan. The same situation applies to RN12, the works for which were completed in June 2007. The sections of secondary roads in San Marcos that were planned to be rehabilitated under the project - only 28km out of 160 were actually completed during execution - are currently in the process of being improved using double-treatment. Three secondary roads sections that link cabeceras municipales with RN12 are already being rehabilitated with government funds and works are expected to be completed by mid-2008. Seven other secondary road sections (inter-municipal connections) are currently being tendered for rehabilitation and will be financed with funds reallocated from the Second Rural and Main Roads project: Rural roads damaged by hurricane Stan are in the process of being repaired. Maintenance financing of rural roads has come up as an issue in the multiple discussions held with authorities and local communities for the preparation of the present report. This issue is discussed in further detail in Section 4, Assessment of Risk to Development Outcomes.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation The Project development objectives, their design and implementation are fully consistent with the current development priorities of the Government. Since 2003, the government has taken steps

13

towards the development of a more comprehensive and inclusive development strategy, whose implementation is underpinned by the current CAS. The strategy known as “Vamos Guatemala” contains a number of components for which the successful outcome of the Project is relevant. This is particularly the case for the Guate Solidaria component, which focuses on reducing inequality and increasing social inclusion. This reflects the fact that, notwithstanding some important gains made since the Peace Accords were signed, Guatemala’s poverty and social indicators remain among the worst in the region, particularly for the rural population and within that population for the indigenous communities in particular. Additionally the strategy includes the Guate Crece/Compite, component oriented towards competitiveness enhancement. The improvement of transport infrastructure particularly that of the main road links to neighboring countries is highly relevant to the successful accomplishment of this objective. The government has during this time also developed a rural development strategy which seeks to accelerate the decentralization of responsibility for development planning and improvement to departmental and municipal levels. Rural development strategies are expected to take on a comprehensive, territorial approach to investment and infrastructure investment, including roads, is stressed as a vital component to support expansion of productive activities in the rural areas. The experience of the Project remains relevant to the implementation of this strategy, in particular regard to the development of local level implementation and a high degree of consultation with the beneficiary populations. Finally, the fact that Rural Roads Pilot is being replicated in two mancomunidades of the neighboring Department of Huehuetenango under the Bank financed Second Rural and Main Roads Project, as well as in Mancomunidad Polochic with JBIC financing, emphasizes the relevance of its design and objectives. This is reinforced by the fact that these two projects also rely on the structure of mancomunidades for implementation purposes.

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives The project made a substantial contribution towards improving the condition of Guatemala’s main road network and access of rural communities to markets and social services. It re-established basic rural accessibility and improved the availability of transport services in San Marcos; its development impact was further maximized by the fact that this area presented (and still presents) high levels of poverty. The project achieved its primary development objectives in a satisfactory manner. This is supported by abundant anecdotal evidence collected during supervision missions and by conclusions of the studies and beneficiary workshops conducted for the purposes of this ICR. A more detailed assessment of achievement of each PDO follows: To support the long term process of building up the country's institutional capacity to administer and maintain rural roads Rating: Satisfactory. Substantial progress was achieved in building capacity especially at municipal level the main shortfalls occurring in regard to the implementation of the rural roads strategy and the sustainable maintenance mechanism. Institutional capacity at the central level. Moderately satisfactory • Three consultancies financed by the Project have provided DGC with important tools to

improve its institutional capacity: (i) Strategy for Regulation of the Trucking Industry, (ii) Strategy for Road Safety Improvement, and (iii) Road Inventory System. Consultancies (i)

14

and (ii) produced a series of manuals, guidelines, training materials, and specific recommendations in terms of changes needed in sectoral laws and regulations. In 2008, DGC will implement a road safety training program in primary schools based on the results of the Road Safety Strategy. In addition, the agency is planning to request specific budget allocations from the central government to implement initiatives developed by (i) and (ii), with particular emphasis in those related to coordination mechanisms between public agencies and the trucking industry unions to ensure adequate enforcement of existing regulations, and implementation of a system for cargo weight and dimensions control. The design of a Road Inventory, which was financed jointly with IDB, has provided DGC with an important investment planning tool it lacked prior to Project implementation. This initiative included the design of the inventory itself, the provision of equipment, software, and training of personnel for the use of the latter, and a proposal for Guatemala’s network classification. As a result of this consultancy, the Unit for Road Management was set up within the IT Department of DGC, which is still functional. In terms of the caveats, the inventory has not been updated as planned and is not yet fully implemented. This is mainly due to budgetary constraints within DGC. Given the momentum achieved with implementation of the Pilot, it was expected that these initiatives would implemented in a faster fashion.

• Rural Roads Strategy: its design was completed successfully, with extensive participation of both INFOM and DGC. It is important to remark that this Strategy was the first institutional effort undertaken by the Government in the aftermath of the conflict to come up with a comprehensive strategy for the rural roads sector, which was non existent prior to the Project. Although once completed it was not formally adopted by the government, some of the Strategy’s recommendations are being implemented “de facto”:

- The Strategy proposed the establishment of inter-institutional coordination mechanisms with other agencies involved in the sector, particularly the Social Funds FIS and FONAPAZ, for the development and maintenance of the rural road network, and definition of institutional competencies. Both INFOM and DGC have indicated that coordination has improved vis a vis the situation prior to the project and that institutional competencies related to management and maintenance of rural roads are currently aligned with the proposals formulated in the Strategy. Both agencies outlined that the implementation of the Second Rural Roads Project and the JBIC loan in Mancomunidad Polochic, are the result from better coordination and improved dialogue among all the intervening agencies in the rural roads sector. Finally, the Vice-presidency is promoting a Rural Roads Program financed by IDB which includes the implementation of the coordination mechanism proposed under this Strategy.

- The strategy also outlines a coordination mechanism at the local level based on the successful scheme used in the Pilot: first, it recommends reliance on mancomunidades for prioritization of investments; second, it proposes strengthening of the mancomunidades’ technical capacity by establishment of Technical Units following the model of UTAV.

Institutional capacity at the local level. Highly Satisfactory • Establishment of UTAV: this Unit was successfully established under the aegis of the

Mancomunidad with project financing. Its technical staff (local professionals) received hands-on training from a private consultant during the first stages of project implementation. The Unit became fully operational in 2003 and has since then broadened the scope of its technical advice to municipalities beyond rural roads works, now encompassing other sectors such housing, construction of public edifices, and environmental issues. The functioning of

15

the Unit is fully financed by the Mancomunidad, with funding allocated by its member municipalities. It is important to highlight UTAV’s central role in assessing the infrastructure damages caused by hurricane Stan: its staff developed a detailed inventory of infrastructure damages which was used by Central government agencies and international donors to organize the reconstruction efforts. UTAV is one of the most important achievements of the project as it represents a success case in the effort to develop local technical capacity. Finally, the role of UTAV was fully acknowledged by local authorities and beneficiaries during the workshops conducted for this ICR.

Development of mechanisms for road maintenance. Satisfactory • Institutional issues: a mechanism for routine maintenance activities was set up by the Pilot

relying upon existing Comités Vecinales comprised by men, women and children from the benefited communities. These received basic equipment from INFOM and training from UTAV, which also coordinated their activities. This system worked very well when ownership of the road to be maintained was clear and it helped create a clear perception about the benefits derived by the Pilot and the importance of maintenance among beneficiaries, hence invigorating sustainability. It must be noted however that maintenance activities were harder to conduct when ownership of the rural road was not that clear. Another interesting remark that came up during the focus groups conducted in San Marcos as background for this report referred to the need of establishing coordination agreements in which the allocation of responsibilities among different actors (CIV, ADIMAM, Municipalities and comités vecinales) as well as prioritization criteria and schedules for rural road maintenance would be outlined. This recommendation overlaps significantly with the inter-institutional coordination agreements recommended under the Rural Roads Strategy. The design of a local micro-enterprise scheme for maintenance was also supported by the Pilot. This cost effective system requires, however, the establishment of contractual arrangements with micro-enterprises and a steady flow of funds to make timely payments. To this end, the Second Rural and Main Roads project provided start-up funding to finance, together with ADIMAM, the implementation of this model. The two-year delay in Congress approval for the Second Project, together with the occurrence of hurricane Stan, have resulted in the delayed implementation of this program which is scheduled to be launched in March 2008.

• Financial issues: Municipalities in poor areas such as those benefited by the project depend

heavily on intergovernmental transfers to cover a wide array of expenditures; road maintenance being one of them. Municipal budgets generally do not have specific allocations for road maintenance, which results in this type of expenses being postponed to cover for more urgent needs. Solving this problem in the long run will require going deeper in the efforts towards decentralization. A Regional Road Fund was created under the aegis of the Mancomunidad which channeled two types of municipalities’ contributions: (i) a fixed annual amount to support the functioning of UTAV, and (ii) 15 percent of the cost of rural roads rehabilitation works. The scheme involved a mechanism through which the Fund’s manager would have to raise additional funds for road maintenance from other sources; however, the latter could not be implemented as planned.

To improve the rural road system in the ZONAPAZ Region, Department of San Marcos in order to increase access to social services and markets Rating: Satisfactory. This rating is based on the following:

16

• Physical Road Access Improvement: Physical targets were met and even exceeded in the

municipal network of San Marcos, with 380km rehabilitated. 65km were rehabilitated in RN12, based on the physical target set out by the detailed engineering designs and reflected in the works contracts. The importance of finishing works in RN 12 cannot be underestimated: being the main trunk in San Marcos, it had to be completed if the objective of creating an integrated network was to be achieved. When additional works in the secondary network are completed – both under the Second Rural and Main Roads Project and government financing – the expected 100% completion of the connections of the cabeceras municipales to the improved road network in San Marcos will be achieved. Much of the shortfall in the achievement of the physical goals is down to the impact of hurricane Stan which is an event that could not be planned for.

• Benefits associated with Accessibility: there is substantial anecdotal evidence – much of this

collected in preparation for this ICR and by the conclusions of the focus groups conducted to assess project impact on accessibility - that shows the very positive impact of the project on rural livelihoods. Although it was not possible to determine in a quantitative manner whether the targeted reductions of at least 10% transport costs for agricultural produce and for passengers were actually achieved, testimonies obtained from beneficiaries suggest that reductions in transport costs and increases in the quality of transport services have been achieved.

Reduction in travel times: Participants in the focus groups residing in the most isolated communities in the Department indicated that prior to the intervention it used to take them approximately 3 hours to get to the nearest town, when it currently takes them only 1 hour. Based on the results of the survey conducted for the focus groups, 82% of participants consider the reduction of travel times to reach healthcare facilities, schools and markets, as the main benefit their communities have received from the project; 78% expressed that the rehabilitation of the rural road network resulted in reduced travel times to reach RN12 and other communities within the Department; and 83% reported increased ease to reach other cities within and outside San Marcos than prior to the Pilot. These results are fully consistent with the testimonies gathered during the beneficiary workshops.

Increased offer of transport services: The existence of an improved rural network has resulted in an increased offer of transport services: while in 2000 there were only 53 lines, in 2007 there are 124, representing a growth of 134%. This is confirmed by 82% of participants in the focus groups who indicated that they perceive an increased offer of public transportation resulting from the Pilot. Increased competition among the lines has had a positive impact on transport costs as well according to respondents. On a related note, the mayor of San Marcos indicated that a bus terminal originally planned to be established in the southwestern area of San Marcos was finally built in the northwestern region of the Department (area of Pilot intervention) instead in response to the increasing traffic resulting from Pilot’s investments. The pattern of trips starting in this terminal is evenly distributed between trips within and outside the Department. The main destinations outside San Marcos are Guatemala City, Coatepeque, Malacatán and Quetzaltenango, which are all important market centers.

Increased access to an all weather road: 91% of participants in the focus groups consider that due to rehabilitation works financed by the Pilot they can now access an all weather (RN 12) road for longer periods of time than before.

17

Other benefits: During the beneficiary workshops, other benefits derived from the Pilot were mentioned such as: savings in gasoline and vehicle maintenance due to the better condition of rural roads, increased provision of basic infrastructure services (particularly electricity) due to the existence of roads, increased safety during trips using the rehabilitated roads, easier trade of agricultural products for local producers, more effective implementation of (for example) children vaccination programs.

• Development of cost-effective technologies for rural roads rehabilitation. In terms of the

shortcomings in the context of the Pilot, the testing of alternative technologies could not be fully implemented. This initiative was oriented to developing technologies for the rehabilitation of secondary roads taking into consideration the conditions of the surface to be rehabilitated and other efficiency criteria. These technologies consisted in mixing existing material on the surface to be rehabilitated (mostly gravel) with other elements with the objective of enhancing durability. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached at the technical level in terms of which of the alternatives were actually developed had to be tested in San Marcos. Four specific technologies were proposed. However it was not possible to reach a consensus among DGC and the local governments on which to test and where so that implementation has not yet happened.

To continue to improve the efficiency of the main and secondary road networks Rating: Satisfactory The targeted road improvements under the Project financed by the Bank loan were completed. There were measurable and highly significant reductions in pavement roughness arising, from an average of 6.2 prior to the Project to 2.5 at its conclusion. The major civil works contracts for the rehabilitation of the three sections financed under the Main Roads Component were fully completed, and 174km were rehabilitated as initially proposed with substantive impact on the road network system and on user benefits. The larger section rehabilitated (Cuatro Caminos – La Mesilla 158km) forms part of an important logistics corridor for its economic importance and potential contributions to the integration of Guatemala with the neighbouring countries and serves as an important commercial trade link for the northern area of the country. The completed rehabilitation and reconstruction of all the road sections has extended the life of the pavement. This is reflected in major benefits in terms of reduction in vehicle operating costs and travel times - a combined average benefit to the road user of a 61% reduction on average compared to the situation before the project. This is expected to facilitate the increase of exports and imports between Guatemala and its major trading partners. All these road sections are currently in operation and are being maintained by the Road Fund. In general, these road corridors are now in condition to better support the increase of exports and imports between Guatemala and its major trading partners in the Central America Region, which is particularly relevant in the context of DR-CAFTA.

3.3 Efficiency At appraisal, the internal economic rate of return (IERR) was calculated for the three main road sections included in Component 1 as well as for the RN 12 improvements included under the Rural Roads Pilot. The IERRs fell in the range of 24 to 52 percent, with an overall weighted

18

average rate of return of 29.3 percent and an aggregate Net Present Value (NPV) of US$35.6 million. The cost benefit analysis had been conducted using the HDM III model calibrated for the particularities of Guatemala’s road sector. An average increase in traffic of 5% per annum was assumed. At completion, ex-post economic evaluations were carried out for the same road sections. The analyses were performed using the HDM IV model. These took into account the revised implementation schedules of the various works as well as the final capital cost of the works converted into US dollars. A discount rate of 12% was employed. To ensure comparability with the ex-ante estimates, the only benefits quantified for inclusion in the analysis are estimated vehicle operating costs savings resulting from the rehabilitation works. Ex-post analyses at completion resulted in a total NPV of US$ 61.5 million, with a weighted average IERR of 27%. The economic return of the road component remains therefore at a highly satisfactory level. The details of the analyses for each road section are included in Annex 4. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory

The overall outcome rating is based on the combined assessment of relevance, efficiency, and achievement of the project development objectives. As explained in the previous sections, the relevance of the project is high and its efficiency is substantial. The achievement of the project development objective is considered satisfactory given in particular: the successful completion of works in the Main Roads Component, improved accessibility due to rehabilitation of rural roads in San Marcos, and positive institutional impacts at the local level (the establishment of UTAV under the aegis of ADIMAM and the strengthening of ADIMAM itself as a result of project implementation).

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development Poverty Impacts More than half of the population of Guatemala was poor at the time of appraisal, with nearly 2 million people living in extreme poverty. Although urban poverty was (and still is) significant, poverty remains overwhelmingly a rural phenomenon in Guatemala. In the “poverty belt” which includes the departments of San Marcos, Huehuetenango, Quiche, Alta Verapaz and Baja Verapaz, more than 70% of households were poor and more than 30% were extremely poor at the time of appraisal. Although the lack of a road is not the factor that makes the rural poor poor, the existence of one helps shorten distances, overcome disparities and access new opportunities; a rural road can provide rural communities with the means to overcome the barriers that keep them in poverty. It is in this sense that rural roads are, in the mindset of the rural poor, a clear expression of development and welfare. This perception came up clearly during the beneficiary workshops, in which most participants referred to increased access to markets and opportunities as one of the main benefits accrued by the project.

19

The links between rural poverty and roads were thoroughly analyzed in the ENCOVI 2000 survey, which included a section with transport related questions. A summary of its results for the Department of San Marcos is presented in Annex 9. Social Development Impacts One of the main accomplishments of the Project has been its role in strengthening social cohesion and building social capital and consensus in San Marcos (ADIMAM). In an area previously ridden by conflict and consequently distrust and divisiveness, the Pilot has shown what can be achieved when the mayors from different municipalities and with different ideologies are willing to sit together, set aside their political differences, and constructively take decisions about development priorities in the project area. Most decisions have been taken to maximize 'long-term' social good rather than short-sighted local goals: Mayors had to prioritize and schedule interventions based on agreed upon criteria. Two salient aspects of this process are worth highlighting: (i) most decisions reflected the goal of maximizing long term benefits for the mancomunidad rather than short-run local priorities; (ii) Mayors had to trust each other given that many times investments in their area had to wait for investments in other municipalities to be completed. This has truly been one of the most significant accomplishments of the Pilot which has been carried forward into the design and implementation of the second Project. The Project has also shown that social cohesion strengthened by improved inter-community accessibility has encouraged interaction and exchange of goods, services and ideas. Improved access to nearby main cities and towns is encouraging an otherwise marginalized and isolated population to integrate itself into the mainstream. Improvements in social cohesion increase the likelihood that subsequent efforts of the government and the Bank to support broader based, integrated rural development programs in this region will be successful. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening One of the project’s major achievements lies in its impact on the strengthening and institutionalization of ADIMAM, the first mancomunidad created in Guatemala. Although the Project did not create the Association (as preparation started a little after it had been conformed), the relationship between the two can be described as symbiotic and of mutual reinforcement. The Project needed a counterpart that could guarantee ownership hence maximizing impact at the local level, which was extremely challenging to achieve given the post-conflict situation in the area. On the other hand, ADIMAM needed financial and technical assistance in order to become an effective instrument in the pursuit of development in its area of influence. The project provided the Association with two basic tools: the UTAV and the Regional Road Fund, addressing respectively the need for technical and financial resources to address challenges in terms of rural roads. Their establishment and strengthening runs parallel with the institutionalization of ADIMAM. In addition, it is important to mention that the instrument established by the project for selection of rural roads to be rehabilitated (Road Selection Index) considered the input of affected communities (along with other criteria), hence establishing a participatory mechanism which has marked the functioning of ADIMAM in all its areas of interest. In a country as centralized as Guatemala, the phenomenon of mancomunidades is extremely positive to counterbalance the predominance of the central government, as these tend to create enabling conditions at the local level to advance with the decentralization agenda. By providing a

20

environment in which to share problems of common interest and join efforts to solve them, these associations constitute themselves as forums that can effectively handle increased technical and financial capacity before municipalities alone. The fact that the ADIMAM model was quickly replicated in other regions is a sign of its success. In fact, the reform to the Municipal Code which in 2002 gave legal status to this type of Association was inspired in the model of ADIMAM. Currently, there are 22 mancomunidades in Guatemala, encompassing 126 municipalities in total. During the workshops and focus groups with beneficiaries, many of the testimonies pointed out to the benefits that the Association had brought to its members. Among these are.

• Increased capacity in the dialogue with the Central government. Good indications of this are budget allocations: although mancomunidades are not budgetary agents (intergovernmental transfers go to the Municipalities) member municipalities seem to receive larger allocations. The budget allocation for physical infrastructure in San Marcos in 2007 shows that ADIMAM members received an allocation 63 percent larger than non-member municipalities.

• Increased visibility before the international donor community. ADIMAM is currently receiving funding from FAO and USAID for development projects, as well as World Bank funds which were reallocated from the Second Rural and Main Roads Project. This reinforces a virtuous circle: by receiving larger amounts of funding and technical assistance, the association becomes stronger as an implementing agent, hence attracting additional financing.

• Possibility of sharing best practices among municipalities to address shared problems/issues

• Existence of a larger forum for social participation that enables a strengthened social cohesion among people from member municipalities.

• Finally, the role of ADIMAM in the aftermath of hurricane Stan was highlighted as crucial by beneficiaries. Its larger scope and more comprehensive view enabled the association to coordinate the reconstruction effort more efficiently than municipalities alone. In this sense, the inventory of damages produced by UTAV was an essential tool. Although ADIMAM did not receive reconstruction funds from the central government directly (these went to the municipalities) it was due to its visibility that funds from the Second Rural and Main Roads Project were reallocated for the reconstruction of the rural road network.

(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) A positive unintended income that was mentioned earlier is represented by the fact that UTAV has been able to broaden its advisory role to other sectors beyond rural roads. For example, the Unit now provides technical advice to ADIMAM’s member municipalities in issues related to small water works and public buildings.

3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops Stakeholder Workshops Two stakeholder workshops were organized by DGC and INFOM to assess Pilot’s impacts in San Marcos. One of them targeted ADIMAM mayors and local authorities; the other was oriented to community leaders and civil society representatives. The questionnaire presented was the same

21

for the two events and most of the responses received have been quoted in previous sections, particularly under Assessment of Outcomes and Institutional Impacts. A detailed account of testimonies gathered during these meetings is presented in Annex 8 and the following is a brief summary of the issues covered and audiences’ reactions: • Rural accessibility: all respondents agreed that accessibility has improved due to the Pilot and

indicate that it is evidenced by: (i) reduced travel times, (ii) increased offer of transport services, (iii) better access to markets, schools and health centers, (iv) roads are accessible for longer periods of time throughout the year.

• Sustainability of Pilot’s investments with a focus on maintenance: most participants identified maintenance as challenge due to the lack of funds at the municipal level and adverse weather conditions for conduction of these activities. However, it must be noted that most respondents indicated that maintenance activities were still being conducted by the comités vecinales.

• Institutional impacts arising from the creation of the mancomunidad: all respondents valued the existence of ADIMAM and consider it has had a positive impact as evidenced by improved coordination for the execution of projects and enhanced visibility before international donors and the central government (the latter resulting in increased access to funding, particularly from international organizations). Most respondents highlighted the important role that ADIMAM had in coordinating aid and reconstruction efforts after hurricane Stan.

• Hurricane Stan and its impact on rural accessibility: most participants agree that access to San Marcos was negatively affected by the hurricane but that it did not step back to the situation prior to the Project.

Beneficiary Survey (Focus Groups) Two focus groups were organized by a consultancy firm to assess, in a more systematic fashion, Pilot’s impacts in San Marcos. The first group gathered 13 representatives of ADIMAM’s member municipalities (out of a total of 14 representatives invited). Given that the mayors had participated in the workshops and were not available to attend this meeting, Municipal Secretaries and Treasurers were invited instead. For the second focus group, community leaders were invited and 12 participants from different ADIMAM municipalities attended. The questionnaire used was similar to the one for the workshops and covered the same issues. As with the workshops, most of the conclusions from these two focus groups have been quoted in previous sections; the following paragraphs provide a short summary: • Rural accessibility: 82 percent of respondents considered that travel time to markets, school

and healthcare centers has been reduced significantly due to Pilot investments; 78 percent perceive that travel times to other cities within the mancomunidad has been significantly reduced as well, and 91 percent responded they considered that now they had access to an all weather road for a longer period of time.

• Sustainability of Pilot’s investments with a focus on maintenance: 65 percent of respondents considered that roads had not received adequate maintenance. In terms of how to solve this situation, 17 percent of respondents indicated that municipalities could allocate small amounts of funding for maintenance purposes and 45 percent believed communities could provide the necessary labor for maintenance activities.

• Institutional impacts arising from the creation of the mancomunidad: all participants agreed on the benefits of the mancomunidad for their communities and were aware of the existence of UTAV and of its role in supporting the Municipalities.

• Hurricane Stan and its impact on rural accessibility: 91 percent of participants rated their crops as the most affected by the hurricane, closely followed by roads (78 percent). 73 percent believed the roads had been significantly damaged by the hurricane. 40 percent rate the reconstruction support from the mancomunidad as good, while support from the central

22

government and the municipalities received this rating from 17 and 30 percent of respondents respectively.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate Institutional achievements from the Project have become a platform for the planning and implementation of interventions in rural areas. The fact that there are two approved Bank projects, plus others from other donors (such as JBIC and IDB) that are based on the model proposed by this Project, indicates that what has been achieved will not be lost and that it can be expected that the rural agenda will be consolidated in the coming years. The technical sustainability of main roads financed under Component 1 is rated as likely, as maintenance activities of these main trunks are already included in the recurrent investment plan of COVIAL, as are RN 12 and the section of secondary roads completed prior to closing. In terms of sustainability of investments in rural roads rehabilitation, it relies on two pillars: institutional and financial. The institutional mechanisms set up by the Project are solid: UTAV provides sound technical assistance to municipalities and a scheme for maintenance micro-enterprises will be implemented as soon as roads damaged by hurricane Stan are reconstructed. The fact that maintenance related difficulties came up multiple times during beneficiary workshops and focus groups, signals that the Project has also been successful in instilling among them a sense of the importance of adequate maintenance to ensure sustainability. Maintenance financing is closely linked to the broader issue of decentralization and poverty reduction in Guatemala. With 22 departments and 331 municipalities resulting in a variety of local needs, the country had a lot to gain from decentralizing government functions hence allowing local institutions to allocate funds according to each community’s needs and achieving greater impact from social infrastructure investments. Although this encompassed risks as well, such as increased inequality in the provision of public services, as poorer municipalities lack financial and technical resources to effectively undertake new responsibilities, the government committed itself to an ambitious decentralization agenda at the time of the Peace Accords. An additional risk resulting from the latter is that efforts to address equity concerns tend to create a great dependence on intergovernmental transfers at the local level. This is particularly true in the roads sector in which the central government as retained a lead role 7 . The latest Public Expenditure Review (PER) for Guatemala points to several issues that need to be addressed by the central government in order to ensure the sustainability of the road maintenance agenda: (i) total road network expenditures are low (approximately US$ 300 million in 2005, representing 1 percent of GDP), and the amount formally allocated to road maintenance through COVIAL is not a sufficient, (ii) there is ample room to improve operational efficiencies at the institutional level which will require reforms at the central level, such as improving CIV’s planning capabilities and budget preparation and execution; (iii) road sectoral spending is compromised by the lack of coordination between sector agencies and social fund interventions - the Pilot however has shown a good way to go in terms of institutional coordination; and (iv) lack of predictable and regular flow of transfers to local governments.

7 As a result of the public sector reforms of the 1990s, most of Guatemala’s infrastructure sector spending in telecommunications and energy is carried out by the private sector while public infrastructure investment in the water and sewerage sector is mainly the responsibility of municipalities.

23

Maintenance financing issues of rural roads are, however, counterbalanced by the continued government commitment to achieve improvements in the sector as part of its poverty reduction strategies, as evidenced by the approval of the follow-on project in Huehuetenango, mancomunidad Polochic under JBIC financing, and the Bank financed Project to Support a Rural Economic Development Program.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Highly Satisfactory The Bank assigned a qualified team with extensive experience in the road sector und with an appropriate skill mix which delivered a well designed project and provided value added to the Borrower. The Bank’s performance assisting the Borrower in identifying and appraising the project in a manner consistent with the CAS and in support of government’s priorities was satisfactory. This was a substantial achievement bearing in mind both the limited recent involvement of the Bank in the rural sector of Guatemala and the backcloth of mistrust and lack of viable institutions in the immediate aftermath of the Peace Accords. The Bank’s leadership was also essential to put in place an innovative approach to handle rural issues, to come up with appropriate implementation arrangements tailored to local needs and to help mobilize central agency’s support to the rural roads sector. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory The quality of Bank supervision, including the oversight of procurement, financial management and safeguards issues is considered satisfactory. The project had two task team leaders (TTL) over the course of the project cycle. The first, a Lead Highway Engineer with extensive experience in rural roads projects in Central America, was responsible for project preparation, appraisal and part of implementation. The second TTL was a Senior Infrastructure Economist who had been part of the team starting during the preparation phase. The transition between the two TTLs was smooth and no issues were identified by the Bank or the Borrower. The continuity of Bank staff comprising the task team supervising the project, which lasted for 8 years, helped strengthen the relationship with the client. Project execution was supervised regularly; missions traveled to the field twice a year, with additional regular Bank support provided by the TTL. Progress and ratings were adequately reported in the Implementation Status Results and Reports (ISRs). Beyond the focus on regular supervision matters, there was a strong interest on the part of the Bank in assessing impact of project activities and, in doing so, maintaining central government focus in the rural agenda. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory The Bank’s overall performance is rated as satisfactory for all the reasons presented in the previous sections. In retrospect, the quantity, quality and skill mix of the Bank staff appointed to the project preparation and execution was appropriate.

24

5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory Government performance during preparation is rated as moderately satisfactory. Counterparts worked closely with the Bank team in the identification of risks and mitigation measures that were relevant to avoid problems in the execution phase. Although the government continued to be committed with the project’s objectives during implementation, the lack of quick and assertive decision-making aimed at solving issues of great importance for project implementation (contractual problems in works in RN12, reallocation of funds for reconstruction of rural roads damaged by hurricane Stan) resulted in negative impacts for both the pace of implementation and achievement of outcomes. Finally, the lack of adequate provisions in the national budget transfer to municipalities for maintenance of rural roads is still a challenge that needs to be addressed to advance in the agenda of poverty reduction in rural areas. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory Dirección General de Caminos (DGC) DGC’s performance is considered satisfactory. A committed and qualified team that had participated in a previous Bank operation made important contributions to project design. Instituto de Fomento Municipal (INFOM) INFOM’s performance is considered satisfactory. Although the PCU lacked experience in the management of transport sector projects, it made great efforts to take advantage of training on these issues and was instrumental in facilitating the relationship with the local governments. Both agencies could have made greater efforts in terms of: - Ensuring continuity of Project Implementation Teams; and - Speeding-up internal administrative processes, particularly those related to works bidding processes. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory In spite of multiple implementation delays but taking into account the challenging setting in which the project was prepared, the Borrower’s performance is considered to have been satisfactory. The implementation phase lasted for almost 10 years and the level of commitment from the different administrations towards project’s objectives and design has varied, but never vanished. The approval of a Second Rural and Main Roads project shows that ending with the isolation of rural communities and fighting rural poverty remain important issues in the government’s agenda.

25

6. Lessons Learned In the context of a post-conflict situation, institutional strengthening strategies need to go beyond technical aspects and address the need to facilitate dialogue and build trust among actors involved. In the particular case of Guatemala, years of unfulfilled promises, weak results, central government investment benefits vanishing soon after due to lack of maintenance, had led to a certain cynicism and mistrust on the part of beneficiary communities. At the local level, efforts to build those social capital and technical capacities through ADIMAM and UTAV were central to the success of the Pilot. Establishing a proper channel to restore the credibility of central government agencies required strengthening INFOM’s capacity to articulate with ADIMAM government actions in San Marcos in a manner that would address ADIMAM’s priorities. The involvement of majors varied throughout project implementation depending on the skills and leadership of INFOM staff. The successful completion of rural roads works has so far helped build up central government credibility in the area but there is still more work to do; the decentralization agenda is far from settled. Thus, ensuring adequate financing for road maintenance is essential if the credibility gained due to the Project is to be further strengthened. The project envisaged the strengthening of INFOM, with a strategy focused on enhancing technical capacity, as this agency had not managed rural roads projects previously. Specific mechanisms to improve the dialogue between INFOM and the benefited communities would have been extremely beneficial to build trust between them and speed-up implementation of the Pilot at the early stages of implementation. Rural roads projects need to be realistic in balancing expected poverty impacts and investment sustainability. Having San Marcos as the focus of intervention, the Pilot maximized its poverty impact. Furthermore, by connecting rural roads to the secondary and main network, the Pilot intended to provide greater access to social services and markets to poor and isolated rural communities. The Project’s poverty focus meant that one of its ultimate goals was to link these communities to the mainstream thus enhancing their income generating opportunities. This, in turn, would make investments’ sustainability more likely. However, transport services are only one within a myriad of social and economic elements comprising a poverty reduction strategy which requires, for its implementation, the coordinating effort and complementary interventions from the central government. A further challenge that needs to be considered in this respect is given by the fact that the poorest municipalities often lack the technical and financial resources to ensure sustainability. Beyond financial considerations, project sustainability is largely determined by beneficiaries’ continued participation in project design and implementation. Given that most rural roads projects benefit communities that have traditionally been isolated from the mainstream, early involvement of beneficiaries is essential to ensure that project design actually responds to the local needs. Community participation is important not only to better target interventions but also to build ownership: in a sector in which maintenance activities are essential to ensure perdurability of the benefits achieved, beneficiaries need to see clearly how their interests and project benefits are linked. This is one of the Pilot’s major achievements, as concerns and comments as regards of maintenance came up many times during workshops and focus groups to analyze Project’s impacts. Designing a clear results framework and establishing baseline values for a set of well-defined, measurable set of outcome indicators is extremely important to ensure good monitoring of project execution, and accurate evaluation of outcomes achievement. A good M&E system is also

26

extremely useful for flagging potential issues so that these can be identified and addressed at an early stage in project implementation. Measuring results on the ground and the impact of project activities through beneficiary workshops and household surveys is a powerful instrument to keep central government agencies focused in the rural agenda and induce improvements in policy and operational procedures. Ideally, impact assessments should inform decisions in the design of future operations. The financing of maintenance activities is the single largest challenge in the rural roads sector, particularly in highly centralized countries. Central to success is working out the mechanisms to ensure that the adequate resources will be made available on a sustainable basis. Whereas central government transfers may remain an important contributory factor, it would be prudent for specific funding mechanisms to be designed for rural road maintenance, including local level resource mobilization from road users. Maintenance arrangements which rely on community based organizations are a valid approach but present certain limitations, particularly when there are no contractual arrangements linked to payments for services. Addressing the maintenance issues not only implies designing cost effective mechanisms but also delivery methods (micro enterprises for example) that can be consistently applied in the local context. There is a need to balance expectations between local employment generation arising from rural roads works and efficient execution. The usually small scale of rural road works, coupled with the reasonable objective of most rural roads programs of generating local employment, often result in small local companies being awarded rehabilitation works contracts. This can result in execution delays as small contractors often lack the financial strength and equipment required to undertake multiple works simultaneously in an expedite and efficient manner. A careful analysis of the bidding eligibility criteria and the possible inclusion of success fees for timely completion of works could constitute efficient instruments to partially solve this situation.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies The Borrower’s comments contained in Annex 7 were consistent, in general, with this ICR’s assessment of Project outcomes and implementation. A summary of the comments made follows below: The INFOM contribution drew attention to the following: In terms of the impact of the Project – capacity building in the mancomunidad was achieved; social cohesion was created in an area previously in conflict; administrative processes in the mancomunidad were improved; municipal planning has been improved. In regard to the major components – the rural roads strategy has been completed but now needs to be implemented, based perhaps on a pilot project to be carried out in a specific region; the pilot project was successful in improving interconnection and access; new technologies were not used; participation of local firms in contracts was less than expected, but local communities did play a bigger role. These communities are also active in the maintenance of the roads.

27

The Bank’s performance is considered satisfactory. Recommendations made were to: implement projects of this nature in other parts of the country; pay close future attention to respecting all donor/financier requirements under implementation; maintain capacity in implementing units. The DGC contribution stressed: In regard to the project’s impact – the project helped increase DGC’s capacity and experience to assist in the rural sector; studies important to the future of the sector were carried out; the economic impact of the project on the region was evident and considerable; communities are now starting to take a greater interest in maintaining roads in the project area. The Bank’s performance is considered satisfactory. Particular appreciation is expressed both for the contributions made by the two team leaders and for the support of the Bank’s specialists in helping to resolve problems related to procurement and financial management. Lessons learned included: institutional capacity must be created and sustained at municipal and community level; assessment of outcomes is easier where a proper base line has been drawn up; duplication of efforts can arise if the roles of different agencies are not clearly set out. Recommendations include implementation of the rural roads strategy and reduction in the turnover of personnel. (b) Co-financiers N/A (c) Other partners and stakeholders Stakeholders’ comments and experiences were gathered during two workshops organized in San Marcos by the implementing agencies, INFOM and DGC (October 24-25, 2007). See Annex 6 for details on the main findings and conclusions of those workshops. The general opinion expressed was that the Project had realized important positive impacts in the beneficiary communities and helped develop greater attention to maintenance, strengthened local participation and improved inter-institutional coordination in ADIMAM. The Project has certainly helped address the traditional poverty situation in the area and helped create the basis for sustainable development in the future, thanks to the road improvements carried.

28

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

Component Appraisal estimates (US$ millon)

Actual (US$ millon)

Percentage of Appraisal Estimates

Part A Rural Roads 25.96 30.3 117%

1. Design of Rural Roads and Transport Strategy 0.5 0.5 100%

2. Pilot Component (Rehabilitation and Maintenance) 25.46 29.8 117%

Civil Works 20.69 26.77 129%Municipal and Community Roads 4.77 6.2 130%National and Departamental Roads 15.92 20.57 129%

Goods 0.92 0.11 12%INFOM/Mancomunidad 0.49 0.11DGC's Zona Vial 0.43

Consultant Services 3.37 1.69 50%TA for Mancomunidad and INFOM 1.87 1.69TA for DGC 1.5

INFOM's management fee 0.48 1.23 256%

Part B Main and Secondary Roads 32.74 34.62 106%

1. Road rehabilitation/improvement 24.49 27.26 111%

CA1W Cuatro Caminos-La Mesilla 20.75 22.11 107% CA9S San Vicente Pacaya 1.25 2.4 192% CA1E Don Justo Desvio Santa Elena Barrilla 2.49 2.75 110%

2. Goods 0.85 0.04 5%Equipment for DGC HQ 0.85 0.04

3. Consultant Services 7.4 7.06 95%

Works supervision 3.9 2.95 76%

Engineering designs, Technical Assistance/Studies 3.5 4.11 117%

4. Central Bank - DGC* 0.26

Total Baseline Cost 58.7 64.9 111%Contingencies 8.0 0%Total Cost 66.7 64.9 97%

* This category corresponds to small/daily expenditures Project Costs by Procurement Arrangement

Appraisal Estimate (US$ million equivalent) Actual Costs (US$ million equivalent)

Expenditure Category Total Cost

Expenditure Category Total Cost

ICB NCB Other NBF** (OECF) ICB NCB Otros NBF (OECF)Works 54.15 7.26 1.48 53.8 116.69 Works 57.62 6.25 41.2 105.07

45.02 6.13 1.26 52.41 47.83 6.25 54.08

Goods/equipment 0.55 1.23 0.53 2.31 Goods/equipment 0.11 0.05 0.160.47 0.93 0.47 1.87 0.11 0.04 0.15

Services 12.44 5.05 17.49 Services 3.36 4.66 3.42 8.7 20.1412.44 12.44 2.95 4.11 3.42 10.48

Total 54.7 8.49 14.45 58.85 136.49 Total 61.09 4.66 9.72 49.9 125.3745.49 7.06 14.17 0 66.72 50.89 4.11 9.71 0 64.71

* Figures in italics are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Loan. All costs include contingencies. ** Non-Bank financed*** These tables do not consider expenditure category 4 under Part B of previous table

Procurement Method Procurement Method

29

Project financing by component (US$ million equivalent)

Component

Bank Government OECF Bank Government OECF Bank Government OECF

Part A RURAL ROADS 25.96 4.26 0 30.3 5.72 0 117% 134%

1. Design of Rural Roads and Transport Strategy 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.06 100%

2. Pilot (Rehabilitation and Maintenance) 25.46 4.26 0 29.8 5.66 0 117% 133%

Civil Works 20.69 4.1 0 26.77 5.31 0 129% 130%Municipal and community roads 4.77 0.84 0 6.2 1.1 130% 131%Main and secondary roads 15.92 3.26 0 20.57 4.21 129% 129%

Goods 0.92 0.16 0 0.11 0.02 0 12% 13%INFOM/Mancomunidad 0.49 0.09 0 0.11 0.02 22% 22%DGC's Zona Vial 0.43 0.07 0 0% 0%

Consultant Services 3.37 0 0 1.69 0.23 0 50%

TA for Mancomunidad and INFOM 1.87 0 0 1.69 0.23 90%TA for DGC 1.5 0 0 0%

INFOM's Management Fee 0.48 0 0 1.23 0.1 256%

Part B MAIN AND SECONDARY ROADS 32.74 5.16 50.6 34.36 6.55 49.9 105% 127% 99%

1. Road rehabilitation and improvement 24.49 5.01 45.9 27.26 5.58 41.2 111% 111% 90%

CA1W Cuatro Caminos-La Mesilla 20.75 4.25 0 22.11 4.53 107% 107% CA9S San Vicente Pacaya 1.25 0.25 2.4 0.49 192% 196% CA1E Don Justo Desvio Santa Elena Barrilla 2.49 0.51 0 2.75 0.56 110% 110%

CA1 W Chimaltengo-Tecpan 0 0 11.35 6.7 59%RN7W San Cristobal Verapaz 0 0 34.55 34.5 100%

2. Goods 0.85 0.15 0 0.04 0.01 0 5% 7%Equipment for DGC HQ 0.85 0.15 0 0.04 0.01 5% 7%

3. Servicios de Consultoria 7.4 0 4.7 7.06 0.96 8.7 95% 185%

Works supervision 3.9 0 4.7 2.95 0.41 76% 0%

Engineering design, Technical Assistance/Studies 3.5 0 0 4.11 0.55 117%

Unallocated Contingencies 8.01

TOTAL 66.71 9.42 50.6 64.66 12.27 49.9 97% 130% 99%

* Counterpart financing: the PAD does not provide details related to countepart financing. The numbers under "Government" in the Appraisal estimate are based on Schedule 1 of the Loan Agreement.

Appraisal Estimate Actual Percentage of Appraisal

30

Annex 2. Outputs by Component The Project achieved most of its outputs and the overall assessment of outputs is considered satisfactory. Commitment from both DGC and INFOM, together with Bank’s support, was essential for the completion of the targets appraised under each component. Component 1: Rural Roads This component is rated as Satisfactory. It was intended to finance: (i) the design and implementation of the Rural Transport Strategy, (ii) technical assistance for INFOM and the mancomunidad, (iii) equipment for INFOM and the mancomunidad, (iv) testing of alternative technologies for rural roads rehabilitation, (v) rehabilitation of 375km of rural roads, (vi) rehabilitation of 91km of main roads, and (vii) rehabilitation of 160km of secondary roads. Approximately US$30.2 million were assigned for this component, whose physical targets were satisfactorily achieved as follows: Rural Roads 1st Rural Roads package – 77km rehabilitated 2nd Rural Roads package – 112 km rehabilitated 3rd Rural Roads package – 86km rehabilitated 4th Rural Roads package – 106km rehabilitated A total of 381km were rehabilitated, surpassing the expected 375km. Incremental costs of US$1.5 million versus appraisal estimates were due mainly to changes in work designs and contract extensions resulting from adverse weather in the area. Main (RN12) and secondary roads in San Marcos 65km of main roads were completed as planned based on engineering designs as well as works contracts, and 28km of secondary roads (out of a total of 160km expected at appraisal) were rehabilitated. The decrease in the number of secondary roads rehabilitated was explained in detail in Section 1.6 of the report. In terms of the technical assistance supported by this component, the most salient outputs are: (i) Consultancy for establishment and training of UTAV personnel; (ii) Design of a maintenance scheme based on local micro-enterprises; (iii) Various training activities both for INFOM and UTAV’s staff., and (iv) As explained earlier, alternative technologies were developed, with four specific proposals presented by the consultant; however, these could not tested in San Marcos. Finally, the Rural Roads Strategy was designed under this component’s financing. Goods financed under this component include equipment for the set-up of the Coordination Unit in INFOM, equipment for UTAV, and equipment provided directly from INFOM to the comités vecinales for these to conduct routine maintenance activities in San Marcos. Component 2: Main and Secondary Roads This component is rated as Satisfactory. It aimed at financing the rehabilitation of approximately 370km of main and secondary roads, of which 174km would be financed by the Project. It also included budget for financing of technical assistance and goods for institutional strengthening of DGC and for consultancies related to works designs and supervision.

31

In terms of technical assistance provided for DGC’s institutional strengthening, the activities financed by this component included the following: (i) Strategy for Regulation of the Trucking Industry, (ii) Strategy for Road Safety Improvement, and (iii) Road Inventory System. With respect to works financed by this component, physical targets were fully met as detailed below: - Cuatro Caminos – La Mesilla: 158 kms rehabilitated - CA9S San Vicente Pacaya: 7.5km rehabilitated - CA1E Don Justo Desvio Santa Elena Barillas – 8.2km rehabilitated

32

Annex 3. Implementation Timetable

MAIN ROADS

MAIN ROADS

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Project closing date

All works completed (4 packagages)

RURAL ROADS PILOT RN 12 Works completed

Works completed

SECOND RURAL AND MAIN ROADS PROJECT

Project effectiveness Nov 04'

Second extension of closing date

Bank's Board approval

First contractrevoked Contract for

secondary roads awarded

New contract awarded

Project effectiveness Dec 98'

First contract awarded

First extension of closing date

First contract awarded Works completed

Contract for 1st package awarded

Hurricane Stan hits Guatemala

MUNICIPAL ROADS

33

Annex 4. Economic and Financial Analysis Overall, the consolidated NPV of the four road sections analyzed totaled US$ 61.5 million, with a weighted average IERR of 27%. The economic return of the road component remains therefore at a highly satisfactory level. Sensitivity analyses were also carried out for the roads analyzed, considering in all cases a reduction of 20% in project benefits (vehicle operating costs savings, including passenger time benefits) and an increase of 20% in project costs. In all cases, IERRs remained at satisfactory levels, as shown in the tables below. 1- CA-01 W: Cuatro Caminos – La Mesilla IERR: 28% NPV: US$ 53million (12 % discount rate) Evaluated period: 20 years IRI reduction of 61% as result of the works (IRI: 6.2 in 98; 2.4 in 07) Investment

Name of the Section US$ million

US$/km (000)

Cuatro Caminos - Estancia de la Virgen 26.42 486 Estancia de la Virgen - San Sebastian Huehuetenango 15.72 342 San Sebastian Huehuetenango - Estancia de la Virgen 28.22 544

Total 70.3

Name of the Section NPV (US$ million) IERR (%) NPV/Investment

Cuatro Caminos - Estancia de la Virgen 27.19 33% 1.03 Estancia de la Virgen - San Sebastian Huehuetenango 14.64 28% 0.93 San Sebastian Huehuetenango - Estancia de la Virgen 11.35 22% 0.4 53.17 28% 0.76

Sensitivity Analysis IERR (%)

IERR (%) base Cost (+20%)

Benefits (-20%) Combined

28% 25% 24% 21%

34

2- CA-01 E: Don Justo – Santa Elena Barillas IERR: 72% NPV: US$4.8 million (discount rate of 12%) Evaluated period: 15 years IRI reduction of 46% as result of the works (IRI: 4.5 in 98; 2.4 in 07) Investment

Name of the Section US$ million

US$/km (000)

Don Justo - Sta. Elena Barillas 2,905 343,399

Name of the Section NPV (US$ million) IERR (%) NPV/Investment

Don Justo - Sta. Elena Barillas 4.88 72% 1,68 Sensitivity Analysis IERR (%)

IERR (%) base Cost (+20%) Benefits (-20%) Combined

72% 62% 60% 52% 3 - RD03: Entronque CA_09 – San Vicente Pacaya IERR: 15.5% NPV: US$500,000 Evaluated period: 15 years IRI reduction of 84% as result of the works (IRI: 15 in 98; 2.4 in 07) Investment

Name of the Section US$ million

US$/km (000)

Entronque CA-09 S - San Vicente Pacaya 3 423,29

Name of the Section NPV (US$ million) IERR (%) NPV/Investment

Entronque CA-09 S - San Vicente Pacaya 0,5 16% 0.16 Sensitivity Analysis IERR (%)

IERR (%) base Cost (+20%) Benefits (-20%) Combined

16% 13% 12% 12%

35

4 - RN12: Tejutla - San Sebastián – Ixigúan – Tacaná – Tectitán IERR: 20% NPV: US$5.6 million (discount rate of 12%) Evaluated period: 20 years IRI reduction of 85% after the Project (IRI of 14.6 in 99; 2.3 in 07)

Investment

Name of the Section US$ million

US$/km (000)

San Sebastián – Tejuela 6.5 328.2

San Sebastián – Ixchiguan 3.6 361.5

Ixchiguan - Tacana 3.1 409.3

Tacana - Tectican 9 328.2

Total 22.35 343

Name of the Section NPV (US$ million) IERR (%) NPV/Investment

San Sebastián – Tejutla 1.2 20% 0.18

San Sebastián – Ixchiguan 1.2 19% 0.35

Ixchiguan - Tacana 1 18% 0.32

Tacana - Tectican 2 23% 0.24

Total 5.6 20% 0.25

Sensitivity Analysis IERR (%)

IERR (%) base Cost (+20%)

Benefits (-20%) Combined

20% 17% 16% 14%

36

Annex 5. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

a) Task Team members Name Title OUI Lending Corvalan, Cecilia Claudia Sr Transport. Econ. LCSTR Garcia Lopez, Lubia Esmeralda Resource Management Analyst LCRRM Gomez, Alejandro Consultant LCSTR Ruan, Guillermo Lead Highway Engineer LCSTR

Supervision Cajina, Adan N. Consultant LCSTR Cortes, Rene Consultant LCSTR Corvalan, Cecilia Claudia Sr Transport. Econ. LCSTR Cuttaree, Vickram Infrastructure Economist ECSSD Duarte Monroy, Guillermo Armando Consultant LCSTR

Fruttero, Anna Consultant LCSPP Glass, Melanie JPA LCSTR Gomez, Alejandro Consultant LCSTR Guerrero Mendigana, Pablo Andres Consultant LCSTR

Guitink, Paulus A. Consultant LCSTR James, Emmanuel A. Lead Transport Specialist LCSTR Lebo, Jerry A. Country Program Coordinator EACNF Lehnhoff, Monica Procurement Analyst LCSPT Mroczka, Fabienne Financial Management Analyst LCSFM Ordonez Ordonez, Jaime Ivan Consultant LCSTR Osorio, Victor Manuel Consultant LCSTR Pino, Livio Consultant LCSFM Piola De Andraca, Patricio Consultant LCSTR Prada Villalobos, Luis R. Sr Procurement Spec. LCSPT Quintero, Juan D. Sr Environmental Engr. EASRE Rehman, Manzoor Consultant LCSTR Rodriguez Granados, Edgar Eduardo Consultant LCSTR

Roman, Enrique Antonio Financial Management Specialist LCSFM Ruan, Guillermo Lead Highway Engineer LCSTR Sanchez, Susana M. Sr Financial Economist LCSSD Sevilla, Manuel Sector Leader LCSSD Somensatto, Eduardo Country Manager LCC2C Vargas, Manuel Sr Financial Management Specialist LCSFM

37

Zeron, Luz A. Consultant LCSFM

(b) Staff Time and Cost

Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project

Cycle No. of staff weeks* USD Thousands (including travel and

consultant costs) Lending

FY95 - 7,851.50 FY96 - 67,489.43 FY97 - 82,449.57 FY98 - 245,912.68

Total: 0 403,703.18 Supervision/ICR

FY99 - 67,489.43 FY00 18.88 112,842.53 FY01 13.56 80,320.57 FY02 13.28 46,771.73 FY03 15.03 57,641.83 FY04 20.82 94,383.45 FY05 26.07 94,356.12 FY06 19.74 66,396.88 FY07 18.13 114,345.87 FY08 4 55,825.97

Total: 149.51 790,374.38 * Number of staff weeks not available in SAP for years 1995 through 1999.

38

Annex 6. Beneficiary Survey Results In November 2007, two separate focus groups were organized in San Marcos by a consultancy firm. The first group gathered 13 technical staff from the municipalities of ADIMAM (municipal secretaries and treasurers) and the second one reunited community leaders, with 12 participants. The following tables provide a summary of the most relevant questions asked, together with the responses of the two groups.

PREGUNTA 3

CONSIDERA QUE SU COMUNIDAD SE HA BENEFICIADO CON LAS ACCIONES DEL PROYECTO Y EN QUE MEDIDA? MUCHO, POCO, CASI NADA, NADA? (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P3 | | | | |MUCHO | 73,9%| 66,7%| 81,8%| |POCO | 13,0%| 16,7%| 9,1%| |NADA | 8,7%| 16,7%| | |NS/NR | 4,3%| | 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 5

CREE USTED QUE SE HA REDUCIDO EL TIEMPO DE VIAJE DE LA POBLACION AL CENTRO DE SALUD, A LA ESCUELA, AL MERCADO PARA COMPRA O VENTA DE PRODUCTOS? EN QUE GRADO

SE HA REDUCIDO? MUCHO, POCO O NADA? (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P5 | | | | |MUCHO | 82,6%| 66,7%| 100,0%| |POCO | 8,7%| 16,7%| | |CASI NADA | 8,7%| 16,7%| | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 6

IGUALMENTE, CREE USTED QUE GRACIAS A LA NUEVA CARRETERA SE HA DIMINUIDO EL TIEMPO QUE LES TOMA PARA LLEGAR A OTRAS CIUDADES DENTRO DE LA MANCOMUNIDAD

Y A LA CARRETERA PRICIPAL? EN QUE GRADO? MUCHO, POCO O NADA? (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P6 | | | | |MUCHO | 78,3%| 58,3%| 100,0%| |POCO | 13,0%| 25,0%| | |CASI NADA | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |NS/NR | 4,3%| 8,3%| | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

39

PREGUNTA 7

GRACIAS A LAS ACCIONES DEL PROYECTO, ACTUALMENTE LE ES MAS FACIL LLEGAR A LOS LUGARES A LOS CUALES ANTES LE ERA MAS DIFICIL? (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P7 | | | | |ME ES MAS FACIL | 82,6%| 66,7%| 100,0%| |ME ES IGUAL DE FACIL/DIFICIL | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |NS/NR | 13,0%| 25,0%| | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------

PREGUNTA 8

EN TERMINOS DE LA MEJORA EN LAS CONDICIONES DE LA VIDA PARA LA COMUNIDAD CREE USTED QUE ES MAYOR, MENOR O IGUAL LA DISPONIBILIDAD DE TRANSPORTE PÚBLICO DE PASAJEROS RESPECTO DE LA SITUACION PREVIA AL PROYECTO? (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P8 | | | | |ES MAYOR | 82,6%| 66,7%| 100,0%| |ES IGUAL | 8,7%| 16,7%| | |NS/NR | 8,7%| 16,7%| | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 9 A PARTIR DE LA CONSTRUCCION DE LA CARRETERA, CONSIDERA USTED QUE PUEDE TENER MAYOR

ACCESO A UN CAMINO TRANSITABLE MAS DIAS AL AÑO QUE ANTES DE QUE SE CONSTRUYERA LA CARRETERA? (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |EDUARDO SUGER | | | | |HAY MAYOR ACCESO | 91,3%| 83,3%| 100,0%| |NS/NR | 8,7%| 16,7%| | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 10 CREE USTED QUE LOS CAMINOS HAN RECIBIDO EL MANTENIMIENTO ADECUADO UNA VEZ

TERMINADOS? (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P10 | | | | |SI | 30,4%| 16,7%| 45,5%| |NO | 65,2%| 75,0%| 54,5%| |NS/NR | 4,3%| 8,3%| | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

40

PREGUNTA 11 EN CASO QUE NO HAYAN RECIBIDO EL MANTENIMIENTO ADECUADO, CUAL CONSIDERA USTED QUE ES LA PRINCIPAL RAZON QUE IMPIDE O HA IMPEDIDO QUE SE REALICE

UN MANTENIMIENTO APROPIADO? (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P11 | | | | |NS/NR | 21,7%| 41,7%| | |FONDOS Y DESINTERES | 17,4%| 8,3%| 27,3%| |EL POCO RECURSO ECONOMICO CON | | | | | QUE SE CUENTA | 13,0%| | 27,3%| |FALTA DE MATERIALES Y | | | | | MAQUINARIA | 8,7%| | 18,2%| |FALTA DE CONCIENCIA | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |NO HA HABIDO COORDINACION NI | | | | | RESPONSABILIDAD DIRECTA | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |FALTA DE GESTION DE PARTE DE | | | | | LA COMUNIDAD | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |FALTA DE ORGANIZACION | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |ACUERDOS EN EL PROYECTO | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |CUIDADO DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |NO HAY REGLON ESPECIFICOS PARA| | | | | EL GASTO | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |QUE LA ASOCIACION GESTIONE MAS| | | | | RECURSOS | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |NO CONTAR CON PODER SUFICIENTE| 4,3%| | 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 12

DE QUE MANERA LAS MUNICIPALIDADES O LAS COMUNIDADES PODRIAN CONTRIBUIR EN EL MANTENIMIENTO DE LOS CAMINOS PARA EL FUTURO? FAVOR INDICARNOS LA

PRINCIPAL MANERA O MODO SEA LA MUNICIPALIDAD O LA COMUNIDAD:

LA MUNICIPALIDAD (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P12A | | | | |NS/NR | 26,1%| 41,7%| 9,1%| |DANDO UN MINIMO APORTE | 17,4%| 25,0%| 9,1%| |PREOCUPANDOSE POR BUSCAR | | | | | FONDOS | 17,4%| 16,7%| 18,2%| |TENER UN PRESUPUESTO | | | | | ESPECIFICO PARA CARRETERAS | 17,4%| | 36,4%| |COORDINAR CON LAS COMUNIDADES | | | | | ORGANIZADAS A TRAVEZ DE LOS| | | | | AL ALCALDES | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |MAYOR MANTENIMIENTO | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |DOTAR A LA COMUNIDAD DE | | | | | HERRAMIENTAS | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |GESTIONANDO UN CONVOY | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |QUE TENGA MAS INGRESOS | 4,3%| | 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

41

PREGUNTA 12 DE QUE MANERA LAS MUNICIPALIDADES O LAS COMUNIDADES PODRIAN CONTRIBUIR EN EL MANTENIMIENTO DE LOS CAMINOS PARA EL FUTURO? FAVOR INDICARNOS LA

PRINCIPAL MANERA O MODO SEA LA MUNICIPALIDAD O LA COMUNIDAD: LA COMUNIDAD (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P12B | | | | |MANO DE OBRA PARA EL | | | | | MANTENIMIENTO | 43,5%| 33,3%| 54,5%| |NS/NR | 39,1%| 41,7%| 36,4%| |LIMPIEZA, CHAPEO DE CARRETERAS| 4,3%| 8,3%| | |EXIGIR A LAS MUNICIPALIDADES | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |INTEREZANDOSE Y DENUNCIANDO | | | | | ANOMALIAS | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |GESTIONANDO FONDOS PARA | | | | | HACERLO | 4,3%| | 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 15 DENTRO DEL PRESUPUESTO MUNICIPAL, ¨EXISTEN PARTIDAS ESPECIFICAS PARA

EL REGLON DE MANTENIMIETOS DE CAMINOS? (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |F15 | | | | |SI EXISTEN | 34,8%| | 72,7%| |NO EXISTEN | 26,1%| 25,0%| 27,3%| |NS/NR | 39,1%| 75,0%| | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 16

¨PUNTUALMENTE QUE ACCIONES HAN SIDO REALIZADAS POR SU MUNICIPALIDAD O COMUNIDAD PARA EL MANTENIMIENTO VIAL DE SUS CAMINOS?

(VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |F16 | | | | |NS/NR | 52,2%| 100,0%| | |RECURSOS PROPIOS MUNICIPALES | 13,0%| | 27,3%| |PAGO DE ARRENDAMIENTO DE | | | | | MAQUINARIA | 8,7%| | 18,2%| |CREAR PLAZAS O PLANILLAS PARA | | | | | LIMPIEZA DE CARRETERAS | 8,7%| | 18,2%| |PREPARANDO CAMIONES DE VOLTEO | | | | | Y RETROEXCAVADORAS | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |APORTE DE HERRAMIENTAS, | | | | | AZADORES, PALAS,PIOCHAS,ETC| 4,3%| | 9,1%| |SE PROPORCIONA AYUDA ATRAMOS | | | | | MUY DETERIORADOS CON | | | | | MATERIALES | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |MANTENIMIENTO DE ACUERDO A LAS| | | | | POSIBILIDADES Y NECESIDADES| 4,3%| | 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

42

PREGUNTA 18

¨QUE MECANISMOS CREE USTED QUE PODRIAN AYUDAR PARA LA SOSTENIBILIDAD EN EL MANTENIMIENTO Y LA PRESERVACION DE LAS INVERSIONES REALIZAS?

(VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |F18 | | | | |NS/NR | 47,8%| 91,7%| | |MAS PRESUPUESTO EN MANCOMUNIDA| | | | | PARA MANTENIMIENTO DE | | | | | CABLES | 17,4%| | 36,4%| |CREAR LAS PARTIDAS | | | | | PRESUPUESTARIAS ESPECIFICAS| | | | | | 8,7%| | 18,2%| |LEGISLAR A FAVOR DE LAS | | | | | MUNICIPALIDADES PARA | | | | | OBTENER PRESUPU | 8,7%| | 18,2%| |ORGANIZACION DE AYUDA | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |SOLICITUD DE AYUDA | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |ORGANIZACION DE LA | | | | | MANCOMUNIDAD | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |CONTRIBUIR AL DESARROLLO DE LA| | | | | COMUNIDAD | 4,3%| | 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 13

PARA USTEDES CUALES FUERON LAS PRINCIPALES CONSECUENCIAS DEL HURACAN SOBRE SUS COMUNIDADES Y SUS FAMILIAS, ESPECIALMENTE SOBRE LAS PERDIDAS

EN LA COSECHA, LOS ANIMALES, SUS VIVIENDAS? (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |SOBRE LAS COSECHAS | | | | |MUY GRAVE | 91,3%| 91,7%| 90,9%| |POCO GRAVE | 4,3%| 8,3%| | |NS/NR | 4,3%| | 9,1%| | | | | | |SOBRE LA VIVIENDA | | | | |MUY GRAVE | 52,2%| 58,3%| 45,5%| |POCO GRAVE | 43,5%| 33,3%| 54,5%| |NS/NR | 4,3%| 8,3%| | | | | | | |SOBRE LOS CAMINOS | | | | |MUY GRAVE | 78,3%| 75,0%| 81,8%| |POCO GRAVE | 21,7%| 25,0%| 18,2%| | | | | | |SOBRE LOS PUENTES | | | | |MUY GRAVE | 69,6%| 66,7%| 72,7%| |POCO GRAVE | 26,1%| 33,3%| 18,2%| |NS/NR | 4,3%| | 9,1%| | | | | | |SOBRE SUS FAMILIAS | | | | |MUY GRAVE | 52,2%| 66,7%| 36,4%| |POCO GRAVE | 39,1%| 33,3%| 45,5%| |NADA GRAVE | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |NS/NR | 4,3%| | 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

43

PREGUNTA 14 HABLANDO DE LOS MEDIOS DE COMUNICACION Y EDIFICACIONES, CUALES FUERON LAS

PRINCIPALES CONSECUENCIAS? HUBO DESTRUCCION DE LAS CARRETERAS, CAMINOS, PUENTES EN SUS COMUNIDADES Y QUE GRADO? MUY DESTRUIDOS, POCO DESTRUIDOS, NADA DESTRUIDOS?

(VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |CAMINOS | | | | |MUY DESTRUIDOS | 73,9%| 58,3%| 90,9%| |POCO DESTRUIDOS | 21,7%| 33,3%| 9,1%| |NS/NR | 4,3%| 8,3%| | | | | | | |PUENTES | | | | |MUY DESTRUIDOS | 69,6%| 66,7%| 72,7%| |POCO DESTRUIDOS | 21,7%| 25,0%| 18,2%| |NS/NR | 8,7%| 8,3%| 9,1%| | | | | | |CARRETERAS | | | | |MUY DESTRUIDOS | 65,2%| 41,7%| 90,9%| |POCO DESTRUIDOS | 26,1%| 41,7%| 9,1%| |NS/NR | 8,7%| 16,7%| | | | | | | |EDIFICIOS PUBLICOS | | | | |MUY DESTRUIDOS | 21,7%| 33,3%| 9,1%| |POCO DESTRUIDOS | 34,8%| 33,3%| 36,4%| |NADA DESTRUIDOS | 26,1%| 8,3%| 45,5%| |NS/NR | 17,4%| 25,0%| 9,1%| | | | | | |VIVIENDAS | | | | |MUY DESTRUIDOS | 43,5%| 50,0%| 36,4%| |POCO DESTRUIDOS | 47,8%| 33,3%| 63,6%| |NS/NR | 8,7%| 16,7%| | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 15 POR LOS DESTROZOS DEL HURACAN, EN QUE GRADOS SE VIERON AFECTADOS PARA TENER ACCESO AL MERCADO, SE CERRARON ESCUELAS, TUVIERON PERDIDAS ECONOMICAS? (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P15 | | | | |MUY AFECTADOS | 78,3%| 83,3%| 72,7%| |POCO AFECTADOS | 17,4%| 8,3%| 27,3%| |NS/NR | 4,3%| 8,3%| | | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 16

DESPUES DEL HURACAN, HA HABIDO MAYOR DIFICULTADES PARA TENER ACCESO A LOS CENTROS DE SALUD, ESCUELAS O EL MERCADO? (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |P16 | | | | |HA HABIDO MAYOR DIFICULTAD | 56,5%| 50,0%| 63,6%| |SE MANTIENE IGUAL | 30,4%| 33,3%| 27,3%| |NS/NR | 13,0%| 16,7%| 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

44

PREGUNTA 18

EN LA FASE DE RECUPERACION, DE QUIEN HAN RECIBIDO MAYOR AYUDA TANTO LAS COMUNIDADES COMO LAS FAMILIAS? DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD, DEL GOBIERNO GENERAL, DE LA MANCOMUNIDAD,

DEL SECTOR PRIVADO? FAVOR INDICAR EN EL SIGUIENTE CUADRO CUAL HA SIDO LA MAYOR AYUDA RECIBIDA SEGUN CADA ORGANIZACION, PONIENDO EL NIVEL DE IMPORTANCIA SEGUN EL SIGUIENTE

ORDEN: 1 MAYOR AYUDA, 2 MENOR AYUDA (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |GOBIERNO CENTRAL-PARA FAMILIAS| | | | |MAYOR AYUDA | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |MENOR AYUDA | 30,4%| 16,7%| 45,5%| |NS/NR | 65,2%| 83,3%| 45,5%| | | | | | |GOBIERNO CENTRAL-PARA | | | | | COMUNIDAD | | | | |MENOR AYUDA | 39,1%| 8,3%| 72,7%| |MARCADO | 21,7%| 25,0%| 18,2%| |NS/NR | 39,1%| 66,7%| 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 18

EN LA FASE DE RECUPERACION, DE QUIEN HAN RECIBIDO MAYOR AYUDA TANTO LAS COMUNIDADES COMO LAS FAMILIAS? DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD, DEL GOBIERNO GENERAL, DE LA MANCOMUNIDAD,

DEL SECTOR PRIVADO? FAVOR INDICAR EN EL SIGUIENTE CUADRO CUAL HA SIDO LA MAYOR AYUDA RECIBIDA SEGUN CADA ORGANIZACION, PONIENDO EL NIVEL DE IMPORTANCIA SEGUN EL SIGUIENTE

ORDEN: 1 MAYOR AYUDA, 2 MENOR AYUDA (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |MUNICIPALIDAD-PARA FAMILIAS | | | | |MAYOR AYUDA | 13,0%| | 27,3%| |MENOR AYUDA | 17,4%| 16,7%| 18,2%| |MARCADO | 30,4%| 33,3%| 27,3%| |NS/NR | 39,1%| 50,0%| 27,3%| | | | | | |MUNICIPALIDAD-PARA COMUNIDAD | | | | |MAYOR AYUDA | 17,4%| 8,3%| 27,3%| |MENOR AYUDA | 17,4%| | 36,4%| |MARCADO | 8,7%| | 18,2%| |NS/NR | 56,5%| 91,7%| 18,2%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

45

PREGUNTA 18 EN LA FASE DE RECUPERACION, DE QUIEN HAN RECIBIDO MAYOR AYUDA TANTO LAS COMUNIDADES COMO LAS FAMILIAS? DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD, DEL GOBIERNO GENERAL, DE LA MANCOMUNIDAD,

DEL SECTOR PRIVADO? FAVOR INDICAR EN EL SIGUIENTE CUADRO CUAL HA SIDO LA MAYOR AYUDA RECIBIDA SEGUN CADA ORGANIZACION, PONIENDO EL NIVEL DE IMPORTANCIA SEGUN EL SIGUIENTE

ORDEN: 1 MAYOR AYUDA, 2 MENOR AYUDA (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |MANCOMUNIDAD-PARA FAMILIAS | | | | |MAYOR AYUDA | 4,3%| | 9,1%| |MENOR AYUDA | 21,7%| 8,3%| 36,4%| |MARCADO | 13,0%| 8,3%| 18,2%| |NS/NR | 60,9%| 83,3%| 36,4%| | | | | | |MANCOMUNIDAD-PARA COMUNIDAD | | | | |MENOR AYUDA | 30,4%| | 63,6%| |MARCADO | 17,3%| 16,7%| 18,2%| |NS/NR | 52,2%| 83,3%| 18,2%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+------

PREGUNTA 18

EN LA FASE DE RECUPERACION, DE QUIEN HAN RECIBIDO MAYOR AYUDA TANTO LAS COMUNIDADES COMO LAS FAMILIAS? DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD, DEL GOBIERNO GENERAL, DE LA MANCOMUNIDAD,

DEL SECTOR PRIVADO? FAVOR INDICAR EN EL SIGUIENTE CUADRO CUAL HA SIDO LA MAYOR AYUDA RECIBIDA SEGUN CADA ORGANIZACION, PONIENDO EL NIVEL DE IMPORTANCIA SEGUN EL SIGUIENTE

ORDEN: 1 MAYOR AYUDA, 2 MENOR AYUDA (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |SECTOR PRIVADO-PARA FAMILIAS | | | | |MENOR AYUDA | 17,4%| 8,3%| 27,3%| |MARCADO | 13,0%| 8,3%| 18,2%| |NS/NR | 69,6%| 83,3%| 54,5%| | | | | | |SECTOR PRIVADO-PARA COMUNIDAD | | | | |MENOR AYUDA | 17,4%| | 36,4%| |MARCADO | 13,0%| 16,7%| 9,1%| |NS/NR | 69,6%| 83,3%| 54,5%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 18

EN LA FASE DE RECUPERACION, DE QUIEN HAN RECIBIDO MAYOR AYUDA TANTO LAS COMUNIDADES COMO LAS FAMILIAS? DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD, DEL GOBIERNO GENERAL, DE LA MANCOMUNIDAD,

DEL SECTOR PRIVADO? FAVOR INDICAR EN EL SIGUIENTE CUADRO CUAL HA SIDO LA MAYOR AYUDA RECIBIDA SEGUN CADA ORGANIZACION, PONIENDO EL NIVEL DE IMPORTANCIA SEGUN EL SIGUIENTE

ORDEN: 1 MAYOR AYUDA, 2 MENOR AYUDA (VALORES RELATIVOS) +------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |COOPERACION INTERNACIONAL-PARA| | | | | FAMILIAS | | | | |MAYOR AYUDA | 26,1%| 8,3%| 45,5%| |MENOR AYUDA | 8,7%| 8,3%| 9,1%| |MARCADO | 21,7%| 16,7%| 27,3%| |NS/NR | 43,5%| 66,7%| 18,2%| | | | | | |COOPERACION INTERNACIONAL-PARA| | | | | COMUNIDAD | | | | |MAYOR AYUDA | 21,7%| 8,3%| 36,4%| |MENOR AYUDA | 13,0%| | 27,3%| |MARCADO | 13,0%| 16,7%| 9,1%| |NS/NR | 52,2%| 75,0%| 27,3%|

46

| | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 20

CON RESPECTO A LA RECONSTRUCCION: COMO CALIFICA EL APOYO DE SU MUNICIPALIDAD PARA LLEVAR A CABO LABORES DE RECONSRTRUCCION. Y COMO LA DEL GOBIERNO CENTRAL? Y COMO DE LA LA MANCOMUNIDAD? FAVOR CALIFIQUE EN EL SIGUIENTE CUADRO INDICANDO

CON UNA X SI PARA CADA ORGANISMO EL APOYO HA SIDO EXCELENTE, BUENO, REGULAR O MALO (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |GOBIERNO CENTRAL | | | | |EXCELENTE | 8,7%| 8,3%| 9,1%| |BUENO | 17,4%| | 36,4%| |REGULAR | 34,8%| 33,3%| 36,4%| |MALO | 17,4%| 25,0%| 9,1%| |NS/NR | 21,7%| 33,3%| 9,1%| | | | | | |MUNICIPALIDAD | | | | |EXCELENTE | 21,7%| 25,0%| 18,2%| |BUENO | 30,4%| | 63,6%| |REGULAR | 21,7%| 33,3%| 9,1%| |MALO | 8,7%| 16,7%| | |NS/NR | 17,4%| 25,0%| 9,1%| | | | | | |MANCOMUNIDAD | | | | |EXCELENTE | 17,4%| 16,7%| 18,2%| |BUENO | 39,1%| 16,7%| 63,6%| |REGULAR | 17,4%| 25,0%| 9,1%| |MALO | 8,7%| 16,7%| | |NS/NR | 17,4%| 25,0%| 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

PREGUNTA 20

CON RESPECTO A LA RECONSTRUCCION: COMO CALIFICA EL APOYO DE SU MUNICIPALIDAD PARA LLEVAR A CABO LABORES DE RECONSRTRUCCION. Y COMO LA DEL GOBIERNO CENTRAL? Y COMO DE LA LA MANCOMUNIDAD? FAVOR CALIFIQUE EN EL SIGUIENTE CUADRO INDICANDO

CON UNA X SI PARA CADA ORGANISMO EL APOYO HA SIDO EXCELENTE, BUENO, REGULAR O MALO (VALORES RELATIVOS)

+------------------------------+-------+---------------+ | | TOTAL | TIPO | | | +-------+-------+ | | |LIDERES|MUNICIP| +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ |SECTOR PRIVADO | | | | |BUENO | 21,7%| 16,7%| 27,3%| |REGULAR | 26,1%| 25,0%| 27,3%| |MALO | 17,4%| 25,0%| 9,1%| |NS/NR | 34,8%| 33,3%| 36,4%| | | | | | |COOPERACION INTERNACIONAL | | | | |EXCELENTE | 21,7%| 16,7%| 27,3%| |BUENO | 21,7%| | 45,5%| |REGULAR | 17,4%| 16,7%| 18,2%| |MALO | 17,3%| 33,3%| | |NS/NR | 21,7%| 33,3%| 9,1%| | | | | | |TOTAL | | | | | % | 100,0%| 100,0%| 100,0%| | N | 23 | 12 | 11 | +------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

47

Annex 7. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results In October 2007, the two implementing agencies, INFOM and DGC organized two workshops in San Marcos to assess the impact of the Pilot’s investments. Attached below are the reports prepared by the two agencies summarizing the most salient testimonies received during the two sessions. 1. Introducción

Para la medición de los impactos de este programa, además de la verificación cuantitativa de la consecución de las metas previstas dentro del programa, requiere de insumos diversos, para lo cual se llevaron a cabo dos Talleres de Trabajo con la participación de Alcaldes Municipales, representantes de la Sociedad Civil, Líderes Comunitarios y representantes de las instituciones relacionadas con el programa.

Los talleres se desarrollaron con fechas 24 y 25 de Octubre anterior, con participación de Alcaldes y Autoridades Locales, así como líderes de la sociedad civil de la región atendida por el proyecto, en una primera actividad y una segunda con participación de representantes de las comunidades beneficiarias.

El número de participantes en la actividad con Alcaldes fue de 25 personas y en la actividad con líderes comunitarios fue de 74, como se observa en los listados de participantes que se presenta adjunto al presente informe. 2. Metodologia La metodología utilizada permitió en una primera fase dar a conocer a los participantes aspectos generales de lo que fue el programa, para luego proceder a recoger en trabajo de grupos las opiniones de los asistentes sobre los impactos que perciben de esta intervención del Banco Mundial y de las Unidades Ejecutoras Gubernamentales (INFOM y DGC).

Para recoger las opiniones y valorizaciones de los participantes, con la debida anticipación se formuló una serie de preguntas, las cuales fueron respondidas en trabajo de grupos y expuestas ante la plenaria por parte de los relatores que los grupos seleccionaron.

Además de la riqueza de las opiniones, se considera que la metodología permitió un interesante intercambio de experiencias, percibiendo además que las personas que fueron invitadas, además del liderazgo que tienen en sus respectivas comunidades y municipios, manejan con cierta propiedad la gestión de proyectos de desarrollo local.

Además de la exposición del tema introductoria y los trabajos de grupos – plenarias, se desarrollaron dinámicas para cohesionar al grupo, experiencia que resultó motivadora y permitió mantener a los participantes en una actitud de aporte durante toda la jornada de trabajo.

48

Resultados

Para cada uno de los talleres y por grupos de preguntas, los participantes presentaron sus respuestas en la plenaria, los cuales se recogen en la matriz adjunta. (Anexo 2).

En adición a lo que los grupos presentaron en las plenarias, el grupo organizador recogió apuntes de los comentarios de los participantes, los cuales se presentan en el Anexo 3 del presente informe.

Conclusiones

En opinión de todos los participantes, el programa ha producido importantes impactos positivos en su vida cotidiana y en el desarrollo socioeconómico de sus comunidades y municipios, quedando por mejorar algunos aspectos, tales como la atención del mantenimiento de los caminos rehabilitados, el fortalecimiento de la participación local, el fortalecimiento de la ADIMAM y mejorar la coordinación interinstitucional para hacer mas efectivas las inversiones y asegurar que sean sostenibles.

Es evidente que los participantes reconocen en el Gobierno y sus Unidades Ejecutoras (INFOM y DGC) y en el Banco Mundial, que de no haber sido por este programa, la situación de pobreza y exclusión en que históricamente se han encontrado, no hubiesen cambiado y que ahora ya consideran que están encaminándose a la construcción del desarrollo sustentable y que con este proyecto, gracias a las nuevas carreteras en funcionamiento, esto será mas viable.

A continuación, se presentan tablas con las respuestas recibidas al cuestionario presentado durante los Talleres.

49

Grupo 1 Grupo 2 Grupo 3Institucional Municipal Gerencia ADIMAM

1 Considera que usted y su comunidad se han beneficiado con el proyecto?

Ahorro en tiempo de movilizacion. Acceso de las comunidades a: centros de salud, educativos, lugares de trabajo y recreacion, mercados, ahorro de combustible y mantenimiento de vehiculos, reduccion de peligro y generacion de empleo local.

Mejoro calidad en las carreteras, ahorro de tiempo, combustible y recursos economicos. Mejoramiento en las vias de acceso y calidad de vida de las personas. Se logro el fortalecimiento de las municipalidades a traves de la ADIMAM

Si

2Podria indicar si la nueva carretera ha tenido o no impacto en actividades cotidianas de su vida?

Mayor flujo de servicios (luz, agua y telefonos). Mejora de las actividades a nivel familiar y de comunidad. Mayor riesgo por accidentes.

Se han salvado vidas, hay mas comercio, se genero mas empleo, mejor acceso a los centros educativos, menos tiempo para llegar a las comunidades.

Se mejoro la economia de las comunidades. Se ha reducido el tiempo de viaje. Los productos llegan con facilidad a los mercados y aumento de vehiculos automotores.

3

A partir de la construccion de la carretera, usted percibe mayor, menor o igual disponibilidad de transporte publico de pasajeros respecto de la situacion previa al proyecto?

Mayor disponibilidad de transporte En todos los municipios del Altiplano marquense ha aumentado el transporte publico.

A partir de que se mejoro la via de comunicación el numero de vehiculos automotores aumento considerablemente facilitando el acceso.

4

A partir de la construccion de la carretera, usted puede acceder a un camino transitable mas dias del año, menos dias o igual cantidad de dias al año?

Disponible mas dias en el año. Los caminos rurales son transitables todo el tiempo.

El camino se hace mas transitable todos los meses del año.

5

Usted tiene conocimiento de la Unidad Tecnica de Asistencia Vial y sus funciones? Cree que la misma ha traido beneficios para la mancomunidad? Cuales?

Si se conoce y han presentado asistencia, en la selección adecuada de los caminos secundarios y rurales.

Conocemos a la UTAV como un ente facilitador en asistencia tecnica y logistica, en apoyo a todas las municipalidades de ADIMAM.

Si, beneficios: capacitacion a los comunitarios, ha servido de consulta en aspectos tecnicos de las municipalidades, cumple con la funcion de supervision de obras actualmente como unidad tecnica.

6

Si usted considera que el proyecto le ha traido beneficios: piensa que puede haber dificultades para que los mismos se mantengan en el tiempo ahora que el proyecto ha finalizado? Si su respuesta fuera afirmativa prodria indicar cuales serian esas dificultades?

Si, Falta de herramienta, falta de presupuesto para mano de obra y falta de consolidacion de grupos de mantenimiento vial.

Si, falta de recursos, desorganizacion de las municipalidades y comunidades, desconocimiento de nuevas autoridades del programa y del rol de ADIMAM.

Falta de presupuesto municipal, la mano de obra comunitaria no es suficiente, el invierno es cada vez mas intenso, el numero de habitantes crece considerablemente lo que implica mayor desgaste de la carretera

7

Cree que el caminos recibio mantenimiento adecuado una vez terminado? Si no, cuales considera usted que son los obstaculos que impiden o impedian que se realice un mantenimiento apropiado?

Si, sin embargo se hace ocasionalmente

Se organizo y capactio a comites para el mantenimiento de caminos, las microempresas afectaron el trabajo de los comunitarios.

Si, recibio mantenimiento. Obstaculos: falta de recursos economicos, demasiada lluvia.

8

Que medidas considera adecuadas para asegurar el mantenimiento sostenible de la red vial de la region del altiplano de San Marcos

Concientizar a las municipalidades de su compromiso de dar mantenimiento, programacion adecuada y asignacion oportuna de recursos.

Mantener la organización comunitaria, buscar recursos para financiar el mantenimiento.

PreguntasNo

PROGRAMA DE CAMINOS RURALES Y CARRETERAS PRINCIPALESPRESTAMO BIRF 4260-GU

TALLER: EVALUACION DEL IMPACTO DEL PROGRAMA

50

Grupo 1 Grupo 2Tema STAN Tema ADIMAM

1Como le ha parecido el esfuerzo de las municipalidades para trabajar asociadas en la mancomunidad -ADIMAM-?

Los logros son buenos gracias a la unidad del grupo

2Considera que asociados mejoran las oportunidades para alcanzar el desarrollo de su municipio en la region

La cooperacion internacional y el gobierno central prefieren trabajar con una mancomunidad que de manera dispersa.

Hay algun sector o actividad especifica donde usted perciba ventajas de trabajar mancomunados, podria citar ejemplos concretos

Conseguir proyectos y ejecutarlos como mancomunidad es mucho mas facil que en forma individual (RN12, rehabilitacion de caminos rurales y CAIMI).

Considera que la relacion con el gobierno central es distinta cuando se establece con la mancomunidad versus establecer a traves del municipio individual, podria citar ejemplos

Si es distinta por que el tratamiento es diferente, nos toman en cuenta.

3

A partir de la creacion de la mancomunidad usted considera que la participacion de la sociedad civil en el gobierno local es mayor, menor o igual que antes de que la ADIMAM fuera establecida.

Si se ha incrementado la participacion de la sociedad civil en todas las acciones emprendidas por la asociacion.

* La metodologia utilizada en la tarde, consistió en separar el grupo completo en dos subgrupos por lo que en este taller, solo aparecen las respuestas de uno de estos subgrupos

6

Identificar los municipios mas afectados, enviar viveres y ayuda a los municipios mas afectados, buscar vias alternas y uso de maquinaria para derrumbes.

6.1Si, una parte a cargo de caminos y tramos especificos a cargo de la mancomunidad.

6.2

Necesidad de implementar un plan de contingencia ante desastres, coordinarse con CONRED continuamente.

7

Como describiría la situación de su comunidad, en terminos de transporte y accesibilidad, en el periodo comprendido entre Stan y el comienzo de la reconstrucción de los caminos dañados dos años despues? Cuales a su juicio las causas principales de la demora en el esfuerzo de reconstrucción de los caminos dañados? Considera que la mancomunidad tuvo un rol importante en el esfuerzo de reconstrucción Post-Stan?

Año y medio con problemas y seis meses casi normal, los problemas persisten en varios de los municipios, y falta de recursos economicos municipales, Si.

8

Que medidas especificas considera deberían tomarse para hacer sostenibles los beneficios obtenidos a partir del proyecto del Banco Mundial?

Organización comunitaria y ADIMAM que permita la busqueda y asignacion de recursos a las municipalidades.

9

Cuales cree que son las lecciones aprendidas más importantes a partir de la ejecución del proyecto del Banco Mundial?

Conocimiento de empresas y su selección, materiales y acceso a ONG´s para realizar los proyectos, mejor relacion institucional y sentimiento de fortaleza al negociar como ADIMAM, ante el gobierno central.

No Preguntas

Podría describir medidas especificas que se hayan adoptado a nivel

mancomunidad ante el suceso Stan? Viendo en retrospectiva, considera o no que hubo una reacción organizada por parte de la ADIMAM como institución ante la situación de desastre? Podría citar algunas lecciones aprendidas en

este sentido?

51

No Preguntas Grupo 1 Grupo 2 Grupo 3 Grupo 4

1Como le ha parecido el esfuerzo de las municipalidades para trabajar asociadas en la Mancomunidad ADIMAM?

Lo han visto excelente. Es mas efectivo pedir proyectos en equipo que individualmente. Consideran mas apoyo al estar asociados

Bueno, se han obtenido buenos proyectos al estar en grupo de municipalidades, en forma mancomunada han logrado un mayor acercamiento al Gobierno Central y Organismos Internacionales, se solicita que no solo sean caminos sino otros proyectos, agricultura, salud, educación, etc.

2

Cree que la existencia de la Mancomunidad ha resultado en beneficios concretos para la gente?. Podría dar ejemplos? Agunos pueden ser: mayor cantidad de obras para proveer de servicios básicos tales como agua y electricidad, mayor cantidad de obras en caminos, actividades de mantenimiento adecuadas, mayor rapidez para ejecutar obras, mejoras en servicios de salud y educación.

Se han logrado proyectos aunque a veces hace falta apoyo de los alcaldes. Se tienen mejores ideas y apoyos de otras instituciones.

La electricidad llegó a algunas comunidades porque el requisito fue que hubieran caminos, buenas construcciones privadas y públicas.

3

A partir de la creación de la Mancomunidad, Ud. Considera que la participación de la sociedad civil en el gobierno local es mayor, menor o igual que antes de que la ADIMAM fuera establecida?

Hay mas organización y participación. Hay mas comunicación con el gobierno local. Se hacen escuchar mejor; por eso asistieron a esta actividad.

Si ha existido mayor participación de las mancomunidades con el poder local, sin embargo hace falta incluir comunidades que no han sido beneficiadas con los programas anteriores, solicitamos incluir a otras comunidades.

4De que forma se vio afectada la vida de su comunidad por la tormenta tropical Stan?

Afectó bastante, los daños fueron: destrucción de casas, carreteras, puentes, cosechas y siembras, infraestructura, incomunicacion, fallecimiento de personas y falta de transporte.

Si,todas las vías de acceso quedaron incomunicadas por derrumbes y no se pudo trasladar a los heridos para que recibieran asistencia médica.Se perdieron viviendas, cultivos y animales domésticos y algunas personas perdieron la vida.

5En el caso de su municipio considera que Stan impactó mucho, poco o nada en la condición del camino?

Mucho. Impactó mucho porque en todas las comunidades afectó a carreteras y caminos rurales por muchos deslaves y pérdida completa de algunos caminos

6

Como describiría la situación de su comunidad en términos de transporte y accecibilidad, en el período comprendido entre Stan y el comienzo de la reconstrucción de los caminos dañados? Cree que por causa del huracan se volvió a la situación tal cual era antes de la ejecución del proyecto?

Quedó bastante dañado, pero no en la condición anterior, los caminos se encuentran bastante dañados ya que no ha llegado la ayuda a todas las comunidades como se esperaba.

En algunas partes ya están mejor, pero en otras no porque dice que no hay fondos para trabajar pero en los lugares que no ha llegado la reconstrucción esperamos que las tomen en cuenta lo antes posible.

52

No Preguntas Grupo 1 Grupo 2 Grupo 3 Grupo 4 Grupo 5

1 Considera que usted y su comunidad se han beneficiado con el proyecto?

Si, se han beneficiado antes se utilizaban mulas, ahora llegan a otras comunidades y ha favorecido el comercio.

Si se ha beneficiado la comunidad en salud y comercializacion, educacion y ahorro en el tiempo de traslado.

Si Definitivamente si Si

2Prodria indicar si la nueva carretera ha tenido o no impacto en actividades cotidianas de su vida?

Antes solo habia brechas y tomaba tiempo ir a las comunidades, mas facil acceso a servicios de salud, comunicación y comercio.

Se tiene mayor disponibilidad de transporte publico en una proporcion de 5 a 1 o mas.

Facilidad en tiempo y economia más transporte constante con menos costo.

Los tiempos de viaje se han reducido, no habian buses ahora si, el precio se ha reducido; mas facil trasladar enfermos y visitar puestos de salud; los maestros llegan en vehiculos, la desventaja es que ya no tratan ni participan con la comunidad. Antes haciamos turnos para recoger y transportar utiles escolares, ahora se llevan en bus; en salud es similar a lo anterior, habia que pagar flete ahora llega directamente; hay mas relacion con otras comunidades en comercio, actividades sociales y deporte, la desventaja es que las maras utilizan las vias para hacer mal.

Llegan mas rapido a: escuelas, centros de salud, mercados para comprar y vender; se atienden mas rapido emergencias y trasladarse mas rapido a las comunidades.

3

A partir de la construccion de la carretera, usted percibe mayor, menor o igual disponibilidad de transporte publico de pasajeros respecto de la situacion previa al proyecto?

Ahora hay mas transporte y a toda hora

Se tiene un camino transitable mas dias en el año sin embargo esta en proceso en varias comunidades que el camino sea transitable.

Antes no habia transporte, ahora mayor cantidad de buses a cualquier hora.

Hay mayor transporte publico, buses, camiones, pick up, microbuses. Desventaja: ya no recogen en el camino solo en paradas.

Hay mas transporte ejemplo: buses, taxis, microbuses.

4

A partir de la construccion de la carretera, usted puede acceder a un camino transitable mas dias del año, menos dias o igual cantidad de dias al año?

Si tienen acceso mas dias del año, tambien en el invierno pero se deterioran las carreteras.

Se tiene un camino transitable mas dias en el año sin embargo esta en proceso en varias comunidades que el camino sea transitable.

Antes solo en el verano ahora todo el año

Mas acceso y transitabilidad durante todo el año

Acceso transitable mas dias al año

5

Usted tiene conocimiento de la Unidad Tecnica de Asistencia Vial y sus funciones? Cree que la misma ha traido beneficios para la mancomunidad? Cuales?

Algunos si conocen la UTAV y la ADIMAM pero otros no

Si se tiene conocimiento. Pero no en todas las comunidades ha cumplido su funcion

Asesoria sobre mantenimiento de caminos rurales

No y si, algunos. Es necesario en terminos generales que se sepa que es la UTAV, que hace y como contactarlos; las personas nuevas en los COCODES no conocen las funciones de la UTAV

No, algunos la hemos oido pero la mayoria no sabiamos la funcion

6

Si usted considera que el proyecto le ha traido beneficios: piensa que puede haber dificultades para que los mismos se mantengan en el tiempo ahora que el proyecto ha finalizado? Si su respuesta fuera afirmativa prodria indicar cuales serian esas dificultades?

Una dificultad puede ser la desorganizacion y la falta de comunicación

Si. Existen dificultades para poder mantener en el tiempo los proyectos principalmente en los rubros de recursos economicos y materiales

En algunas comunidades por falta de recursos economicos, por falta de participacion de la comunidad donde vivimos, tambien por falta de herramientas

Si, hay dificultades en mantener beneficios con el paso de los años por los desgastes de caminos y carreteras que requieren inversiones grandes y mayor apoyo del que pueda dar un mantenimiento rutinario, mantenimiento menor no hay problema

Si hay dificultades, ejemplo: falta de recursos, maquinaria, herramientas y puede afectar los inviernos fuertes.

7

Cree que el caminos recibio mantenimiento adecuado una vez terminado? Si no, cuales considera usted que son los obstaculos que impiden o impedian que se realice un mantenimiento apropiado?

Las comunidades si le han dado mantenimiento a los caminos, el problema es conseguir fondos para comprar materiales y herramientas

No ha sido adecuado el mantenimiento, no han sido periodicos, son ocasionales. El mantenimiento debe ser periodico

Por la comunidad solo mantenimiento menor que consiste en limpiar cunetas y chapeo. En otras comunidades por falta de apoyo de la Municipalidad por no tener fondos para mantenimiento mayor

No ha recibido mantenimiento por la inclemencia del tiempo por el STAN, hay mucho trafico, no se cuenta con banco de materiales cercanos en algunos tramos

Si, pero no el adecuado por: no hacerse constantemente, falta de organizar mejor a la comunidad, falta de planear las fechas de mantenimiento

53

The following is a summary of the most representative responses received during the workshops, prepared by the Social Development Specialist at the Guatemala Resident Mission, who attended the workshops organized by INFOM and DGC.

TALLER CON BENEFICIARIOS DEL PROYECTO

I. Primer taller con comunidades de ADIMAM – Beneficios del Proyecto

1. Considera que su comunidad se ha beneficiado con el proyecto?

Si, porque antes trabajaban con mulas y ha ayudado a mejorar las condiciones de la comunidad.

Tenían la necesidad de sacar el producto de las comunidades y casi nunca consiguieron el apoyo hasta que lograron hacerlo con el Banco Mundial

Tenían problemas para entrar en acuerdo para hacer los caminos y ya con la entrada del proyecto y que beneficiaba a varias comunidades les ayudo a ponerse de acuerdo y apoyar el desarrollo para todos los beneficiados

Han visto el cambio ya que la carretera no llega hasta la comunidad si no esto les permite la interconexión con otros lugares incluso la frontera mexicana, hay mas empresas de transporte con presencia en las comunidades, mas acceso a otros servicios vitales como salud, los caminos les han ayudado desarrollarse como comunidad

Les faltan caminos secundarios que les ayuden a acceder la cinta asfáltica mas sin embargo la cinta asfáltica les ha ayudado bastante

El proyecto de asfalto le ha favorecido a los comerciantes ya que esto les ha permitido a mejorar sus condiciones de vida ya que les permite la comercialización de sus productos, aunque la falta de mas caminos secundarios le hace tener perdidas en sus productos agrícolas

2. Ha tenido el proyecto beneficios de impacto en sus actividades diarias?

Hace 10 años había una brecha y cada cierto tiempo venían a traer correspondencia a su municipio ya que el tiempo de la comunidad al municipio mínimo era de 4 horas, ahora el método es otro para recoger correspondencia y el tiempo ahora del municipio a la comunidad es de 1.5 horas. Ya pueden transportar los productos en camiones hacia el pueblo

Antes venían con sus productos como ollas de barro, cal la cual transportaban en la espalda hasta la cabecera departamental y eran 4 horas de Sabalique hasta San Marcos y todavía así tenían que llevar productos como maíz, fríjol, otros. Ahora ya no cargan esto en la espalda hay transporte, el tiempo de acceso ha mejorado, disminuyeron los accidentes, mas diversidad de transportes, menor riesgo de morir ya que ahora es más fácil acceder los servicios de salud o emergencia, mas facilidad de construir casas con mejores materiales ya que ahora los pueden transportar

54

Antes solo llegaba una sola camioneta a algunos lugares donde habían carreteras pero en mal estado, ahora a cualquier hora hay medios de transporte

Para los niños o adolescentes ya es mas fácil acceder a las escuelas he institutos; ahora llegan de diferentes comunidades ya sea en buses o diferentes medios de transporte

3. A partir de la construcción de la carretera, usted percibe mayor, menor o igual disponibilidad de transporte público de pasajeros respecto a la situación previa del proyecto?

Si, ahora hay más disponibilidad de medios de transporte de diferente tipo.

4. Usted puede acceder a un camino transitable mas días al año, menos días al año o igual cantidad de días al año, comparado con la situación anterior al proyecto?

• Si, aún en invierno se puede acceder a las comunidades pero les preocupa que se arruine el camino

5. Usted tiene conocimiento de la UTAV?

• Si en algunos casos en los que ellos se han abocado a la ADIMAM • Si, para el huracán Stan los alcaldes solicitaron el apoyo de los ingenieros para la

evaluación de los daños • No en algunos casos ellos ignoran incluso que significa la ADIMAM

6. Piensa que puede haber dificultades para que los beneficios obtenidos gracias al proyecto se mantengan en el tiempo ahora que el mismo ha finalizado? Si su respuesta es afirmativa, cuales son las dificultades?

• Desorganización, riesgo de perder la comunicación y el no dar más participación a los jóvenes o mujeres

• Que las comunidades no se atengan solo al financiamiento si no que se apropien de sus proyectos y motiven la participación de la comunidad

• Si les dan mantenimiento a los caminos, los problemas son el acceso a materiales y herramienta y la falta de fondos para adquirirlos

• Los que han tenido herramientas estas se les arruinan por el uso ya que veces el mantenimiento debe ser extremo en casos de desastres y que muchas veces deben recurrir a las instituciones

II. Segundo taller con comunidades - Ventajas que ofrece estar asociados en la ADIMAM 1. Como ven las comunidades el trabajo de la mancomunidad ADIMAM?

a. Lo han visto excelente ya que han visto que es mas efectivo para ellos pedir proyectos en equipo que individualmente

b. Consideran que obtienen mas apoyo al estar agrupados

2. Cree que la existencia de la mancomunidad ha resultado en beneficios concretos para la gente?

55

a. Se han logrado proyectos gracias a la mancomunidad aun que no han recibido mucho apoyo de los alcaldes

b. Es mejor que las municipalidades trabajen unidos ya que aportan mejores ideas c. Al estar agrupados ellos han notado que obtienen mas ayuda de otros organismos

en otro tipo de proyectos 3. A partir de la creación de la ADIMAM hay mas participación de las comunidades con la

municipalidad a. Hay mas participación tanto de la municipalidad y de las comunidades ya que esto

incentiva a que haya mas organización b. Mas comunicación entre gobiernos locales c. Si ya que a través de ella se hacen escuchar mejor d. Gracias a esta misma organización es que pudieron venir a este taller e. Esto contribuye a una mejor comunicación entre todos los involucrados

TALLER CON ALCALDES DE LA ADIMAM

I. Primer taller con Alcaldes de ADIMAM (relativo a los beneficios del proyecto) 1. Considera que su comunidad se ha beneficiado con el proyecto?

• Si porque ahora hay mejor calidad en la carretera que condice al municipio (alcalde de Ojetenam)

• Antes se tomaba 3 horas para llegar al hospital de San Marcos; ahora se toma 1 hora u 1 hora y media Ahora hay más comercio; más bancos; mayor relación entre la gente (alcalde de Tejutla).

• Ahora toma menos tiempo de traer a un paciente hasta San Marcos. Que se sigan apoyando estos proyectos pues no sólo se han mejorado las vías de acceso sino la calidad de vida; ahora la gente puede vender lo que produce; antes debía cargar en sus espaldas el abono y sus productos (alcalde de Tutuapa).

• Se ven los impactos positivos; la mayoría de caminos están empedrados y este material dura más tiempo que el balastro convencional; esto generó empleo local (alcalde de San Lorenzo).

• El proyecto también tuvo un impacto positivo pues se convirtió en un referente nacional; la ADIMAM es la primera asociación de mancomunidades en el país. Ahora tienen una reunión mensual.

2. Ha tenido el proyecto beneficios de impacto en sus actividades diarias? Podria mencionar ejemplos concretos?

• Se han salvado vidas pues se ha acortado el tiempo para llevar pacientes a los hospitales o centros de salud; se ha reducido la mortalidad; se ha facilitado la asistencia técnica a las comunidades (p.e. campañas de vacunación); ha permitido abrir Centros de Atención Integral Materno Infantil (CAIMIS) en puntos estratégicos.

• Ahora hay más comercio; los agricultores tienen facilidad de vender y exportar. • Ahora se hace menos tiempo para llegar a la cabecera departamental para hacer trámites en

las oficinas del Estado.

56

• Hay menos riesgo; se gasta menos combustible; los vehículos tienen más tiempo de vida útil.

3. Considera que la disponibilidad de transporte público es igual, mayor o menor con el proyecto?

• En Ojetenam había sólo 1 camioneta; ahora hay 30 camionetas • En Sipacapa había sólo 1 camioneta y a veces no funcionaba; la gente tenía que caminar y

trabajaba sólo los días de mercado; ahora hay 6 camionetas en diferentes horarios • En San Lorenzo ahora hay camionetas cada 45 minutos tanto a San Marcos como a

Quetzaltenango. Antes había sólo 2 camionetas. • En Tutuapa había sólo 1 camioneta antes; ahora hay 12 camionetas en distinto horario.

4. Qué conocimiento tienen usted de la Unidad Técnica Vial (UTAV) y de sus funciones y beneficios?

• Si se tiene conocimiento; sin ingenieros y sin UTAV no se puede trabajar; ha sido y será necesario

• Cuando algún alcalde tiene algún problema pide apoyo técnico y/o logístico a la UTAV no sólo en el tema de carreteras sino en otro tipo de proyectos; todas las municipalidades se han apoyado en la UTAV

• Ahora la UTAV es financiado por las municipalidades; antes se dependía mucho del INFOM o del Banco Mundial.

5. Que posibles dificultades identifican que puedan afectar que los beneficios del proyecto sean

sostenibles?

• Una dificultad es que se pierda el apoyo del INFOM y de la DGC en el sentido que puede haber falta de recursos para financiar el mantenimiento de los caminos. Ahora las municipalidades aportan un 25% variable y Q. 70,000.00 de aporte fijo anual y es resto se obtiene del préstamo.

• Una posible dificultad es que se debilite o pierda la organización comunitaria que ha permitido la formación de los comités de mantenimiento en las diferentes comunidades.

• Otra dificultad es que las nuevas autoridades municipales electas en varios municipios, no conozcan del rol de ADIMAM y de la UTAV.

6. Que obstáculos identifican para continuar el mantenimiento de los caminos?

• Aunque durante el proyecto si se dio mantenimiento a los caminos en todos los municipio y se organizaron los comités de mantenimiento, existe el potencial problema que esto se interrumpa debido a la falta de recursos

7. Qué medidas considera que se podrían tomar para que sea sostenible?

• Debe mantenerse la organización comunitaria para continuar el mantenimiento (con su aporte de mano de obra)

• Podría ponerse una cuota al transporte pesado que hace uso de las carreteras para financiar el mantenimiento de las mismas.

57

II. Segundo taller con Alcaldes (relativo a las ventajas que ofrece estar asociados en la ADIMAM) 1. Como le ha parecido el esfuerzo de las municipalidades para trabajar asociados en la mancomunidad –ADIMAM?

Han sido excelentes por los logros que se han obtenido. Los logros son mayores respecto de lo que hubieran sido si se hubieran trabajado de manera individual. 2. Considera que asociados mejoran las oportunidades para alcanzar el desarrollo de su municipio y de la región?

Si por que se ha visto el crecimiento de la región y el interés de otros cooperantes internacionales y del gobierno central de trabajar con la mancomunidad que de manera individual y dispersa 3. Hay algún sector o actividad especifica donde usted perciba claras ventajas de trabajar mancomunados? (sectores: salud, educación, infraestructura; actividades: financiamiento o ejecución de obras, tareas administrativas, intercambio de experiencias municipales exitosas). Podría citar ejemplos concretos?

Los tramites son mas efectivos en mancomunidad, como conseguir proyectos y ejecutarlos y que la ADIMAM ha servido de ejemplo y ha apadrinado otras mancomunidades que los han buscado (RN12 y Rehabilitación de caminos rurales) 4. Considera que la relación con el gobierno central es distinta cuando se establece a través de la mancomunidad versus establecerla a través del municipio individual? Podría citar ejemplos? Si, es distinta, ya que es mas fácil hacerse escuchar en mancomunidad que de manera individual 5. A partir de la creación de la mancomunidad, usted considera que la participación de la sociedad civil en el gobierno local es mayor, menor o igual que antes de que la ADIMAM fuera establecida? Hay mayor participación de la comunidad ahora que se trabaja en mancomunidad –COCODES, Comités de mantenimiento, otros grupos de proyectos de sociedad civil y otros cooperantes como asesoráis con equipos técnicos-

58

Annex 8. Summary of Borrower's ICR

Instituto de Fomento Municipal - INFOM

Informe de Culminación de Préstamo BIRF 4260-GU Unidad Coordinadora INFOM-Banco Mundial

Noviembre 2007 1. Evaluación de los resultados del Proyecto:

a) En términos de ejecución financiera: Desde un inicio, para la ejecución del Proyecto Piloto de Caminos Rurales en el Altiplano de San Marcos, le fue asignado al Instituto de Fomento Municipal –INFOM- un total de US$9,216,851. Sin embargo por las variaciones en los costos de las obras en el período de ejecución, fue necesario hacer una reasignación en la categoría de obras que ascendió a un monto de US$600,000.00, con lo cual el monto asignado al INFOM se incrementó a US$9,816,851.00. Al 31 de diciembre del 2006, el proyecto registró una ejecución de US$9,800,900.15 que representa el 99.84% del total asignado.

A nivel de categorías de inversión se muestra a continuación: Cifras expresadas en US Dólares

Categorías Presupuestado Ejecutado8 % Disponible

Obras 6,267,200.00

6,253,077.42

99.77

14,122.58

Bienes- Parte A7 22,600.00

22,511.09

99.61

88.91

Bienes -Parte A81 93,600.00

93,522.35

99.92

77.65

Consultoria Partes A1,81

1,260,451.00

1,259,247.54

99.90

1,203.46

Consultoria Parte A7

1,694,800.00

1,694,435.23

99.98

364.77

Honorarios INFOM 478,200.00

478,106.52

99.98

93.48

Total Invertido 9,816,851.00

9,800,900.15

15,950.85

% de Ejecución 100 99.84 0.16

8 Please note that these reports were submitted in November 2007, when there were still pending disbursements. As a result, the numbers presented in this table as well as those in DGC’s table, might slightly differ from those presented in Annex 1 of this Report.

59

b) En términos de ejecución física: El Proyecto Piloto de Caminos Rurales fue diseñado para ejecutarse en cuatro años, estimando ejecutar 4 paquetes de obra en aproximadamente 85 kilómetros anuales, para un total de 350 kilómetros distribuidos en los Municipios que conforman la Mancomunidad ADIMAM. El Primer Paquete de Obras se ejecutó entre los años 1999 y 2000, rehabilitando 77.34 kilómetros de caminos rurales, con un costo de Q7,502,008.70. El Segundo Paquete de Obras se ejecutó entre los años de 2001 y 2002, rehabilitando 111.886 kilómetros de caminos rurales, con un costo de Q14,583,277.29. El Tercer Paquete de Obras se ejecutó entre los años 2002 y 2003, rehabilitando 85.872 kilómetros de caminos rurales, con un costo de Q13,869,882.31. El Cuarto Paquete de Obras se ejecutó entre los años 2003 y 2005, rehabilitando 104.942 kilómetros de caminos rurales, con un costo de Q20,509,647.26. En total dentro del Proyecto Piloto se rehabilitaron 380.04 kilómetros de caminos rurales, sobrepasando la meta de 350 kilómetros originalmente establecidos.

c) En términos de eficiencia: El Proyecto fue diseñado inicialmente para ser ejecutado en cuatro años, sin embargo el plazo de vigencia del préstamo fue prorrogado hasta finales de junio de 2007. No obstante la ampliación del plazo, el Instituto de Fomento Municipal a través de la Unidad Coordinadora concluyó la ejecución de obras en el año 2005. Con relación a la meta fijada de 350 kilómetros de caminos rurales rehabilitados, la misma fue superada en 30 kilómetros debido a que se incluyeron tramos con la finalidad de interconectar la totalidad de la Red Vial Optima del Altiplano Marquense. Respecto al presupuesto asignado al Proyecto, el INFOM logró ejecutar todos los componentes que le fueron asignados, evidenciando una eficiente ejecución técnica y financiera por parte de la Unidad Coordinadora.

2. Cuales considera han sido los impactos principales del Proyecto:

a) Gestión Vial: La implementación del Proyecto Piloto de rehabilitación de caminos rurales permitió que la Mancomunidad fortaleciera su capacidad técnica y administrativa con la creación de la Unidad Técnica de Asistencia Vial y el Fondo Vial Regional, lo cual permitió establecer un proceso ordenado y participativo de selección, financiamiento e implementación de programas, de rehabilitación y mantenimiento de caminos rurales. Así mismo el Instituto de Fomento Municipal a través de la Unidad Coordinadora logró fortalecer la capacidad técnica y administrativa para la ejecución de proyectos de caminos rurales.

60

b) Gestión Económica / Social: El mayor logro del proyecto ha sido permitir la cohesión social en un área duramente golpeada por el conflicto armado en Guatemala. Las Autoridades locales de la región han dejado de lado sus diferencias políticas para proponer programas de integración y desarrollo de toda el área de influencia del Proyecto. Así mismo la mejor accesibilidad intercomunitaria ha permitido la interacción e intercambio de bienes y servicios que de alguna manera ha propiciado el mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida de la población.

c) Gestión Administrativa:

Con la implementación del Proyecto Piloto, se logró establecer procesos administrativos eficientes, que permitieron a la Mancomunidad alcanzar un desarrollo operacional y experiencia.

d) Gestión Institucional:

Actualmente la Mancomunidad posee la capacidad de gestión necesaria para la implementación de nuevos proyectos no solo de naturaleza vial sino de cualquier índole, debido a que la Municipalidades organizadas bajo esta modalidad han recibido el apoyo necesario por parte de entidades gubernamentales, privadas e internacionales, para el desarrollo de sus comunidades.

e) Gestión de Capacitación:

A través de la Unidad Técnica de Asistencia Vial implementada en la Mancomunidad, se logra fortalecer el desempeño de las oficinas municipales de planificación de cada Municipalidad en cuanto a la planificación de proyectos de infraestructura en general.

3. Impactos según componentes del Proyecto: a) Estrategia Nacional de Caminos y Transporte en el Área Rural –ENCTAR-: La contratación de esta consultoría tuvo como resultado el diseño de políticas, planes y programas dirigidos a facilitar que el país disponga de una red de caminos rurales en condiciones transitables en toda época, que permita la intercomunicación con la red vial principal y facilite el ingreso y generación de servicios de transporte adecuados, en consideración a la demanda existente, contribuyendo de esta manera con el desarrollo integral del país.

Para implementar esta Estrategia Nacional es necesario ejecutar un Proyecto Piloto en una región específica, para validar los diferentes componentes planteados en dicho estudio y contar con los recursos financieros necesarios.

Hasta el momento no se pueden evaluar impactos de este componente ya que no se ha implementado ningún proyecto piloto. b) Proyecto Piloto

a. Rehabilitación de caminos rurales: Se logró mejorar el acceso de las comunidades beneficiarias hacia los centros de salud, mercados, hospitales, escuelas y se mejoró notablemente el transporte público. Además facilita la interconectividad entre las diferentes poblaciones.

61

Por otro lado se mejoró la economía de la región al facilitar el intercambio de bienes y servicios al contar con un mejor servicio de transporte.

b. Testeo de nuevas tecnologías: Se utilizaron las tecnologías conocidas para caminos de terracería. No se utilizaron nuevas tecnologías.

c. Piloto para administración y financiamiento de caminos rurales municipal (desarrollo de contratistas locales y microempresas para mantenimiento). Durante la ejecución de los cuatro paquetes de obras, en lo concerniente a caminos de terracería se tuvo la participación de un número reducido de empresas locales, debido a la baja capacidad técnica y financiera de las mismas. En el caso de los caminos que utilizaban tecnología manual (empedrados) si se tuvo la participación de comités conformados con mano de obra local. En éste sentido el proyecto logró un impacto positivo en la generación de empleo local.

En cuanto al tema de mantenimiento, componente a cargo de las municipalidades, se logró conformar grupos comunitarios destinados al mantenimiento rutinario, utilizando para el efecto herramienta básica manual. La misma fue facilitada por el proyecto piloto. El impacto de esta tarea de mantenimiento propició la pertenencia del camino, en la comunidad beneficiada.

4. Desempeño de los organismos prestatarios (Banco Mundial) Durante el período de ejecución del proyecto el desempeño del Banco Mundial, ante el INFOM y la Unidad Coordinadora ha sido satisfactorio, ya que el nivel de respuesta y asesoría esperado, ha permitido el cumplimiento de las metas y objetivos. 5. Lecciones aprendidas

a) El INFOM, al implementar el Proyecto Piloto cuenta, a través de la Unidad Coordinadora de Caminos Rurales, con la experiencia y la capacidad para administrar y ejecutar un Proyecto Vial.

b) La participación del INFOM como ente ejecutor del Proyecto Piloto permitió retomar la importancia de la rehabilitación y mantenimiento de los caminos rurales para el desarrollo del país.

c) La asociación de Municipalidades a través de una Mancomunidad resulta de vital importancia para la oportuna gestión, financiamiento y ejecución de proyectos necesarios para su desarrollo socioeconómico.

d) La periódica rotación del personal de la Unidad Coordinadora trae como consecuencia la pérdida de recurso humano con la experiencia necesaria, para el buen desempeño de los proyectos de caminos rurales.

e) Derivado que el proyecto, por la magnitud de las obras a ejecutar, atrae mayoritariamente a empresas pequeñas, la adjudicación de muchos tramos a una sola empresa implica poner en alto riesgo el éxito del proyecto.

6. Recomendaciones :

a) La experiencia de la implementación del proyecto piloto, pueden tomarse como ejemplo para replicarse en otras regiones, tanto de Guatemala como en otros países.

b) Tomar en cuenta la importancia que representa para el desarrollo económico del país, especialmente en las regiones más pobres y alejadas, la ejecución de proyectos como el

62

Piloto implementado, es recomendable gestionar ante instituciones financieras internacionales proyectos de construcción y de rehabilitación de caminos rurales.

c) Establecer claramente desde un inicio entre el prestatario y el organismo financiero, el estricto respeto por parte de las autoridades gubernamentales, a las normas y condiciones establecidas en el convenio.

d) Mantener la capacitación constante del personal de las unidades ejecutoras.

Dirección General de Caminos (DGC)

INFORME DE FINALIZACIÓN DE PRÉSTAMO BIRF 4260-GU Programa de Caminos Rurales y Carreteras Principales

Noviembre 2007 1. ¿Cuál es su evaluación de los resultados del Proyecto?

a. En términos de ejecución financiera

La asignación vigente de este Préstamo para la Dirección General de Caminos es de US $.56, 883,149.00, de los cuales al 31-10-07 se ha ejecutado la cantidad de US $.50, 840,867.04 equivalente al 89.38% de ejecución. Así mismo, se tiene proyectado a ejecutar durante los meses de noviembre y diciembre del año en curso, la cantidad de US $ 4,388,663.29, quedando un saldo disponible proyectado al 31 de diciembre de 2007 la cantidad de US $1,653,618.67, equivalente al 2.91%. De esa manera, se puede observar que el total que se estaría ejecutando al 31 de diciembre de 2007, es por un monto total de US $ 55, 229,530.33, que equivale a un 97.10% de la asignación vigente del préstamo.

(Cifras expresadas en US Dólares)

b. En términos de ejecución física

El componente de obras a cargo de la DGC dentro del Programa de Caminos Rurales y Carreteras Principales incluye un total aproximado de 272 Km., de los cuales se ejecutaron 258.3 Km., distribuidos en los siguientes tramos que se detallan a continuación:

Obra: Tramo I - Cuatro Caminos - Estancia de la Virgen Fecha de inicio: 22/04/1999 Fecha de finalización 05/03/2003

63

Total de Kilómetros Rehabilitados: 54.4 Kms. Obras: Tramo II - Estancia de la Virgen – San Sebastián Huehuetenango Fecha inicio: 11/05/1999 Fecha de finalización: 03/02/2001 Total de Kilómetros Rehabilitados: 46.0 Kms. Obra: Tramo III: San Sebastián Huehuetenango – La Mesilla Fecha inicio: 11/05/1999 Fecha de finalización: 29/04/2001 Total de Kilómetros Rehabilitados: 51.92 Kms. Don Justo – Santa Elena Barillas Fecha inicio: 25/05/1999 Fecha de finalización: 14/12/2000 Total de Kilómetros Rehabilitados: 8.54 Kms. Entronque CA-09 Sur - San Vicente – Pacaya Fecha inicio: 13/05/1999 Fecha de finalización: 22/07/2000 Total de Kilómetros Rehabilitados: 7.36 Kms. Rehabilitación y Mejoramiento Ruta Nacional 12 -RN12- Fecha inicio: 13/10/2005 Fecha de finalización: 14/06/2007 Total de Kilómetros Rehabilitados: 62.11 Kms. Este proyecto fue contratado inicialmente con una empresa que no concluyó los trabajos, lo que dio lugar a lanzar una nueva licitación, iniciando nuevamente su ejecución en la fecha señalada. Caminos Secundarios del Altiplano de San Marcos (RN12-Sibinal / RN12-Tajumulco / RN 12-San Jose Ojetenam): Fecha inicio: 20/11/2006 Fecha de finalización estimada: febrero de 2008 Total de Kilómetros Rehabilitados: 28.0 Kms. En el componente de Caminos Secundarios en el Altiplano de San Marcos, originalmente se tenía previsto rehabilitarlos utilizando una superficie de rodadura en grava (balasto), pero en función de una política institucional de mejorar las especificaciones de construcción de este tipo de proyectos, se están ejecutando con la aplicación de Doble Tratamiento Superficial y Concreto de Cemento Hidráulico, lo que dio lugar a reducir metas físicas y los proyectos que fueron sacados de este programa se incorporaron mediante una reasignación de recursos al préstamo BIR 7169-GU. Para todos los proyectos viales ejecutados dentro de este programa, se contrataron los servicios de consultoría para su respectiva supervisión, lo que permitió concluir los trabajos con los requerimientos de calidad necesarios para este tipo de proyectos.

64

c. En términos de eficiencia

Con base en los datos anteriores, se considera que se tuvo una eficiencia aceptable, ya que se ejecutó un 95% de las obras programadas, con su respectiva supervisión.

El hecho de que el programa fue previsto para ejecutarse 4 años y se prolongó a 8, además de reflejar algunas debilidades de eficiencia, refleja la necesidad de tomar acciones para mejorar el desempeño, así como para reducir al mínimo los efectos externos que afectan el cumplimiento de las metas y tiempos previstos.

En la implementación de los procesos de adquisiciones, se tuvo demoras importantes en los tiempos para llevarlos a cabo, lo que se debió en parte a la rotación de personal y a la dificultad para consensuar los contenidos de algunos documentos utilizados en las licitaciones dentro del programa. 2. ¿Cuáles considera que han sido los impactos principales del Proyecto? a. Gestión Vial

La Dirección General de Caminos, se constituye en el ente rector en materia vial del Gobierno de Guatemala, y en función de ello todos sus programas, tanto financiados con fondos externos, como con recursos nacionales, están dirigidos a mejorar la gestión vial de forma gradual.

Con el préstamo del Banco Mundial identificado como BIRF 3002-GU, se inició la participación de este organismo en apoyo a los programas viales en Guatemala, poniendo especial énfasis en mejorar la gestión de los proyectos de carreteras.

Con ese préstamo, además de financiar la ejecución de obras viales, se formuló en Plan Maestro de Transporte, se participó en el inicio de la creación del Fondo de Conservación Vial –COVIAL- y en la reorganización del papel de la Dirección General de Caminos –DGC-, limitándose a la contratación de la ejecución y supervisión de obras, así como a atender labores de mantenimiento por administración de una parte de la red vial del país a través de sus Zonas Viales.

En el marco de dicho préstamo, se inició la conformación de la Coordinadora de Financiamiento Externo de la Dirección General de Caminos, la cual se consolidó como parte del Programa de Caminos Rurales y Carreteras Principales, ejecutado parcialmente con el préstamo BIRF 4260-GU.

El impacto del proyecto 4260-GU en la gestión vial en la DGC, como parte de un proceso integral de fortalecimiento institucional, ha sido de mucha importancia, no sólo por la creación de la Unidad Coordinadora del Proyecto Banco Mundial, dentro de la Coordinadora de Financiamiento Externo, sino por los siguientes aspectos:

Se financió una parte del Programa de Gestión Vial, consistente en levantar un inventario de

la red vial del país, incluyendo un levantamiento de datos de la red vial no registrada (este programa fue un co-financiamiento con el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo)

Se consolidó la articulación de los diferentes organismos financieros internacionales, desde la planificación de obras viales, hasta la distribución de su ejecución

65

Se inició la especialización del Instituto de Fomento Municipal –INFOM- como Unidad Ejecutora del Estado para atender una parte de la red vial, como lo son los Caminos Rurales, y lo más importante, se inició la incorporación de las municipalidades en la gestión de la red vial de su jurisdicción territorial, organizadas a través de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Municipalidades del Altiplano Marquense –ADIMAM-.

Este modelo de gestión, con participación del INFOM y de las municipalidades mancomunadas resultó exitoso, lo que ha dado lugar a su réplica en otras regiones del país, tanto dentro de programas del Banco Mundial, como de otras fuentes como el Banco del Japón para la Cooperación Internacional –JBIC por sus siglas en inglés-

Con este esfuerzo interinstitucional, se dio inicio a un proceso de mejora continua de la coordinación y especialización del trabajo, así como al ordenamiento de competencias en el sector vial del país

Dentro del programa se contrataron dos consultorías de carácter estratégico para mejorar la gestión vial, como lo son el Programa Nacional de Seguridad Vial y el Estudio Nacional de Transporte de Carga, cuyos resultados se están poniendo ya en práctica y se espera consolidarlos en el futuro cercano.

b. Gestión Económica/social

En lo que respecta a la gestión económica, con este préstamo se han tenido impactos muy importantes, ya que en las regiones de influencia de las obras ejecutadas se ha observado crecimiento de la economía local, lo que ha repercutido en mejoras sensibles en las condiciones de vida de la población, ya que cuentan con mayor acceso a servicios básicos como salud, educación, etc. El mayor impacto se ha percibido en los departamentos de San Marcos (RN-12 y Rutas Secundarias) y en Huehuetenango (CA-01W –Cuatro Caminos – La Mesilla), lugares en los que se ubican los mayores indicadores de pobreza y que fueron afectados directamente por el conflicto armado interno.

En la parte social, además de los efectos e impactos observados en el componente a cargo del INFOM y las municipalidades, en el que se observa un avance importante en la incorporación de las comunidades en la conservación de su red vial, en cuanto a la DGC, en el marco de este programa se ha mejorado sensiblemente la relación con las municipalidades y comunidades, a las cuales se les ha empezado a involucrar directamente en la gestión y planificación de los proyectos viales de su jurisdicción.

En la Coordinadora de Financiamiento Externo ha sido tal la importancia que se le ha dado al tema social, que se han creado puestos especializados en estos temas, llegando inclusive a involucrarse en temas como la participación de pueblos indígenas y la perspectiva de género en proyectos de carreteras.

c. Gestión Administrativa

Con el soporte de este programa se han logrado impactos importantes en cuanto a mejorar la gestión administrativa, en el sentido de lo indicado de lograr mejores niveles de coordinación interinstitucional y de ordenamiento de competencias a nivel de las relaciones externas y en lo interno, se ha logrado la depuración de algunos procedimientos internos y la aplicación de las normas relacionadas con las contrataciones y adquisiciones. La especialización de las actividades tanto a lo interno de la Coordinadora de Préstamos de Banco Mundial, como a nivel de las otras

66

fuentes de financiamiento también es un elemento a destacar como parte del impacto de este programa. d. Gestión Institucional

Aunque quedan algunos aspectos por mejorar, en lo que se refiere a la gestión institucional, se puede afirmar que ésta ha mejorado como resultado de este préstamo, en función de que se ha logrado tener un mejor desempeño en los diferentes niveles de la DGC.

A nivel de Autoridades Superiores, además de que las 3 administraciones de Gobierno que abarcaron el período de ejecución del programa le dieron la importancia y el apoyo necesario, se logró articular un mecanismo de toma de decisiones que en algunas partes de los procesos facilitó el logro de las metas previstas.

La atención de las Misiones del Banco Mundial, con intervención de Autoridades de alto nivel, evidencia la importancia y el apoyo que institucionalmente se le ha dado al programa, lo que se traduce en mejoras en la gestión.

Se ha contado con el decidido respaldo del Ministerio de Finanzas Públicas a través de la Dirección de Crédito Público, lo cual ha permitido un mejor desempeño institucional. Ese respaldo ha sido brindado también por parte del Banco Mundial, traduciéndose ello en mejoras en la parte institucional del programa.

El hecho de haber logrado mejorar la coordinación interinstitucional con las entidades relacionadas con el proyecto, es un impacto importante en esta parte de la gestión.

e. Gestión Ambiental

Dada la importancia que tiene el tema ambiental, dentro de este programa también se han observado impactos y efectos en esta materia, partiendo de la creación del Departamento de Gestión Ambiental. Como parte del programa, se ha tenido especial cuidado de cumplir con los requerimientos de orden ambiental, inclusive brindando asesoría al INFOM en la preparación de sus documentos para la aprobación de parte del Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.

Por otra parte, como consecuencia de este programa, la DGC y su Departamento Ambiental forma parte de la Sociedad Latinoamericana de Unidades Ambientales del Sector Transporte –SLUAT-, habiendo participado en varios de los encuentros que se llevan a cabo anualmente, en los cuales se ha dado a conocer el programa ejecutado con este préstamo del Banco Mundial.

f. Gestión en Capacitación

Además de la capacitación recibida por parte de las Unidades Especializadas del Banco Mundial, en áreas específicas relacionadas con la ejecución del préstamo, el hecho de haber participado en varios procesos de adquisición y en el seguimiento a la ejecución de la obra física y de aspectos sociales, ha permitido al personal de la Coordinadora de Préstamos Banco Mundial, adquirir nuevos conocimientos y por consiguiente mejorar su desempeño, lo cual permite concluir que debido a este programa, se ha tenido un impacto favorable en materia de capacitación y formación de los recursos humanos relacionados con el proyecto.

67

g. Análisis de los componentes a cargo de la Dirección General de Caminos

En los párrafos anteriores se ha detallado el impacto observado como parte de este programa en lo que se refiere a los componentes a cargo de la DGC.

3. Desempeño de los Organismos Prestatarios (BM) De parte de la DGC se considera que el desempeño del Banco Mundial en sus diferentes áreas ha sido satisfactorio. Conviene resaltar que a pesar de haber tenido dificultades en cuanto a la aplicación de los modelos estándar del Banco Mundial en la parte de adquisiciones, se ha contado con un valioso apoyo de los especialistas en la materia, lo que ha permitido que los procesos se hayan encaminado adecuadamente. En el área de gestión y administración financiera también se ha contado con el irrestricto apoyo de los especialistas del Banco, habiendo logrado con ello superar dificultades que se tuvieron en algunas etapas del préstamo.

En cuanto a la conducción del Proyecto, es indudable la dedicación y la efectividad que se ha tenido en la ejecución del préstamo, contando permanentemente con el apoyo a las gestiones encaminadas. Es de reconocer el liderazgo que se ha tenido por parte de la Ing. Cecilia Corvalán, que ha facilitado el cumplimiento de las metas programadas, sin dejar de mencionar el significativo aporte recibido en la parte inicial del proyecto por el Ing. Guillermo Ruán, ya que gracias a su entrega y entusiasmo logró que el proyecto tuviera tanta aceptación a lo interno del Banco y a nivel del Gobierno de Guatemala. Sean todos los logros en su Memoria.

Aunque a todo nivel quedan cosas por mejorar, la DGC considera que el reto para la ejecución del préstamo 4260 se ha sacado adelante y para ello ha sido determinante el papel de los personeros del Banco Mundial que han estado vinculados con este importante programa. 4. Lecciones Aprendidas

a. Una de las lecciones aprendidas de mayor importancia fue la creación y fortalecimiento de capacidades institucionales y la descentralización de la gestión vial llegando hasta los niveles municipal y comunitario.

b. Se observaron dificultades por no contar con diseños de las obras a licitar. c. Se observaron discrepancias en la interpretación de las normas entre la DGC/CIV y el

Banco Mundial, específicamente en la parte de adquisiciones d. Se observaron atrasos importantes en los tiempos para llevar a cabo los procesos e. No se atendió en su totalidad lo establecido en los convenios que regulan la relación

interinstitucional en la implementación de este proyecto, lo que no permitió delimitar adecuadamente los alcances de cada entidad para evitar dificultades como la duplicidad de esfuerzos y las interferencias en temas que son especialidad de cada institución

f. El Manual de Operaciones del Programa fue poco utilizado, debido a la falta de divulgarlo adecuadamente

g. No se contó con una Línea Basal para evaluar los impactos y efectos del programa, lo que ha dificultado su medición

h. Uno de los componentes a cargo del INFOM en el que la DGC participó activamente fue la formulación de la Estrategia Nacional de Caminos y Transporte en el Área Rural –ENCTAR-, pero no se logró iniciar su implementación

68

5. Recomendaciones

Las recomendaciones van dirigidas a todas las entidades vinculadas al proyecto. a. Tomar acciones para mejorar la coordinación interinstitucional y lograr un mejor

ordenamiento de competencias. b. Para futuros proyectos se hace necesario contar con una planificación adecuada, y que todas

las obras en rutas principales y secundarias se liciten sobre la base de diseños adecuadamente elaborados

c. Mejorar los niveles de consenso entre prestatario y unidades ejecutoras para superar los problemas de interpretación de normas y aplicación de modelos y procedimientos estándar

d. Cumplir adecuadamente lo establecido, tanto en el Convenio de Préstamo como en los acuerdos escritos entre las entidades involucradas en el programa

e. Tomar acciones concretas para asegurar que se aplique a cabalidad lo establecido en el Manual de Operaciones en futuros proyectos

f. Mejorar los mecanismos para lograr una adecuada medición de impactos y efectos de las intervenciones del Banco Mundial en materia vial

g. Gestionar recursos para actualizar e implementar la ENCTAR h. Reducir al mínimo la rotación de personal para evitar la pérdida de recurso humano que ha

sido debidamente capacitado para la implementación de este tipo de proyectos

69

Annex 9. Mid-Term Evaluation and Analysis of ENCOVI Survey Data.

The project benefited a population of approximately 400,0000 inhabitants and covered a total of approximately 760 communities. The lack of baseline data and of an end-of-project survey prevents the possibility of performing a rigorous impact evaluation of the project. However, we will present the available data on transport-related variables from two household surveys conducted in 2000 and 2006 as well as the results from a mid-term evaluation of the pilot conducted in 2002.

1) Mid-term impact evaluation

In 2002 a mid-term evaluation of the impact of the pilot was performed9. This evaluation relied on the perception of the extent and magnitude of the project distinct impact. The evaluation measured the individual’s assessment of the change in the values of transport-related variables about 14 months after the completion of the rehabilitation projects. It compared the changes and perception in those conditions between the communities with rehabilitation and other with others that did not receive intervention. The main purpose was to assess whether the program had improved access to basic services (health and education) as well as in the well-being of the communities affected compared to others that were not part of the project. To this end, a survey was undertaken in “beneficiary communities” (communities that benefited from some road-related works and are part of the association’s municipalities) as well as in “non-beneficiary communities” (communities that did not benefit from any road-related works financed under the project) with similar characteristics.

The treatment group was composed of those communities in which the project had brought improvement in their roadways in the previous 14 months, as well as those communities that were in the process of receiving the project interventions.

Two set of comparison groups were identified:

- Communities that did not experience any type of improvement in the rural road network, neither from the project nor from the government (C1);

- Communities that received improvement to the roadways through the Government (C2).

The following table summarizes the findings of the mid-term evaluation.

9 Duarte-Monry, Guillermo “Estudio de Medicion de impactos preliminates a partir del mejoramineto de las condiciones de estado de caminos rurales. El caso del proyecto piloto de caminos rurales de San Marcos, Republica de Guatemala”, The World Bank.

70

Comparing with C1 Comparing with C2 Transport Sector Rural roads have resulted in improved access to public transport infrastructure. Beneficiary communities registered an increase in the number of vehicles passing through the community and in the number of people using public transport.

Individuals in both treatment and control communities perceive an improvement in transport in the previous two years. On average 78.3% of individuals in treatment communities perceive an improvement in the variables analyzed, compared to 70.2% in the control group. A significant difference was found in terms of the perception of:

- increase in number of vehicles passing through the community (86% in the treatment group compared to 62% in the control group);

- improvement in the public transportation (86% vs 80%);

- increase in the frequency of buses and cars (90% vs 82%);

- increase in bus lines (78% vs 64%)

- increase in ease of leaving the community (94 vs 87%);

- number of people who have used a bus or a pick-up the previous week (77% vs 65%);

- increase use of public transportation for women (67% vs 58%);

- positive attitude of male spouse towards wife’s possible activity in road maintenance (79% vs 69%).

The treatment group also reports improvement in easiness of leaving the community and in the time needed to reach other communities. Together with the lower time taken to reach their job, individuals in the treatment communities experienced a reduction of 11.8% in commuting time.

The treatment group shows a 12.7% higher shows a higher use of buses and/or pick-ups. They show a higher average expenditure for motorized

Very small difference between the treatment group and this comparison group, and these differences are not statistically significant. A similar percentage of respondents in both groups reports an improvement in the condition of the roads (75.5% vs 74%). There is no significant difference neither in the road conditions throughout the year nor in the price of transport tickets.

There are differences in gender specific benefits. A higher percentage of respondents in the treatment communities report an increase in use of transportation by women (67% vs 60%). Moreover a higher percentage of spouses would see with a positive eye the participation of his wife to road maintenance activities (7% vs 61%).

71

transportation.

These results are consistent with the perception in the two sets of communities regarding improvement in the state of the roads.

Health and Education Sector Beneficiary communities indicate a greater presence and use of as well as easier access to health services. In non-beneficiary communities most residents take a much longer time to reach a health facility. Beneficiary communities show a higher number of education centers when compared to areas without any type of intervention but no significant difference in terms of supply with communities that have received government interventions.

Treatment communities are characterized by a higher number of health posts (41% vs 21%) and by a higher percentage of individuals making use of these posts (88% vs 80%). Despite a longer average time to health posts in the treatment communities, both groups perceive a reduction in travel time to health posts in the last two years (64% vs 68%).

Similar results are found in the case of the education-related variables. The communities in the treatment group show a higher number of education centers (99% vs 87%) and a higher use of transportation to reach the school (70% vs 39%). The average time to reach the schools is similar in the two groups, 13 minutes, and there is not enough evidence to assess whether there has been a reduction in the previous two years. Also in terms of schooling there is not a significant difference between the two groups.

There is no significant difference in the supply of health posts between the treatment group and this comparison group. However, supply is still insufficient to satisfy the demand. While the average time to reach a health post is much higher in the comparison group (86 minutes vs 150), similar percentages of respondents in the two groups report it has decreased in the past two years (64% vs 61%).

There are no significant differences in outcomes the education sector.

Economic Activity A lower percentage of respondents perceived a reduction of food prices in the previous 2 years (26% vs 36%), as well as a redcution in the prices of agricultaral inputs (7.9% vs 14%). Despite a specific program to supply fertilizer a low cost, only 8% reports a reduction in the price of fertilizer. Moreover, a lower percentage of respondents in the the treatment group reports a reduction in the price of fertilizers in the previous two years.

A higher percentage of respondents in the treatment group reports a reduction in food prices (26% vs 16%)

72

3) Analysis of transport-related question in the LSMS 2000 and 2006.

The data sources for this analysis are the Living Standards Measurement Survey (ENCOVI) 2000 and 2006, collected by the National Statistical Institute (INE) of Guatemala. Both ENCOVIs collected data on transport at the household level. The two cross-sectional rounds of the survey allow us to look at changes in several transport-related variables over the 2000-2006 period. The ENCOVI 2000 survey covered 7,276 households; the ENCOVI 2006 covered 13,686 households. We compared the change in relevant indicators for households in the Department of San Marcos to those in the department of Huehuetenango and the rest of the country. The choice of Huehuetenango as a comparison department was done based on the similar geographic and socio-economic characteristics, as well as on the fact that a similar project is being implemented in this department. Community level data from 2000

In terms of the community level data from the ENCOVI 2000, we can see (Figure 1) that about 30% of respondent households in San Marcos, as well as in Huehuetenango had access to surfaced road, compared to above 40% in the rest of the country. 78% of households in San Marcos had access to unsurfaced roads compared to 69% and 65% in the Rest of the Country and Huehuetenango respectively.

Figure 1: Percentage of households with access to road type

0102030405060708090

Surfaced Unsurfaced Dirt Footpath Other

Rest of the country San Marcos Huehuetenango

Source: ENCOVI 2000

The perception about changes in the road conditions in the previous 5 years was more positive in San Marcos, where 58% of households said the roads had improved, compared to 28% and 42% in Huehuetenango and the Rest of the Country respectively.

73

Figure 2: Change in road condition in past 5 years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Improved Worsened Remained unchanged Does not know

Rest of the country San Marcos Huehuetenango

Source: ENCOVI 2000

In San Marcos there had been more road closures than in the other Departments (Figure 3). However, in all departments more than half of the households had experienced closures longer than 5 days. Work was the activity affected the most by road closure, but a higher percentage of households (71%) perceived this as the main problem in San Marcos than in Huehuetenango and the Rest of the Country (59% each). Road closure seemed to have no effect in access to school or health services in San Marcos, and affected a small percentage of households in Huehuetenango and the Rest of the Country.

Figure 3: Road closure and activities most affected

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% experienced road closure % closure longer than 5 days

Rest of the country San Marcos Huehuetenango

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Work Trade ofproducts

Access toschool

Access to healthcenter

Other

Rest of the country San Marcos Huehuetenango

Source: ENCOVI 2000

Household level data

Our results are not a rigorous assessment of the impact of the pilot for several reasons. Firstly, only about 50 percent of the departmental population lives communities benefited by the Project. Hence the effects could very well be underestimated if the situation of the non participating communities dominates. Secondly, the 2000 data is representative at the national and regional level, but not at the

74

departmental level. Thirdly, it may be hard to control for the presence of other types of government interventions in other departments. We thus would be assuming that the department in the comparison group did not have an intervention. However, this is not likely to be the case, and thus we might be overestimating the effects of the Project.

3.1) Physical access to public services

In this section we examine physical access to public services such as water, health centers, schools and other necessities. We compare the different indicators in 2000 and 2006 for the Departments of San Marcos, Huehuetenango and the rest of the country. The analysis is done using household level data from the two datasets.

Physical Access to Publicly available Drinking Water

From 2000 to 2006, there has been a reduction in the percentage of households that have to go outside the premises of their home to reach a drinking water source (Table 1). Distances to the water sources are not very large and have not changed substantially. On average, people have to walk anywhere between 3 to 25 minutes to reach their water source. There is no significant variation in travel times between the three areas analyzed.

In 2006 the most common means of carrying water remains head potage (Table 2), with 99% of household walking to water source in San Marcos and 96.9% in the rest of the country. The t-tests performed in the time distance of reach the water source reveals a significant difference in the means for San Marcos at the 3% level and for the other two areas at the 1% level.

Physical Access to Wood

Wood is used by almost all households in rural areas, and there is little change in this percentage of households that use wood across areas and years (Table 3). Average travel times to reach wood are very high, as they can be more than one hour each way. The average time has remained constant in San Marcos, while it has increased in Huehuetenango and the rest of the country, despite a reduction in the distance. Walking remains the favorite mode of transportation and this is true across regions. We performed t-tests to verify whether the changes occurred between 2000 and 2006 were significantly different from each other. We found that the means of the percentage of households using woods in the Department of San Marcos in 2000 and 2006 are significantly different from each other at any level great than 7.3%, whereas the differences in the means for Huehuetenango and the Rest of the country are significant at the 1% level. The t-tests for the distance in kilometers show that for the three areas the difference in the means is significant at the 1% level, whereas in the case of time distance there is no significant difference in the case of San Marcos.

Physical Access to Health Services

Average time to health facilities has increased from 2000 to 2006 in all areas: from around 50 minutes in 2000 to 65 minutes in 2006 (Table 4). The Department of Huehuetenango experienced the higher increase in time, going from 53.3 minutes in 2000 to an average of 76.4 minutes in 2006.

75

The t-tests reveal that the mean in the time distance is different at the 8.8% level for San Marcos, and at the 1% level for the other two areas.

We cannot compare transportation costs to reach the health facilities over time, as we do not have information for Huehuetenango in 2000 and for San Marcos in 2006. However, we see that the average monthly payment was slightly lower in San Marcos in 2000 compared to the rest of the country, while the average payment in significantly higher in Huehuetenango in 2006 compared to the rest of the country.

Physical Access to Schools

Pre-primary school - The percentage of children attending pre-primary school (nursery schools, pre-kindergarten, tiny tots, or preparatory school) increased in 2006. The proportion of kids paying for transportation remains low, below 10 percent (Table 5). Transportation costs for families who have children attending pre-primary schools have decreased in the rest of the country from 1,219 Quetzales in 2000 to 948 Quetzales in 2006. While no data on transportation costs is available for the Department of San Marcos in 2000, the average cost in 2006 was lower than in the rest of the country (658 Quetzales).

Primary School –The average time children take to reach a primary school has slightly decreased in the Departments of San Marcos and Huehuetenango and slightly increased in the Rest of the Country (Table 6). The t-tests reveal that means for the Rest of the Country differ with a 1% level of significance, whereas the means for the San Marcos and Huehuetenango differ with a significance level of 2% and 4.3% respectively. Moreover, there is no significant difference in travel times to school between San Marcos and Huehuetenango but the mean time distance is different between San Marcos and the Rest of the Country at a 1.7% significance level. The percentage of children going to school has increased slightly, from just below to just above 30%.The cost of reaching school has increased, but the mean cost is not significantly different in the Department of San Marcos. They are significantly different for Huehuetenango and the Rest of the Country at the 1% level.

Transportation in agriculture and ownership of vehicles

The percentage of households who paid for transporting agricultural goods has decreased in the three areas (Table 7). The t-tests reveal that the change is statically significant at the 6.5% level in the Department of San Marcos, and at the 2.7% and 1% in Huehuetenango and the Rest of the Country respectively. In terms of the amount paid for transporting agricultural products and livestock, it has increased in the Rest of the country from 294 to 361 Quetzales (significance level of 8.9%), whereas it has decreased in Huehuetenango from 191 to 141 Quetzales (significance level of 1%). The change in the average amount paid is not statistically significant in the case of the Department of San Marcos.

The percentage of households owning a car or truck has increased between 2000 and 2006 (Table 9). In the Department of San Marcos the ownership of small trucks doubles from 4.33 to 8.46% whereas in the Rest of the Country increased only slightly from 5.71 to 6.44%. In Huehuetenango ownership of small truck went from 2.46 to 7.62%.

Prices and sale of agricultural production

Average unitary prices of agricultural production have increased from 2000 in all the three areas identified (Table 10). The increase has been dramatic especially in Huehuetenango where prices

76

went from 242 to 400 Quetzales. On the other hand, the percentage of production that has been sold decreased from above 90% in 2000 to about 75% in 2006. The t-tests reveal confirm that the changes are statistically significant in all cases.

Average time to health posts, schools and source of water by municipalities in the

Department of San Marcos

The ENCOVI dataset does not allow for an analysis at the municipal level. Indeed of the 29 municipalities in Department of San Marcos, only 17 were surveyed in 2000 and 16 in 2006. Therefore we cannot attribute the changes in the variables to the pilot project. The table below shows the average travel time to school, health centers and source of water for the municipalities with the pilot and those without the pilot in the Department of San Marcos. We performed t-test to assess whether the differences across years were significant. Pilot municipalities experience a significant reduction of 5 minutes in average time to school, whereas to no change was experienced in the other municipalities. Average time to health center increased dramatically in all municipalities, and this is in contrast with what found in terms of perception by the mid-term evaluation. Indeed, in 2002 around 67% of the households perceived a reduction in time to get to the health centers. Average time to source of water increased in pilot areas but not in the other municipalities. It is interesting however to notice how average distance to water reported in the ENCOVI for these municipalities for 2000 was much lower than the one reported by BIONERG in their evaluation, which was around 30 minutes.

Average travel time to

school*

Average travel time to health

center*

Average time to source of

water*

Minutes Minutes Minutes2000

Pilot 20.2 56.1 12.7(0.94) (7.69) (.85)

Others 18 39.7 13.1(1.25) (3.70) (1.33)

2006Pilot 15.7 84.2 22.2

(1.50) (11.45) (1.68)Other 17.1 49.1 12.8

(1.15) (4.24) (1.72)

* Standard errors in parenthesis

Lesson learned

The lack of baseline and follow-up survey data prevents the possibility to isolate the impact of the rural road project from the myriad of other factors that have changed in the past 10 years in the rural Guatemala. This is clearly a lost opportunity, given the scant evidence on the impact of rural roads on access to services and markets, welfare, employment.

77

We have the following set of recommendation/suggestion for evaluation of future programs:

The majority of the questions contained in the questionnaire for the mid-term evaluation refer to the respondents’ perception about changes in the community. However very relevant, these questions should be complemented with more objective indicators. Moreover, it would particularly important to be able to assess household’s welfare and its evolution. Consequently, a number of questions that replicate questions in the ENCOVI could be included in the survey. With this information regression techniques could be used to estimate each household’s position in the national distribution of welfare.

The household questionnaire should cover employment, assets, production and employment activities, education, health, marketing, credit, community activities, access to social security and poverty programs, and transport.

Treatment and comparison communities should be equivalent in all their observed and unobserved characteristics. Since random assignment has not taken place, it will be important to use propensity score matching techniques to ensure that selected non-project communities are appropriate comparison groups.

Since the beginning, the project team should work with a strategic eye to how ensure that the project be evaluated, given the resources available. Given the timing of the two ENCOVIs, in 2000 and 2006, a small survey could have been designed so that it could have been conducted at approximately the same time as the ENCOVI, thus creating a baseline in 2000 and a follow-up in 2006. Indeed, the evaluators could have taken advantage of the larger survey to over sample participants in the pilot and in the control group. Moreover, the same interview teams could have been sued for both the national and project survey, resulting in efficiency gains in data collection.

Another consideration is that it would be interesting to assess whether the formation of the ADIMAM has had an effect in improving the reaction of the communities after hurricane Stan, which created substantial damage to physical infrastructure in the Department of San Marcos, as well as in several other areas of Guatemala. The goal of the ADIMAM was indeed to pursue development in the area of the Altiplano Marquense, by seeking solutions to issues of common interest that would speed up the decision process. We could then conduct a survey of beneficiary communities as well as non beneficiary communities that were hit in analogous way the Hurricane and assess whether indeed the presence of the ADIMAM had an impact in the promptness of the response to the Hurricane, the ability to reconstruct and thus limit the damages caused by the disaster.

78

Table 1: Travel time to water source

HH with water

sourceTravel time

HH with water

sourceTravel time

HH with water

sourceTravel time

HH with water

sourceTravel time

HH with water

sourceTravel time

HH with water

sourceTravel time

(%) (minutes) (%) (minutes) (%) (minutes) (%) (minutes) (%) (minutes) (%) (minutes)Water pipe inside house 42.09 32.3 35.9 52.97 55.62 41.75Water pipe inside property 17.01 23.17 16.78 23.78 9.1 18.46Public water pipe 5.79 14 7 15 4.02 12 1 3 6.46 14 3.47 21Well (public/private) 17.56 10 13.72 12 24.89 10 18.32 18 8.53 16 19.26 15River/lake 12.26 18 19.46 15 13 20 4.03 25 20.28 23 13.58 25Water truck 0.59 - - - 0.56 2 - - - - 0.83 5Rain - - - - 1.36 5 - - - - 2.65 6Other 4.7 10 4 4 3.96 10 - - 4 - - -

Total* 12.88 13.2 12.48 16 19.88 18.64(0.79) (0.34) (0.21) (1.3) (0.70) (0.25)

* Standard errors in parenthesis

2000 2006

Huehuetenango Rest of the countrySan Marcos Huehuetenango Rest of the country San Marcos

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2000 and 2006

79

Table 2: Mode of transport to water source, 2000 and 2006

% HHs walking

%HHs using beast

%HHs using a

boat

% HHs using bike

%HHs using truck

% HHs using other

means2000

San Marcos 85.7 2.4 1.0 - 1.4 9.5Huehuetenango 84.8 1.2 0.6 - 0.1 13.3Rest of the country 90.3 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 8.0

2006San Marcos 99.1 0.9 - - - -Huehuetenango 86.6 13.4 - - - -Rest of the country 96.9 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 -

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2000 and 2006

Table 3: Time distance and mode for transporting wood by households

Wood UseOne way

travel time (km)*

One way travel time (minutes)*

2000 Walking Beast/truckSan Marcos 97.3 1.4 78.0 71.0 23.0

(40.80) (1.91)Huehuetenango 99.6 1.7 72.0 81.2 19.0

(39.34) (1.13)Rest of the country 97.0 1.5 65.0 76.0 16.0

(17.55) (0.54)

2006San Marcos 98.2 1.0 78.0 72.0 28.0

(46.49) (2.19)Huehuetenango 98.9 1.3 85.0 76.0 24.0

(34.89) (1.81)Rest of the country 94.2 1.5 89.0 81.0 16.0

(11.57) (0.52)

* Standard errors in parenthesis

Most favored mode for carrying wood

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2000 and 2006

80

Table 4: Time, cost and mode of travel taken to reach a health facility by individuals,

2000 and 2006

Average travel time*

Average monthly payment

Sick who did not visit health center due to transp issues

Minutes Walking Vehicles Quetzales %2000

San Marcos 49.9 57.2 42.16 25.9 8.3(4.81)

Huehuetenango 53.3 79.7 18.85 - 13.6(2.98)

Rest of the country 55.8 56.8 39.4 30.8 13.8(1.35)

2006San Marcos 61.4 63.21 31.82 - 8.4

(4.68)Huehuetenango 76.4 39.94 49.25 86.6 14.3

(6.70_Rest of the country 64.7 46.5 46.14 15.2 10.8

(1.08)

* Standard errors in parenthesis

Most favored mode of transportation

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2000 and 2006

Table 5: Time and cost of reaching a pre-primary school for children

% children attending pre-

primary

Population paying for pre primary

school transportation

Transportation cost of reaching a pre-primary school

2000San Marcos 8.1 - -Huehuetenango 3.7 2.9 50 *Rest of the country 6.8 2.2 1219.0

2006San Marcos 12.2 7.9 658.0Huehuetenango 9.5 - -Rest of the country 12.4 4.2 948.0

* just one observation

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2000 and 2006

81

Table 6: Time and cost of reaching a primary school or higher.

Children attending primary school or

higher

Students paying for school

tranportation

Average one-time travel time to

reach School*

Cost of reaching school over the

school year*% (%) (minutes) Quetzales

2000San Marcos 34.0 3.7 19.2 702.68

(0.77) (13.99)Huehuetenango 25.8 2 19.4 711.79

(0.64) (25.08)Rest of the country 27.7 7.2 16.9 696.5

(036) (4.43)

2006San Marcos 36.0 6.5 16.4 878.1

(0.92) (11.38)Huehuetenango 31.0 4.5 17.3 1731.7

(0.77) (18.43)Rest of the country 32.6 11.5 18.6 1010

(0.20) (3.77)

* Standard errors in parenthesis

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2000 and 2006

Table 7: Expenditure on Transportation by household.

% households who paid for transporting agricultural

goods*

Amount paid for transporting agricultural products and

livestock*% Quetzales

2000San Marcos 34.46 220.77

(0.013) (27.88)Huehuetenango 46.99 191.317

(0.009) (7.12)Rest of the country 46.72 293.96

(0.004) (35.41)

2006San Marcos 31.07 226.4874

(0.013) (17.34)Huehuetenango 43.63 141.0721

(0.012) (8.42)Rest of the country 36.32 360.7063

(0.003) (17.04)

* Standard errors in parenthesis

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2000 and 2006

Table 8: Effect of hurricane Stan on the departments

Household affected by Stan

%

2006San Marcos 65.18Huehuetenango 14.55Rest of the country 26.7

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2006

82

Table 9: Ownership of vehicles by household.

Car/Automobile Small Truck

% % 2000

San Marcos 1.04 4.33Huehuetenango 0.58 2.46Rest of the country 1.05 5.71

2006San Marcos 1.54 8.46Huehuetenango 0.82 7.62Rest of the country 2.04 6.44

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2000 and 2006

Table 10: Average unitary price and percentage of agricultural production sold

Average price* Agricultural production sold*

unitary price %2000

San Marcos 113.03 94.67(6.78) (0.005)

Huehuetenango 242.42 96.34(4.30) (0.002)

Rest of the country 92.86 92.87(0.97) (0.002)

2006San Marcos 175.60 77.07

(7.28) (0.009)Huehuetenango 400.20 74.62

(15.03) (0.007)Rest of the country 134.90 70.54

(0.79) (0.002)

* Standard errors in parenthesis

Source: Author’s calculations using LSMS 2000 & 2006

83

Annex 10. List of Supporting Documents Project Concept Note http://wbln0037.worldbank.org/85256BCE00653125/All+Documents/C1FB0287E66ABB3085256DD0007366C9/$File/Project0Concept0Note.pdf?OpenElement Project Appraisal Document http://imagebank.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/1997/11/18/000009265_3980203115324/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

Abraham Pigrau, Fernando. 2007. Informe de Evaluación de Proyectos de la Dirección General de Caminos Financiados con el Préstamo BIRF-4260. Consultant report commissioned for this report. World Bank, Washington D.C.

Colletto, M. and Michelle Cullen. 2000. Violent Conflict and the Transformation of Social Capital: Lessons from Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala and Somalia. World Bank, Washington D.C.

Duarte-Monry, Guillermo. 2002. Estudio de Medicion de impactos preliminates a partir del mejoramineto de las condiciones de estado de caminos rurales. El caso del proyecto piloto de caminos rurales de San Marcos, Republica de Guatemala. World Bank, Washington D.C.

Duarte Monroy, Guillermo. 2007. Reporte de Evaluación de Impacto basado en la Técnica de Grupos Focales. Consultant report commissioned for this report. World Bank, Washington D.C.

Fruttero, Anna. 2007. Guatemala Rural and Main Roads Project: Mid-Term Evaluation and Analysis of ENCOVI 2000 and 2006 data. Consultant report commissioned this report. World Bank, Washington D.C.

Glass, Melanie. 2003. The Importance of a Road. Published in “En Breve Series”. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Puri, J. 2000. Transport and Poverty in Guatemala: A Profile using Data from the ENCOVI 2000. Report No. 36208. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank. 1995. Guatemala, An Assessment of Poverty. Report No. 12313-GT

World Bank. 1995. Guatemala: Investing for Peace, a Public Investment Review. Report No. 16392-GT.

World Bank. 1998. Guatemala Country Assistance Strategy. Report No. 18036-GT

World Bank. 2003. Project Appraisal Document, Guatemala Second Rural and Main Roads Project. Report No. 25118-GT

World Bank. 2005. Guatemala Country Assistance Strategy. Report No. 31776-GT

World Bank. 2005. Guatemala Public Expenditure Review. Report No. 32376-GT.

HUEHUETENANGO

Q U I C H E

BAJA VERAPAZ

I Z A B A LA LTA V E R A PA Z

Z A C A PA

CHIQUIMULA

JALAPA

JUTIAPA

ELPROGRESO

GUATEMALA

TOTONICAPAN

SANMARCOS

SOLOLA

RETALHULEU

SANTAROSA

SACATE-PEQUEZ

E S C U I N T L ASUCH

ITEPE

QUE

Z CHIM

ALTE

NANGO

QUEZALENANGO

P E T É N

12

35

4

Tikal

SanCristobal

Chajul

Chiantla

Pto.SantoTomás deCastilla

Ocós

Champerico

El Tulate

El SemilleroBarra Nahualate

El Tecojate

STA. ELENA BARILLAS

Sipacate

Tecpán

San MiguelMorgazán

CuatroCaminos

Las Lisas

San JoséIztapo

Pto. Quetzal

San VicentePacaya

To Tuxla

La Mesilla

To T

apac

hula

To San Salvador

To San Salvador

To Acajutla

Flores

San Luis

Sayaxche

ChisecBarillas

Coban

Zacapa

Chiquimula

PuertoBarrios

ModestoMéndez

Huehuetanango

Santa Cruzdel Quiche

San PedroJocopilas

SanMarcos

Totonicapan

SololaQuezaltenango

RetalhuleuMazatenanga

Chimaltenango

AntiguaGuatemala

EscuintlaCuilapa

Salamo

El Progreso

Jalapa

Jutiapa

GUATEMALACITY

L. deIzabal

Gulf ofHonduras

L. Petén Itzá

M E X I C O

HONDURAS

BELIZE

EL SALVADOR

88∞90∞

92∞

18∞ 18∞

16∞

14∞

88∞90∞92∞

14∞

16∞

CUBAGulf ofMexico

CaribbeanSea

PACIFICOCEAN

MEXICO BELIZE

HONDURAS

NICARAGUA

COSTA RICA

PANAMA

CUBA

EL SALVADOR

Guatemala City

GUATEMALA

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, o r any endo r s emen t o r a c c e p t a n c e o f s u c h boundaries.

0 25 50

0 25 50 75 Miles

75 Kilometers

PAVED ROADS

UNPAVED ROADS

RAILROADS

SELECTED TOWNS

DEPARTMENT CAPITALS

NATIONAL CAPITAL

AIRPORTS

PORTS

DEPARTMENT BOUNDARIES

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

ROADS TO BE REHABILITATED:

CUATRO CAMINOS - LA MESILLA

SAN CRISTOBAL - VERAPAZ - CHIANTLA (RN-7W)

CA9S - SAN VICENTE PACAYA

CHIMALTENANGO - TECPÁN

DON JUSTO - DESVÍO

OCTOBER 1997

IBRD 28966

GUATEMALA

GUATEMALA RURAL & MAINROADS PROJECT

MAIN ROADS TO BE REHABILITATED

1

2

3

4

5

S A NM A R C O S

QUETZALTENANGO

15

17

72

3

33

12 12

12

4

4

6

33

11

2

1

1

2413

13

16

15

14

16

182

12N

1

1

1

1

8

8

13

13

13

6W

12N

12S

9N

12S

CA1

CITO

CA2

CA2

CA2

Tectitán

Tacaná

Sibinal Ixchiguán

San Pablo

Colomba

Nuevo Progreso

Pajapita

CiudadTecún Umán

La Reforma

SAN MARCOS

QUETZALTENANGO

Malacatan

Tajumulco

Sipacapa

MalacatancitoConcepciónTutuapa

San MiguelIxtahuacán

San JoséOjetenan

Tejutla

Comitancillo

San Lorenzo

Cabrican

Huitan

Sibilia

Ostuncalco

San MateoLa Esperanza

Sibilia

San FranciscoLa Union

SanCarlos Sija

Cajolá

San MiguelSiguila

Palestinade los Altos

Rio Blanco

San PedroSacatepéquez

San AntonioSacatepéquez

San JuanSacatepéquez Almolonga

Zunil

ConcepciónChiquirichapa

El Rodeo

Catarina El Tumbador

El Quetzal

Coatepeque

EsquipulasPalo Gordo

San RafaelPie de la Cuesta

San CristobalCucho

Calapte

Finca La Patria

San Sebastian

Guativil

Ocos

Palin

LagunaSeca

Plan dela Gloria

Buena Vista

La Union

Finca La Sola

La Victoria

FincaPalmira

SantaTeresa

Ixmulca

MEXICO

15∞30' 92∞00'

92∞00'

91∞30'

14∞30'

15∞00'

14∞30'

15∞00'

GuatemalaCity

Gulf ofHonduras

P A C I F I C O C E A N

Areaof Map

M E X I C O

G U A T E M A L A

HONDURAS

BELIZE

EL SALVADOR

88∞90∞92∞

18∞18∞

16∞

14∞

88∞90∞92∞

14∞

16∞

GUATEMALA

GUATEMALA RURAL & MAIN ROADS PROJECTDEPARTMENT OF SAN MARCOS

DEPARTMENTAL ROADS

NATIONAL ROADS

CENTRAL AMERICAN ROADS

SELECTED TOWNS

MUNICIPAL CAPITALS

DEPARTMENT CAPITALS

DEPARTMENT BOUNDARIES

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

CA2

12N

7

IBRD 28967

OCTOBER 1997

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, o r any endo r s emen t o r a c c e p t a n c e o f s u c h boundaries.

0 42 6 8

0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles

10 Kilometers