analysis of selected development projects realized … · 1 analysis of selected development...

1

Analysis of selected development projects realized by the Czech Geological Survey in Central America region with respect to utilization of outputs by th e beneficiaries

Supported by a grant from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism

2

Contents: 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4

2 Overview of realised projects .............................................................................................. 5

2.1 Project of development assistance cooperation of the Czech Republic RP/6/2007 “Regional geological investigation on the definition and prediction of natural hazards in central part of Central America” ......................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Nicaragua, central and northern sectors of the country. Pacific region was investigated in the frame of initial projects undertaken in the country. ................................. 5

2.1.2 Costa Rica, Cordillera Tilarán (Cerranías de Abangares, Montes de Oro). Miramar, Chapernal, Juntas (3 map sheets of 1:50 000 scale, total extent of the area investigated 1500 km2)........................................................................................................ 7

2.1.3 El Salvador, nation’s capital of San Salvador........................................................ 8

2.2 Project of development assistance cooperation of the Czech Republic RP/5/2007 “Investigation and exploration of geomorphological and hydrogeological conditions of the Piura and Chira river basins, Peru, aimed at mitigation of environmental impacts hampering social and economic development of the region” ...................................................................10

2.2.1 Peru, northern sector of the country - Región Piura .............................................10

2.3 Table of projects in Nicaragua and Costa Rica ...........................................................13

3 Workshop I.........................................................................................................................15

3.1 Schedule – Workshop I...............................................................................................15

3.2 Technical note NGI – Material for 1st workshop in Prague...........................................16

3.2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................16

3.2.2 Key aspects for discussion during the workshop..................................................16

3.2. List of presentations - Workshop I...............................................................................19

4. Workshop II........................................................................................................................20

4.2. Schedule of Workshop II .............................................................................................20

4.3. List of presentations - Workshop II..............................................................................22

4.4. List of contacts at institutions visited during Workshop II in Central America (20 May – 5 June 2010) .........................................................................................................................23

Lists of persons who answered questionnaires......................................................................28

3

4.5. Example of questionnaires..........................................................................................28

5. Workshop III.......................................................................................................................36

6. Evaluation..........................................................................................................................37

6.2. Methodology of evaluations ........................................................................................37

6.3. Main results of evaluations..........................................................................................37

7. Annex I - photos.................................................................................................................39

4

1 Introduction

This analysis has been prepared in the framework of the project “Transfer of know-how

to secure efficient exploitation of results of geological studies aimed at prediction of natural

geohazards (undertaken within the projects of foreign development co-operation) by

governmental organisations of a beneficiary”, supported by a grant from Iceland, Liechtenstein

and Norway through the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism.

The aim of the project is to transfer know-how from the Norwegian partner institution -

International Centre for Geohazards / Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (ICG/NGI) - to the

experts of the Czech Geological Survey (CGS) so that the results of cooperative development

aid programs can be implemented with maximum efficiency and have direct practical benefits to

the communities affected.

The analysis has been based on a joint assessment of a selected sample of CGS

development projects in the field of natural hazards including consultations with selected

organizations in the recipient countries. The analysis provides a fundamental input for design of

a methodology on procedures aiming at a more efficient exploitation of results of geological

studies aimed at the prediction of natural geohazards by beneficiary organisations.

In the initial phase of the project and during the Joint Workshop I, the overview of

selected projects realized by CGS was elaborated and problematic issues were identified and

discussed. Two types of questionnaires for consultations with selected organizations in the

recipient countries were prepared: one for counterpart institutions and a second one for end

users.

A list of relevant organizations in the beneficiary countries was prepared and meetings

with their representatives were organized. Consequently, interviews with 48 contacts in

Nicaragua and Costa Rica were carried out as a part of the Joint Workshop II. All the gathered

information was jointly assessed and summarized in this analysis.

5

2 Overview of realised projects

2.1 Project of development assistance cooperation o f the Czech Republic

RP/6/2007 “Regional geological investigation on the definition and

prediction of natural hazards in central part of Ce ntral America”

2.1.1 Nicaragua, central and northern sectors of th e country. Pacific region was investigated in the frame of initial projects under taken in the country.

Period of project(s) implementation

1997 – 2001 projects undertaken in the Pacific region, 2002-2006 and 2007-2009 –

projects carried out in central and northern sectors of the country were aimed at the definition of

geohazards in the vicinities of larger cities.

Project objectives and methods of investigation

The investigation was chiefly focused on identification, localization, specification and

description of geohazards derived from geological structures in the given region and/or on

proposals of appropriate measures to mitigate impacts due to natural hazards. Relevant reports

and maps were based on newly undertaken geological surveys, geomorphological and

structural analysis, and/or engineering-geological studies.

Characteristics of the recipient

Instituto Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales, Managua, (Department of Geophysics,

Ms. Angélica Muñoz, M.Sc., Director). The partner organisation is the major recipient of the

project outputs. The Institute is the mediator that conveys project data, in original or simplified

form to local authorities, municipalities and public administrations of the given cities or regions.

The final end-users of project results are people living in the project area.

Project outputs

Series of maps of 1:50 000 scale were the main project output: The following maps were

prepared: map of geohazards and/or slope instabilities, geological map, map of documented

6

points, and map of structural geology. All maps are accompanied by explanatory texts and

summaries of analytical data and their interpretation. Field records in digital form are also an

integral part of the project outputs.

Method of handover of project results to the recipi ent

Project outputs were handed over to the counterpart organization as soon as the project

was completed and through their presentation to professionals from relevant Nicaraguan

institutions and also to foreign experts. The results of the initial projects used to be presented

and handed over to representatives of municipalities, mayors of the given cities and

commissioners of districts, regions and/or provinces, Civil defence, Military, etc. Presentations

were also organized in the capital of Nicaragua, specifically at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Office of the President, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources – MARENA, SINAPRED

– the organization engaged in identification and inventory of natural hazards, and at other

institutions. At all these presentations, there was always the presence of the media.

Other presentations of project results

In addition to the abovementioned local presentations, project results were also

introduced at international geological and volcanological congresses in Mexico (Colima

conferences in 2000, 2002, 2004), in Ecuador (congress at Quito in 2006), in Nicaragua

(congresses in 1997, 2005), in Chile (congresses at Pucón in 2005 and at Puerto Varas in

2002), in Germany (conference at Kiel in 2006) and in Costa Rica (congress at San José in

2008).

Survey of the efficiency of implementation of proje ct results

There have been limited opportunities for surveying the implementation of the project

results handed over to Nicaraguan recipients. One-year projects are always terminated by

simple transfer of results to relevant recipients. Occasionally information on exploitation of the

project results was mentioned or highlighted in the media (e.g., investigations related to

hurricane Mitch and its impacts in 1998, prediction of earthquake dislocations along faults

related to the Apoyo volcano in 1999, aspects related to the discovery of the Somoto canyon,

etc.). The project results, maps in particular, are occasionally modified by the counterpart

organisation and also presented as results of the research done by local experts. A continuous

7

survey from the Czech part is virtually impossible because of the absence of a project manager

once the one-year projects are terminated and results handed over to the recipient.

2.1.2 Costa Rica, Cordillera Tilarán (Cerranías de Abangares, Montes de Oro). Miramar, Chapernal, Juntas (3 map sheets of 1:50 00 0 scale, total extent of the area investigated 1500 km 2).

Period of the project implementation

2006 – field reconnaissance in the Miramar area (Jabonal). 2007 – map sheet Miramar.

2008 – map sheet Chapernal. 2009 – map sheet Juntas.

Project intentions and objectives

The project was designed to contribute to the mitigation of impacts of natural disasters

causing or resulting in casualties, property and economic losses, damage on social structure

and ecology of affected regions. Acquisition of data for short- or intermediate range prognosis of

hazardous events. The project objectives were in harmony with long-term development

programs of the given regions.

Methods of investigations

Field operations were based on interpreted data of remote sensing (satellite imagery and

aerial photographs). Individual thematic information layers included geology, structural geology,

petrology and geochemistry of rocks, hydrochemical and hydrogeological overview of the

subject area, identification of natural hazards (landslides, floods, erosion and sediments

aggradation, contamination, undermining), geochemical studies of mineral indications.


MINAET – Department of Geology and Mines (Dirección de Geología y Minas), San

José, represented by Mr. José Francisco Castro M., director, and Ms. Marlene Salazar, deputy

director.

Projects outputs

8

Final Report - description of remote sensing methods, tectonics, geology, lithology and

stratigraphy of local rocks, hydrological assessment of the area, geohazards, mineral deposits,

methods of GIS data processing.

The following maps at a scale of 1:50 000 were prepared: Geological map, map of

documented points, map of geohazards (susceptibility to landslides, inundations, contamination

of waters), inventory map of slope deformations at 1:25 000 scale, map of mineral indications

(selected area of ca 500 km2)


Official handover of all maps, the Final Report and all databases to MINAET San José

took place in April 2010. At MINAET, there were two brief presentations of achieved results took

place. Experts from UCR, ICE, MINAET, and other institutions were present.


Preliminary results were presented at the IXth Central American Geological Congress

and the IVth National Geological Congress held in San José in 2008, (in form of oral

presentations and posters).

Survey of efficiency of implementation of project r esults

None, because the project has just been completed.

2.1.3 El Salvador, nation’s capital of San Salvador Period of project implementation

2007 - 2009


Implementation of thematic studies aimed at the creation of databases to serve for the

definition, prognosis and possible mitigation of impacts of natural hazards within the

metropolitan area of the capital of San Salvador.

9

Methods of investigation

Exodynamic analysis of relief development, geomorphological, geological and

engineering geology surveys, geostatistical analysis of acquired data accompanied with

explanatory text and comprehensive database in GIS format.


Two recipient organizations include the Office for Urban Planning of the Metropolitan

Area of San Salvador - OPAMSS (Oficina de Planificación de Área Metropolitana de San

Salvador) and the Geological Survey within the SNET (Servicio Nacional de Estudios

Territoriales).

Project outputs

Project outputs include a series of thematic maps at a scale of 1:25 000, accompanied

by explanatory notes and digitized databases: Geomorphological map of the capital of San

Salvador (compiled in cooperation with the European project FORGAES), map of susceptibility

to slope deformations within the metropolitan area of San Salvador, map of major morphological

structures in the capital, basic geological survey of the southern side of the capital in the area of

the Cordillera del Balsamo, and geostatistical analysis.


Project outputs were prepared in cooperation with relevant recipients and each output

was presented to the public. Fundamental results were handed over both in written and digital

form. The main collaborators of the recipient institutions included Ing. José Alexánder Chávez

Hernandez of OPAMSS and MSc. Walter Hernandez of SNET.


Project results were also presented to mayors of the municipalities gathered at the city

council – COAMSS (Consejo de Alcaldes del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador), at the

University of El Salvador, and at the Salvadoran Association of Engineers and Architects - ASIA

(Asociación Salvadoreña de Ingenieros y Arquitectos).

10


As an initiative from OPAMSS, three map sheets became part of Decree No 4 –

Reformas al Reglamento a la Ley de Desarrollo y Ordenamiento territorial del Área

Metropolitana de San Salvador y de los Municipios Aledaños“, issued by the COAMSS.

2.2 Project of development assistance cooperation o f the Czech Republic

RP/5/2007 “Investigation and exploration of geomorp hological and

hydrogeological conditions of the Piura and Chira r iver basins, Peru, aimed

at mitigation of environmental impacts hampering so cial and economic

development of the region”

2.2.1 Peru, northern sector of the country - Región Piura

Period of project implementation

2007 - 2010


The project is designed and intended to take precautions against natural hazards that

may hinder the development of the region. Project sub-targets include:

• Assessment of susceptibility of the middle and low reaches of the rivers Piura ad Chira to

hazards related to El Niño phenomenon.

• Elaboration of a proposal for reduction of impacts due to natural hazards and assessment of

possible utilisation of flood waters.

• Assessment of hydrogeological conditions of the subject area and to elaborate a proposal

for more efficient exploitation of existing groundwater resources and to search for new water

resources.

• Implementation of special studies intended to create a basic geoscientific database for

definition of geohazards, their prognosis and/or mitigation of impacts of natural dangers of

areas close to lower reaches of the rivers Chira and Piura in the Sechur desert.

11

Methods of investigation

Application of a variety of methods enabling to work out geomorphological, geological,

hydrogeological and engineering-geological studies; geostatistical analysis of wide spectrum of

data accompanied by explanatory texts and fundamental database in GIS format.


Regional administration of the Piura Region represented by the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (Gerencia de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) that

is in charge of documentation and inventory of geohazards and protection of natural resources.

Project outputs

Series of thematic maps accompanied by explanatory texts, special investigations

supplemented with digitized database are the project output. The outputs include:

• Geomorphological map of the Lower Piura and Chira rivers at a scale of 1:100 000,

• Map of engineering-geological zoning of the Lower Piura and Chira rivers at a scale of 1:100

000,

• Map depicting efficient exploitation of the subject area and demarcation of areas at risk.

• Definition of both rivers catchments and characteristics of the main hazardous processes

that may occur in the area,

• Analysis of hydrogeological extremes,

• Draft/Concept of flood- protection measures to be taken,

• Hydrogeological study of the area,

• Geostatistical analysis of a broad spectrum of data,

• GIS database.


Project outputs are elaborated in cooperation with relevant recipients and each output is

introduced to the public. The main results are handed over both in written and digital form.

Preliminary or partial results are being transferred continuously in order to serve for decision

12

making of administrations at all levels. Ing.Augusto Zegarra Peralta and Ing. Lorenzo Salazar

Chavesta.are the main collaborators of the recipient.

Other presentations of the project results

The project results are continuously presented to the mayors of towns and cities or

municipalities or district commissioners and also introduced at the Universidad Nacional de

Piura, Universidad de Piura, and Asociación de Ingenieros Peruanos. Aspects of the project

were also presented at the XIIIth Latin-American Geological Congress and at the XIVth

Peruvian Geological Congress.


The project outputs should be continuously utilized by public and state administrations at

all levels in decision making and land-use planning within the region or even within smaller units

and in implementation of projects of road network construction, etc.

13

2.3 Table of projects in Nicaragua and Costa Rica

No Año Area participantes tipo de riesgos

Nicaragua

1 1997 Managua Petr Hradecky, Jiri Šebesta fallas, riesgos exodinámicos

2 1998 Granada, Masaya

Petr Hradecky, Jiri Šebesta sismicidad, riesgos exodinámicos

3 1999 Chinandega – Casita

Petr Hradecky, Jiri Šebesta riesgos volcánicos y exodinámicos - deslizamientos

4 2000 Leon, La Paz Petr Hradecky, Jiri Šebesta, Petr Kycl

sismicidad, volcanismo, exodinámicos

5 2001 Apoyeque, Cosigüina

Petr Hradecky, Jiri Šebesta, Petr Kycl

riesgo volcánico y sísmico

6 2002 Matagalpa Petr Hradecky, Jiri Šebesta, Petr Kycl

exodinámicos - deslizamientos e inundaciones

7 2003 Jinotega Petr Hradecky, Jiri Šebesta, Petr Kycl y Vladimir Žáček

exodinámicos - deslizamientos

8 2004 Somoto Petr Hradecky, Jiri Šebesta, Petr Kycl y Vladimir Žáček

exodinámicos - deslizamientos, sismicidad

9 2005 Ocotal Petr Hradecky, Jiri Šebesta, Petr Kycl y Vladimir Žáček

exodinámicos - deslizamientos, sismicidad

10 2006 Estelí Petr Hradecký exodinámicos - deslizamientos

11 2007 Boaco, Sta Lucía Petr Hradecký exodinámicos - deslizamientos

12 2008 Boaco, Sebaco Petr Hradecký y Vít Baldík exodinámicos - deslizamientos e inundaciones

13 2009 Jalapa Petr Hradecký y Vít Baldík exodinámicos - erosión e inundaciones

Costa Rica

14 2006 Miramar Petr Kycl, Vladimír Žáček, Petr Mixa

exodinámicos - erosión e inundaciones, contaminación

15 2007 Miramar Petr Kycl, Vladimír Žáček, Petr Mixa


14

16 2008 Chapernal Petr Kycl, Vladimír Žáček, Petr Mixa


17 2009 Juntas Petr Kycl, Vladimír Žáček, Petr Mixa


15

3 Workshop I

3.1 Schedule – Workshop I

8.3. – 12.3. 2010 Morning Afternoon

Monday • Introduction of CGS and ICG/NGI

• Discussion on Project implementation

• Discussion on workshop agenda

Tuesday Summary of past projects CGS Discussion on identified problems in past projects, ICG experience

Wednesday Comments of ICG on background documents and information presented

Excursion on CGS departments

Thursday Preparation of report structure Preparation of Workshop II

o Organisations to be visited and interviewed

o Questionnaire preparation

o Logistics

Friday Summary, work plan for the upcoming period

Other issues, departure

16

3.2 Technical note NGI – Material for 1 st workshop in Prague

3.2.1 Introduction This technical note is a compilation of material that may be useful during the 1st workshop in Prague during week 10, 2010.

A list of key aspects that may be useful to discuss is presented as well as a list of articles prepared by the International Centre for Geohazards (ICG) and relevant to the type of cooperation activities of the present project.

3.2.2 Key aspects for discussion during the worksho p

1. What drives the interest for cooperation?

a. Helping others?

b. Learning from others?

c. Learning from others by helping others?

d. Etc.

2. Scales of cooperation:

a. Institutional scale: one recipient partner or many recipient partners (independent or as a network).

b. Geographical scale of the target location: local, municipal, region (in one country), national, regional (many neighbouring countries).

c. Disciplinary scale: one discipline or multi-disciplinary.

d. Time scale: event-based or continuous.

3. Type of results:

a. Measurable (material): technical, databases, maps, etc.

b. Non-measurable (non-material): improving organizational capacity in partner(s) (routines for communications, decision-making, etc.), creating organizational units for dealing with problems

4. How can we identify the needs in the target location?

17

5. Partner features:

a. Role in project:

i. Running a project (we are incorporated as an assistance or advising unit)?

ii. Involved in formulation?

iii. Contributing with data and information?

iv. Contributing with producing technical results?

v. Recipient of project results?

vi. Validation of project results?

vii. Etc.

b. Technical competence.

i. Geoscience

ii. Engineering

iii. Social

iv. GIS

v. Etc.

c. Partner resources.

d. Decision-maker.

e. Capacity for enforcing changes.

f. Exposure to multiple initiatives from a number of cooperation agencies.

g. Exposed to short life-cycles depending on alternation of political parties.

h. Private-owned or state-owned:

i. Efficiency of state institutions?

ii. Alternative private owners: catholic networks of universities, etc.

iii. Etc.

i. Is the partner connected to other organizations in the region by a network or umbrella organisation?

18

6. Administration of project (assuming funding from a cooperation agency):

a. Bilateral: partner-us (JICA, USAID)

b. Multilateral: partner-bureaucratic agency at target location-us (others through CEPREDENAC)

c. Etc.

7. Modes of dissemination of results.

a. Journal papers

b. Conference papers

c. Workshops

d. Maps

e. Institutional reports

f. Guidelines

g. Website

h. Etc.

8. Sustainability of results:

a. Ensure adequate dissemination

b. Empowerment of results by partner (linked to the role of the partner)

c. Use/create international repositories of data and information (CRID: http://www.crid.or.cr/crid/ing/index_ing.html)

d. Etc.

9. Spin-off relations: with UN, EU organisations, World Bank, etc.

10. Present details of ICG experience in a selection of cases:

a. Use RECLAIMM combined with work in Graziella Devoli and JMC theses to illustrate Central American experience.

b. Use a South-east Asian project also (possibly one including multi-hazards: tsunami, landslides, etc.)

c. Others

19

3.2. List of presentations - Workshop I

NGI offers optimum solutions for industry and society Jose Cepeda

ICG – International Centre for Geohazards - overview Jose Cepeda, Bjorn Kalsnes

Investigación geológica de riesgos en un área de la cordillera Tilarán

Petr Kycl

Projects in Nicaragua – 1997-2009, cooperation with INETER Petr Hradecký

Characterisation and risk management of rainfall-induced landslides

José Cepeda

Project activities of the CGS in Central America 1997-2010 Petr Hradecký

Vulnerabilidad a los desastres de origen natural y estrategias de adaptación en la parte alta de las cuencas de los ríos Chira y Piura

Jiří Šebesta, Tomáš Hroch

Czech Cooperation in El Salvador Jiří Šebesta

Results of project “Building of capacity in landslide risk management in Central America” RECLAIM

Jose Cepeda, Bjorn Kalsnes

Metamorphic evolution rocks in the contact aureole of the Dipilto batholith

David Buriánek

20

4. Workshop II

4.2. Schedule of Workshop II

day date time organization addressed

coordinator contact place theme, details

day 1 23.5. Sun

20:00 arrival of ICG and CGS experts

day 2 24.5. Mon

8:00-16:00 INETER Antonio Álvarez [email protected]

INETER Managua Posibilidades de continuar el Proyecto, con ayuda de Noruegos. El problema mayor es financimiento.

day 3 25.5. Tue

8:00-16:00 INETER Antonio Álvarez [email protected]

INETER Managua implementación de datos conseguidos de proyectos ya realizados, en este caso, aprovechar la cooperación y experiencia de Noruegos

day 4 26.5. Wed

7:00-18:00 Municipalities Eduardo Escobar García

[email protected] Matagalpa Alcaldía de Matagalpa, donde se utilizan mapas de CGS del Proyecto etapa 2002

day 5 27.5. Thu

8:00-12:00 SINAPRED J. Ramon Arnesto Sota

[email protected] Managua

day 6 28.5. Fri

8:00-16:00 working session ČGS-ICG Managua

day 7 29.5. Sat

8:35 morning transfer to San Jose 11:00 Elections for the Parliament of CZ on Embassy of Czech Republic

day 8 30.5. Sun

7:00-18:00 free time -

day 9 31.5. Mon

9:00-16:00 DGM, CNE Francisco Castro M., Sofía Huapaya, Yoanna Mendez,

[email protected] office of DGM San Pedro, San Jose, Apartado

The main partner for CGS projects. Open discussion

day 10

1.6. Tue

9:00-12:00 UCR Rolando Mora University UCR, San Pedro

Involvement of students on projects

14:00-17:00

Embassy of Czech Republic

Jirina Sykorova Ivan Dubovický

[email protected] Embassy of Czech Rep.

Role of Embassy in the international projects

day 11

2.6. Wed

6:00-20:00 ICE Alberto Vásquez [email protected] Miravalles Proyecto geotérmico - improvement of geological data for energy balance of Costa Rica.

day 12

3.6. Thu

7:00-12:00 12:00-16:00

Municipalities José Miguel Díaz [email protected] Municipality Miramar, Juntas??

Implementation of geological results in mapping area. Map sheet Miramar and Juntas. Compatibility of systems GIS. Land-use planning.

day 13

4.6. Fri

12:00 departure - Jose Cepeda

day 14

5.6. Sat

8:00-15:00 departure Czech

21

Workshop II – detailed schedule for Nicaragua

lunes martes miercoles jueves

Grupo A

9:00 Visita GEONICA

Guillermo Chávez

Grupo B

9:00

EU

a.m. Introducción

Planificación de semana

11:00 Oficina SIG – experiencia con datos (Alex)

Evaluación y discusión de proyectos

Grupo A

7:00 – 9:00

viaje a Matagalpa

11:00 Recorrido a sitios identificados por Alcaldía

Introducción

INETER

8:00-10:00

Resumen del día anterior

10:00-12:00

Presentación de resumenes (AM, FS, AA)

Grupo A

Listado de proyectos

Evalución,

discusión

Grupo B

2:00

DIPECHO

PM, PH, IS

2:00

SINAPRED

Félix Hernández

Resumen de evaluación

Proyectos 2002, 2008

Discutir proyectos

Cuestionario

Discusión final

15-17:00 viaje

Grupo B

5:00-11:00

Honduras COPECO

DEFOMIN

PK, VZ, PM

Alcaldía San Marcos

p.m.

Aspectos logísticos para toda la semana

PK, JS, AA

AA va a contactar Invitar a Alcalde a discusión final

Confirmar la cita con Iván Guerrero

2:00 – 4:00

Discusión de futuros proyectos

Varios

22

Workshop II – detailed schedule for Costa Rica

lunes martes miercoles jueves

a.m. DGM

(Lunes, 8:30 a 12:00)

3 cuestionarios de

contrapartes:

Evaluación de 3

proyectos y

perspectivas de

proyectos a futuro

UCR

(Martes, 8:30 a 10:00 y

10:30 a 12:00):

Retroalimentación de

participación de

estudiantes en proyectos

con DGM, explorar

necesidades/intereses de

UCR y perspectivas de

proyectos a futuro.

Alcaldías de Miramar

2 cuestionarios de

usuarios finales.

José Miguel Díaz (de

ordenamiento territorial, de

compañía privada en San

José, colabora con

Alcaldía de Miramar).

p.m. CNE

(Lunes, 14:00 a

16:00):

Explorar necesidades

de CNE, perspectivas

de proyectos a futuro.

Embajada de la República

Checa (Martes,

14:00 a 17:00).

Objetivo de la reunión:

evaluación de proyectos

de CGS en toda

Centroamérica. Nueva

embajada sugirió crear

proyectos con El

Salvador.

ICE,

6:00 a 20:00,

Visita a proyecto

Miravalles (en volcán

Miravalles), al lado de

cordillera Tilarán –donde

CGS ha trabajado –

Tiempo efectivo de

reunión 3-4 horas Visita de campo

4.3. List of presentations - Workshop II

Name of presentation Presented at

Presented by

Investigación geológica de riesgos en un área de hojas topográficas 3246 II Miramar, III Chapernal, IV Juntas

DGM, CNE Petr Kycl

Geología en las Hojas Miramar, Juntas y Chapernal ICE Vladimír Žáček

23

4.4. List of contacts at institutions visited durin g Workshop II in Central

America (20 May – 5 June 2010)

No.

Name Position Institution Country Email

1 Mr. Herman Rosa Chávez

Minister Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN)

El Salvador

[email protected]

2 Ms. Ana Deisy López Ramos

Director National Service of Territorial Studies (SNET)

El Salvador

[email protected]

3 Mr. Manuel Díaz

Director of Geology

SNET El Salvador

[email protected]

4 Ms. Margarita Minero

CEO Office for Urban Planning of the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador (OPAMSS)

El Salvador

[email protected]

[email protected]

5 Ms. Celina Cruz

Assistant Manager (subdirectora) of Control

(OPAMSS El Salvador

[email protected]

6 Ms. Angélica Muñoz, MSc

General manager (directora general) of Geophysics

Nicaraguan Institute of Territorial Studies (INETER)

Nicaragua [email protected]

7 Mr. Antonio Álvarez, MSc

Coordinator of Geology

INETER Nicaragua [email protected]

24

8 Ms. Marisol Echaverry López

Geologist, Direction of Geology


9 Mr. Guillermo Chávez

Geologist Nicaraguan Geothermal Company (Enel Geonica)


10 Mr. Alex Castellón Meyrat

Coordinator of GIS unit


[email protected]

11 Mr. Norwi Acosta

Geographer, GIS unit


[email protected]

12 Ms. Cinthia González Pérez

Geographer, GIS unit


[email protected]

13 Mr. Felix Adán Hernández Bucardo

Head of Office (jefe de despacho) of the Executive Secretary

National System for the Prevention, Mitigation and Attention of Disasters (SINAPRED)


14 Mr. Eduardo Escobar

DIPECHO-CRIC project

Municipality of Matagalpa


15 Mr. Dorien Hamguien Zeledón

Land use planning

Municipality of Matagalpa


16 Dr. Wilfried Strauch (Mr.)

Seismologist Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR)


25

17 Mr. José Francisco Castro Muñoz

Director Direction of Geology and Mines (DGM)

Costa Rica

[email protected]

[email protected]

18 Ms. Marlene Salazar Alvarado, MSc

Assistant manager (subdirectora)

DGM Costa Rica

[email protected]

[email protected]

19 Ms. Ana Sofía Huapaya

Coordinator of Mining

DGM Costa Rica

[email protected]

[email protected]

20 Mr. Óscar A. Lücke

Head of Department of Prevention and Mitigation

National Commision of Risk Prevention and Attention of Emergencies (CNE)

Costa Rica

[email protected]

21 Ms. Joanna Méndez Herrera

Geologist CNE Costa Rica

[email protected]

22 Ms. Daniela Herra Herrera


[email protected]

23 Mr. Ignacio Chaves Sala


[email protected]

24 Mr. Sergio Sánchez C.

- CNE Costa Rica

[email protected]

25 Mr. Hugo A. Sánchez S.

- CNE Costa Rica

[email protected]

26 Mr. Guido Matamoros

- CNE Costa Rica

[email protected]

27 Mr. Rolando Mora

Director School of

University of Costa Rica

Costa Rica

[email protected]

26

Chinchilla, MSc

Geology (UCR) Rica

28 Mr. Mario Arias S.

Director of Centre of Investigations in Geological Sciences

UCR Costa Rica

[email protected]

29 Mr. Mauricio Mora F.

Director of Central American postgraduate course in Geology

UCR Costa Rica

[email protected]

30 Mr. Luis Obando A.

Coordinator of Petrography and Geochemistry

UCR Costa Rica

[email protected]

31 Mr. Gerardo J. Soto

Geologist UCR – Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE)

Costa Rica

[email protected]

32 Mr. Giovanni Peraldo H.

Lecturer UCR Costa Rica

[email protected]

33 Mr. Gino González I.

Student UCR Costa Rica

[email protected]

34 Mr. Pavel Procházka

Ambassador Embassy of the Czech Republic in San José

Costa Rica

[email protected]

35 Mr. Ivan Dubovický

Counselor in San José

Embassy of the Czech Republic

Costa Rica

[email protected]

36 Mr. Eddy Sánchez R.

Geologist-Geochemist

ICE Costa Rica

[email protected]

27

37 Mr. Fernando Molina Z.

Geologist ICE Costa Rica

[email protected]

38 Mr. Leonardo Solís S.

Geologist, Geochemistry area

ICE Costa Rica

[email protected]

39 Mr. Hugo Fajardo T.


[email protected]

40 Mr. Dagoberto Herrera C

Geologist-Geophysicist

ICE Costa Rica

[email protected]

41 Mr.Eduardo Vega


[email protected]

42 Mr. Álvaro Jiménez Cruz

Major Municipality of Montes de Oro

Costa Rica

[email protected]

[email protected]

43 Ms. Andrea Bolaños Calderón

Architect Municipality of Montes de Oro

Costa Rica

[email protected]

44 Ms. Floribeth Rojas Campos

Engineer Municipality of Montes de Oro

Costa Rica

[email protected]

45 Mr. Gustavo Torres Fernández

Informatics Municipality of Montes de Oro

Costa Rica

[email protected]

46 Mr. Víctor Cortés V.

Inspection Municipality of Montes de Oro

Costa Rica

-

47 Mr. José Miguel Díaz Miranda

Geologist GAPRO S.A. Costa Rica

[email protected]

48 Mr. Rolando Marín Monge

GIS GAPRO S.A. Costa Rica

[email protected]

28

Lists of persons who answered questionnaires.

Name Institution

Type (see note below)

Antonio Álvarez INETER CP

Marisol Echaverry INETER CP

Marta Navarro INETER CP

Wilfried Strauch INETER from 1992 to 2008 CP

Graziella Devoli INETER from 1999 to 2003 CP

Graziella Devoli 2003 – 2008: PhD student, University of Oslo; 2008-2009: NGI, Norway

EU

Guillermo Chávez GeoNica EU

Sofía Huapaya DGM - MINAET CP

Gino González Ilama University of Costa Rica CP

José Miguel Díaz Miranda

GAPRO, S.A. EU

Note:

CP – counterpart

EU – end user

4.5. Example of questionnaires.

Counterpart questionnaire:

Sondeo de opinión para organizaciones centroamerica nas que han estado involucradas con proyectos del Servicio Geológico Checo (SGC)

Indicaciones: por favor complete este sondeo de opinión seleccionando una de las 6 opciones a cada afirmación y dando comentarios a su respuesta cuando lo considere necesario.

Ejemplo:

29

Totalmente en desacuerdo

En desacuerdo

Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo

De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo

Esta afirmación no es relevante para este proyecto

En cuanto al proyecto <NOMBRE DEL PROYECTO PREVIO>:

1. La formulación del proyecto respondió a las necesidades e intereses de mi organización.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

2. La formulación del proyecto tomó en cuenta la experiencia y conocimientos previos sobre la zona de estudio (por ejemplo, mapas existentes, estudios previos, etc.)


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

30

3. Personal técnico (geólogos, ingenieros, etc.) de mi organización estuvo activamente involucrado en aspectos técnicos de la formulación del proyecto.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

4. La ejecución del proyecto estuvo armonizada con otros proyectos similares y/o complementarios realizados en forma simultánea en mi organización.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

5. Personal técnico (geólogos, ingenieros, etc.) de mi organización estuvo activamente involucrado en aspectos técnicos de la ejecución del proyecto.


En desacuerdo




31

Comentarios:

6. El proyecto ha producido un crecimiento en la capacidad técnica de mi organización a nivel institucional.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

7. Actualmente en mi organización existe al menos un técnico (geólogo, ingeniero, etc.) con conocimiento de las técnicas usadas en el proyecto y de los productos del mismo.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

32

8. En mi organización, los productos del proyecto están disponibles en forma impresa y/o en forma electrónica para los técnicos de mi organización.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

9. En mi organización, los productos del proyecto están disponibles en forma impresa y/o en forma electrónica para usuarios finales fuera de mi organización (consultores, ONGs, otras organizaciones, público en general).


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

10. Los productos del proyecto son usados por técnicos de mi organización.


En desacuerdo




33

Comentarios:

11. Los productos del proyecto son usados por usuarios finales fuera de mi organización (consultores, ONGs, otras organizaciones, público en general).


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

12. Por favor comente otros aspectos que usted considere importantes de cara a la experiencia de su organización con este proyecto del SGC.

End user questionnaire:

Sondeo de opinión para usuarios finales de producto s de proyectos del Servicio Geológico Checo (SGC).

Indicaciones: por favor complete este sondeo de opinión seleccionando una de las 6 opciones a cada afirmación y dando comentarios a su respuesta cuando lo considere necesario.

34

Ejemplo:


En desacuerdo




En cuanto al producto <NOMBRE DEL PRODUCTO (MAPA, INFORME, REPORT, ETC.)>:

1. El producto usa convenciones de nombres, terminología, simbología, etc. adaptados a la práctica profesional.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

2. El producto está disponible/accesible en forma adecuada.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

35

3. El contenido del producto está armonizado con otros productos cartográficos o estudios disponibles para la misma región en lo que respecta a proyección, escala, simbología, terminología, etc.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

4. Toda la información proporcionada por el producto es útil para mi práctica profesional.


En desacuerdo




Comentarios:

5. Por favor comente otros aspectos que usted considere importantes de cara a su experiencia con este producto del SGC.

36

5. Workshop III

Workshop III took place at the NGI headquarters in Oslo from Monday 20 to Friday 24 September. The workshop had three main goals:

a. Promote active discussions between CGS and NGI experts about the results of the evaluation of CGS projects from Workshop II. To this end, NGI prepared a report compiling the results of all the evaluations and presenting the main findings.

b. Involve NGI experts from a wide range of expertise and types of projects in providing input to CGS experts for the preparation of a methodology for cooperation projects in developing countries. In total, 12 experts from NGI participated in this workshop. These experts have had extensive experience in the following areas: natural hazards, environmental technologies, laboratory techniques (geotechnical and environmental), Geographic Information Technologies (GIT), geophysical methods for geohazards, engineering geology, rock mechanics, and natural hazard projects in Central America and in Asia. The interaction between CGS and NGI experts was through: presentations, discussions, and visits to the geotechnical and environmental laboratories at NGI.

c. Prepare a methodology for cooperation projects in developing countries. This methodology was jointly prepared by CGS and NGI experts. The methodology is presented in a separate document entitled “A methodology on procedures aiming at more efficient exploitation of results of geological studies in the field of natural geohazards by beneficiary organisations”.

The following table presents the programme followed during workshop III:

Time ↓↓↓↓ Monday 20 Sept. Tuesday 21 Sept. Wednesday 22 Sept. Th ursday 23 Sept. Friday 24 Sept.

Room →→→→ 3-Syd 4-Nord 4-Nord 3-Syd 4-Nord

9:00-9:30 Intro. NGI KjHPresentation Eng.Geol. & Rock Mech. Division ROl Preparation of draft documents

Discussions future work CGS-NGI/ ICG FNa, BGK

9:30-10:00 Intro. ICG FNaPresentation Eng.Geol. & Rock Mech. Division ROl Preparation of draft documents


10:00-10:30 Intro. Nat. Haz. Division EHNGI experiences in Central America HHe NGI experiences in Asia RKB


10:30-11:00 Discussions & Break for coffeeNGI experiences in Central America HHe NGI experiences in Asia RKB


11:00-11:30 Intro. Environmental Technology KRLDiscussion of evaluation of work of CGS in Central America Preparation of draft documents Closing meeting BGK

11:30-12:00 GIS for geohazards EgS, BGKDiscussion of evaluation of work of CGS in Central America Preparation of draft documents Closing meeting BGK

12:00-12:30 Lunch at NGI Lunch at NGI Lunch at UiO Lunch at NGI

12:30-13:00 Lunch at NGI Lunch at NGI Lunch at UiO Lunch at NGI

13:00-13:30 Tour in Lab. & Libraries KjH Tour in Environmental Lab. APVisit to Department of Geosciences (UiO) Buffer time

13:30-14:00 Tour in Lab. & Libraries KjHPreparation of methodology for CGS with assistance from NGI/ ICG

Visit to Department of Geosciences (UiO) Buffer time

14:00-14:30Geophysical methods for Geohazards SaB, BGK

Preparation of methodology for CGS with assistance from NGI/ ICG


14:30-15:00

CGS presentation about their goals (expectations for this project) BGK



15:00-15:30CGS reaction to previous workshops BGK Midway follow-up of work BGK


15:30-16:00

Discussions of goals for this project (prep. for Wednesday's work) BGK



16:00-16:30 Welcome meeting JMC

16:30-17:00 Programme for the week JMC

37

6. Evaluation

6.2. Methodology of evaluations

The Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) prepared two types of questionnaires: one

for counterpart institutions and a second one for end users. Each item in the questionnaires

consisted of a sentence which had a closed-type of answer ranging from “Fully agree” to “Fully

disagree” (5 levels in total) and an answer of “Non applicable”. Additionally, the person

answering the questionnaire had the possibility to give comments to each item, and an open

question at the end of the questionnaire for providing comments in other aspects not mentioned

in the evaluation. The questionnaires were handed out to the persons at the institutions visited

during Workshop II and also sent by email.

It should be noted that these evaluations are essentially measuring perceptions of the

interviewed persons about CGS projects and their products.

The questionnaire for counterpart institutions was evaluating three aspects of the

projects: formulation, execution and dissemination.

The end user questionnaire was addressing three main aspects of the results of the

projects: the compatibility with existing conventions and data, the practical use of the results,

and the availability of products.

6.3. Main results of evaluations

An important aspect to remark is that the answers to these questionnaires should be

interpreted with caution due to the following:

• The persons answering these questionnaires had varying degrees of involvement

and knowledge in the CGS projects (i.e., some persons had been very actively

and continuously involved in the projects, while others had been working only

sporadically).

• While some persons had a complete perspective of the 13 years of cooperation

of CGS in the region, others had a perspective of only a few years of project

activity.

• The differences in background and experience of the interviewed persons

seemed to influence their perceptions of the projects. NGI could notice that

38

persons with a solid background in Geosciences and with several years of

experience had an overall positive perception of the CGS projects.

The following main aspects were extracted by NGI from an interpretation of the

evaluations:

a) The overall perception is that the CGS projects have produced very useful results

for the counterpart institutions and end users in the recipient countries. The basic

and thematic maps produced during the projects contain significant data and

information for practitioners.

b) The formulation stage of the projects has adequately taken into account the

interests and needs of the counterparts institutions.

c) A minimum basic technical competence and experience of the technicians from

the counterpart institutions seems to be a key aspect for ensuring a thorough and

active involvement of these technicians during the execution of the projects.

d) The building of capacity at the counterpart institutions seems to be hindered

when the mobility of their technicians is high.

e) The dissemination of map products from counterparts to end users should

consider not only hardcopies and figure formats, but also vector or raster formats

that can be directly used by GIS software. Of course, this aspect is strongly

dependant on the dissemination policies at the counterpart institution.

f) Involvement of more than one counterpart institution seems to be desirable in

order to ensure sustainability, continuity and extended dissemination of products

and technical capacity.

g) Both the counterpart and end user institutions agreed on the interest and

necessity of new projects for producing basic and thematic maps for other parts

of the countries or at different scales.

h) National and institutional policies for international cooperation at the recipient

countries have evolved over the years towards capacity-building and equal-to-

equal styles. These styles need to be taken into account in the formulation of

new projects.

39

7. Annex I - photos

Workshop I – Prague

Czech Embassy – with ambassador Mr. P. Procházka

40

ICE – geothermal project

San Marcos de Colón – consultations on continuation of project

analysis of selected development projects realized … · 1 analysis of selected development...

Documents