REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT
PROJECT TYPE: Full-sized Project
TYPE OF TRUST FUND:GEF Trust Fund
PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title:
Country(ies):
GEF Agency(ies):
Other Executing Partner(s):
GEF Focal Area (s):
Name of parent program
A.
FOCAL AREA STRATEGY FRAMEWORK:
Focal Area
Objectives
BD-2
LD-3
SFM
REDD+
-1
Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Land Management into Production
Practices in all Bioregions and Biomes in Paraguay
Paraguay
GEF Project ID:
4860
UNDP
GEF Agency Project ID:
4836
Secretariat for Environment (SEAM)
Submission Date:
December 6, 2013
Multi-focal areas (BD/LD)
Project Duration (Months):
60
SFM
Agency Fee ($):
686,182
Expected FA Outcomes
Objective 2: Mainstream Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Use into
Production Landscapes, Seascapes and Sectors.
Outcome 2.1: Increase in sustainably managed
landscapes and seascapes that integrate
biodiversity conservation
Outcome 2.2: Measures to conserve and
sustainably use biodiversity incorporated in
policy and regulatory frameworks.
Expected FA Outputs
Output 1: Policies and regulatory
frameworks for production sectors.
Output 2: National and sub-national landuse plans that incorporate biodiversity and
ecosystem services valuation.
Output 3: Certified production landscapes
and seascapes (250,000 hectares certified
under an international scheme and 250,000
additional hectares under agreed upon
minimal standards by 2018).
Output 3.1 Integrated land management
plans developed and implemented
Output 3.2 INRM tools and methodologies
developed and tested
Objective 3: Reduce pressures on natural
resources from competing land uses in the wider
landscape.
Outcome 3.1: Enhanced cross-sector enabling
environment for integrated landscape
management.
Outcome 3.2: Integrated landscape management
practices adopted by local communities.
Outcome 1.2: Good management practices
Output 1.1: Payment for ecosystem
applied in existing forests.
services (PES) systems established (2).
Output 1.3 Forest area under sustainable
management (Component 2)
Sub-Total
Project management cost
Total project costs
B.
Trust
Fund
Indicative
Financing
from GEF
($)
Indicative
CoFinancing ($)
GEFTF
2,390,039
10,684,316
GEFTF
2,511,251
10,684,316
GEFTF
1,633,763
0
GEFTF
6,535,053
326,764
21,368,632
1,068,398
6,861,817
22,437,030
PROJECT FRAMEWORK:
Project Objective: The biodiversity and ecosystem functions of the Atlantic Forest eco-region is protected from existing and emerging threats from
multi-sectoral production practices.
Trust
Grant
Confirmed
Project
Grant
Expected Outcomes
Expected Outputs
Fund Financing
coComponent type
financing
1.
TA An
effective
governance 1.1 A package of national modifications in regulations, GEFTF Total
7,272,438
Governance
framework for planning, managing
policies and standards to improve protection of the
2,226,137
framework for
and compliance monitoring of land
Upper Parana Atlantic Forest, will include:
managing
use change within the Upper
a) Strengthened and updated regulatory framework
(LD:
multiple use
Parana Atlantic Forest. Total forest
to improve enforcement and optimize the use of
913,068
landscapes
outside of protected areas to be
resources from fees, fines and other funds
BD:
(MUL)
conserved in target Multiple Use
generated by the implementation and
913,069
Landscapes (MUL) is 760,900
enforcement of the environmental regulations;
SFM/REDD:
Ha.1
b) Delegation Agreements for decentralization of
400,000)
1
Surface of forests out of protected areas in the 3 target Departments (Alto Parana, Amambay, Canindeyu) as per preliminary data of the National Forest Inventory
(2011). Surface of forests in 3 priority areas within the target department is 304,161 ha (40% of total forest cover of the 3 departments)
1
environmental responsibilities from national
At least 20% increase in coverage
institutions to local governments;
of representative native tree
c) Plan for reduction of the use of firewood from
species in the MUL (outside of
native forests by silos and agricultural industries
protected areas) in the early stages
to reduce pressure on native forests.
of natural succession that are
characteristic of the UPAF
1.2 Institutional strengthening of SEAM, INFONA,
Public Ministry, and Municipalities for improved
Up to 1,858,000 ha of land within
monitoring and surveillance of deforestation and
target MUL brought under
enforcement of environmental and forest regulations
effective sustainable landscape
in production landscapes. This includes:
management through adoption of
a) Improved decision support system through a
best practices through direct effect
monitoring system shared by SEAM, INFONA,
of project interventions and
Public Ministry, Municipalities, National
replication2:
Cadaster Service and Public Registry, to enforce
Direct project effect: 500,000
the zero deforestation policy by monitoring land
ha of soy and 60,000 ha of
use and land use changes at departmental, site
livestock
and farm levels.
Replication: 900,000 ha of
b) Updated procedures and framework for
soy and 398,000 ha of
surveillance, intelligence gathering, policing,
livestock
prosecution and penalization of infringement of
environmental
legislation,
in
particular
Improved institutional capacities
regarding Zero Deforestation Law (No 2524),
to effectively plan, implement,
and the Forestry Law 422/73.
monitor
and
mainstream
c) Training for SEAM, INFONA, State
biodiversity
into
production
Prosecutors and Municipalities to improve skills
activities at landscape level as
for surveillance, intelligence gathering, policing,
measured by 80% average in
prosecution and penalization of infringement of
Capacity Scorecard (baseline:
environmental
legislation,
in
particular
SEAM and INFONA average
regarding Zero Deforestation Law (No 2524),
46%)
and the Forestry Law 422/73
Direct reduction of pressures in 1.3
Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
ecosystems
from
production
sectors as evidenced by:
a) 50% reduction in the use of
firewood from native forests by
grain silos and dryers in the target
MUL; and
b) 5% reduction in sedimentation
of surface water bodies
One national and three departmental soy and beef
platforms for inter-institutional and multistakeholder dialogue on land use planning
regulations, enforcement, and incentives for best
practice adoption within production landscapes,
involving all land use managers and supply chains.
Up to 60% increase in the amount
collected by SEAM for fines
charged from infringement of
forest
and
environmental
regulations, contribute to enforce
the forestry law (baseline:
US$270,000/yr;
target
US$432,000/yr)
2. Financial and
market
incentives
framework to
protect
biodiversity and
promote
sustainable land
management
within MUL
TA 50% of the soy cultivated area in 3 2.1
priority MUL under a recognized
sustainability certification scheme
(250,000 ha)
At least 50% of purchases from
the area are from producers
complying with integrated land
use plans, set-a-side regulations
and Zero Deforestation No. Law
2524.
80% of the loan portfolios for soy
Increased and diversified funding complying to GEFTF
environmental standards promotes the integration
of biodiversity and sustainable land management for
MUL through:
a) Financial services that facilitate access to credit
services from public and private financial
institutions (eg. Agency for Financial
Development, National Development Bank,
private banks Itau, BBVA, Regional,
Continental and BANCOOP) for producers
complying with best practices, certification,
forestry and zero deforestation laws,
reforestation for restoration with native species
Total
1,918,064
4,595,072
(LD:
352,840
BD:
331,461
SFM/RED
D:
1,233,763)
2
Total surface area of the 3 Departments under soy and livestock production is 2,836,000 ha (2008 Agricultural Census and 2011 MAG surveys). The project wll have
direct and indirect effects over 1,858,000 ha (65% of total area). Soy: 500,000 ha to be reached directly by project interventions and 900,000 ha through replication.
Livestock: 60,000 ha to be reached directly by project interventions and 398,000 ha through replication.
2
and livestock conditioned to
submitting environmental
management plans for approval of
loans. At least 50% of the loan
portfolios of 4 major financial
institutions mainstream best
practices in the lending procedures
and contribute to upscaling of best
practices.
3. Strengthened TA
implementation
of land set aside
system
and
sustainable
production
practices
b)
c)
or for wood energy.
Municipal property tax exemptions on forested
areas stimulate landowners to conserve forest
set-asides in their properties.
Trading systems for forest credits incentivizing
set-a-sides to be connected in the landscapes
through credit trading linked to (i) national
regulatory driven PES and (ii) potential
additional resources from REDD+
At least one transaction of credits 2.2 Differentiated markets for sustainable soy and
in voluntary markets for avoided
livestock production stimulate adoption of sound
emissions of 1,408,128 tCO2 eq.
environmental practices, conservation of biodiversity
Transactions of SEAM-certified
and compliance with sustainable land use plans by:
forest set-asides for 2,000 ha at
a) Incentivizing sustainable resource use through
US$70/ha/year.
product certification.
b) Modifying purchasing policies of companies
buying products from the UPAF to ensure
compliance with Zero Deforestation law and
Forestry Law.
90,000 ha of legal set-asides and 3.1 Technical assistance to medium and large scale GEFTF
30,000 ha of protective forests of
soy and livestock pastures mainstreams best practices
watercourses in process of
for sustainable production e.g
restoration through reforestation
a) 220,000 ha of direct sowing following best
and natural regeneration, and
practices;
being
managed
to
secure
b) 5-10% increase in use of live fences;
biodiversity
and
ecosystem
c) 1,000 producers adopting best management
services.
practices of agro-chemicals;
d) 60,000 ha of silvo-pastoral systems
Improved knowhow of at least
4,000 soy and livestock producers 3.2 Improved forest set aside in small, medium and
to apply the available best
large scale farming increase forest connectivity
practices to conserve biodiversity,
across the landscape in Canindeyu, by:
reduce soil degradation, conduct
a) Collective forest set asides in small farmers
land use planning for sustainable
settlements linked to land tenure schemes;
land management within target
support for agroforestry production, SFM,
landscape.
SLM to small farmers
b) Improvement of degraded set asides in medium
Improved enforcement of the
and large farms by planting of native species
environmental
regulatory
and fencing for regeneration. This will include
framework
in
4
pilot
supporting native tree nurseries in target
Municipalities increases collection
landscapes
of fines and reduces deforestation.
3.3 Restoration of protective forests of watercourses in
the MUL of three target landscapes increases
connectivity in highly deforested areas including:
a) Elaboration of restoration plans;
b) Preparation of guidelines on native species and
appropriate mixes for different localities
c) Reforestation with native species
Total 9,501,122
2,390,852
(LD:
1,124,131
BD:
1,266,721)
3.4 Decentralized and joint enforcement approaches
improves surveillance of deforestation and
compliance in 4 municipalities
Sub-total GEFTF
GEFT
F
Project management cost
Total
6,535,053
326,764
21,368,632
1,068,398
(LD:
119,506
BD:
125,567
SFM/RED
D:
81,691
6,861,817 22,437,030
3
C.
SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE AND BY NAME ($)
Sources of Co-financing
National Government
National Government
National Government
GEF Agency
NGO
D.
Name of Co-financier (source)
Environment Secretariat (SEAM)
National Forest Institute (INFONA)
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG)
United Nations Development Programme
IDH/Solidaridad
Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
Cofinancing
Amount
($)
5,255,032
1,929,808
7,277,633
4,489,298
3,485,259
22,437,030
TRUST FUND RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY, FOCAL AREA AND COUNTRY
GEF AGENCY
UNDP
UNDP
UNDP
TYPE OF TRUST
FUND
GEF TF
GEF TF
GEF TF
FOCAL AREA
BD
LD
SFM REDD+
Project
amount (a)
2,636,818
2,509,545
1,715,454
6,861,817
Country name
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Total GEF Resources
E.
Type of Cofinancing
Agency Fee (b)
263,682
250,955
171,545
686,182
Total
c=a+b
2,900,500
2,760,500
1,886,999
7,547,999
CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:
Component
Local consultants*
International consultants*
Total
Grant amount
($)
945,493
425,002
1,370,495
Co-financing
($)
0
0
0
Project total
($)
945,493
425,002
1,370,495
G. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A “NON-GRANT” INSTRUMENT? No
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PROJECT DESIGN OF THE ORIGINAL PIF
A.1 National Strategies and Plans: National strategies and plans are still in alignment with the PIF. During the PPG
the Zero Deforestation Law Nº2524 was extended to 2018. This will reduce project risks and provides a still more
important opportunity to build the proposed governance framework for compliance of forest set-asides; EIAs and
minimal environmental standards for production and put in place the monitoring structure as well as the financial and
market-based incentives for continued zero deforestation before this temporary law expires.
A.2 GEF focal area and/or fund(s) strategies, eligibility criteria and priorities: NA
A.3 The GEF agency’s comparative advantage: NA
A.4 The baseline project and the problem that it seeks to address: NA
The baseline project and problem remain the same. This project will conserve globally significant biodiversity and
secure the ecological functions and resilience of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion --targeting the Multiple
Use Landscape (MUL) framed by the Departments of Amambay, Canindeyú and Upper Paraná in Eastern Paraguay.
The project will adapt the different production practices occurring within this area to ensure they are more compatible
with biodiversity conservation and sustainable land management thereby promoting deforestation free soy and
livestock supply chains. Interventions have been designed to reduce pressures on the ecosystem from land clearance,
agrochemical runoff into water sources, and the use of firewood driven largely by the two commodities, which are
leading to forest clearance and fragmentation and causing pollution. It will do so through 3 complementary
approaches (i) strengthening the governance framework for managing multiple use landscapes (MUL); (ii) Financial
and market incentives framework to protect biodiversity and promote sustainable land management within MUL, and
4
(iii) Strengthened implementation of land set aside system and sustainable production practices. The objective and
main components and outputs thus remain the same, as do the expected levels of global environmental benefits to be
delivered; however in some cases there have been minor changes in the ways that these will be achieved and
measured.
A.5 Incremental/additional cost reasoning
1. The objective, components and outputs of the project remain unchanged but in some cases there have been minor
changes to how these will be achieved and measured.
2. Outcome 1. The formulation of Output 1.1 remains the same but we have moved “improved decision making” to
a separate output, that of institutional strengthening for improved monitoring and surveillance (Output 1.2). To help
decision making, the project will develop a monitoring system and build the capacities to improve monitoring and
surveillance of deforestation at departmental, site and farm level that will help enforce the GoP´s zero deforestation
policy at field level. The change has been made considering the close link with the institutional strengthening foreseen
under Output 1.2. The links between Outcomes 1 and 3 have been reinforced with Outputs 1.1 and 1.2 setting up the
national level capacities for surveillance and enforcement and Output 3.4 piloting improved surveillance and
enforcement approaches. Formulation of Output 1.2 includes monitoring (as mentioned).
3. Outcome 2. The outputs have been ordered slightly differently. Output 2.1 is now more focused on financing
through work with the financial institutions to mainstream environmental considerations in their lending procedures
and developing credit lines for sustainable production and reforestation. Output 2.2 focuses on the development of
markets for sustainable commodities through adoption of minimal environmental standards for production,
certification schemes, modifying purchasing policies of commodity buyers and linking with international buyers of
sustainable products. Furthermore the output includes developing a trade system building on the national payment for
environmental services (PES) driven by the current environmental services law. Helping to implement this law has
been assessed as an opportunity and more realistic than setting up a full Habitat Banking scheme within the life of a
project but sets the foundation for this by drawing on key element of this concept. The REDD+ pilot project will focus
within the life of the project on measuring carbon benefits derived from the deforestation measures being piloted and
setting up how this can used in the trading system as a source for additional funding (improved prices). This is
considered to be more realistic given the current status of carbon markets and the time needed to set up and negotiate
deals on the international market.
4. Outcome 3 remains the same but some slight changes based on assessments and consultations carried during the
PPG. Three priority sites, one in each Department, have been selected for interventions in the field. The three sites
provide different scenarios (e.g. types of production systems, degree of fragmentation and potential for connectivity,
different scales of production) for developing experiences and lessons learned that could later be replicated at a
broader landscape level (see Part II, section 2.1 Project Rational of the Project Document for details on selection
criteria and description of sites). Moreover, the changes reflect more detailed knowledge on sizes of forest fragments
and on structure of producers. Output 3.1 will promote SLM through sound environmental practices in soy and
livestock production. The project will seek to optimise connectivity across the landscape through Outputs 3.2 and 3.3.
Output 3.2 will conserve forest set-asides in small farmer settlements while delivering economic benefits, and
recovery of set-asides through restoration and natural regeneration in medium and large farms that did not comply
with the law and need to compensate this environmental liability. Output 3.3 will focus on restoration of riverine
forests, which is compulsory by law. Both of these outputs will generate experiences that can be replicated throughout
the Eastern Region. Output 3.4 will pilot improved surveillance and enforcement approaches that will provide
feedback to Output 1.1 and the decentralised enforcement system so as to deliver benefits in the short term.
5. These changes will deliver the same type and scale of GEB but have required some slight adjustment to
indicators. Figures in the PIF have been updated with new national level information as well as more specific data
related to the selected priority areas for intervention. See Project Document, Part II, Section 2.4 Incremental
Reasoning and Global Environmental Benefits and Annex B. Incremental Cost Matrix for details.
PIF targets
An effective governance framework for
planning,
managing
and
compliance
monitoring of land use change within the
Upper Parana Atlantic Forest. Total forest
outside of protected areas to be conserved in
target Multiple Use Landscapes (MUL) is
Project Document Targets
An effective governance framework for
planning, managing and compliance monitoring
of land use change within the Upper Parana
Atlantic Forest. Total forest outside of
protected areas to be conserved in target
Multiple Use Landscapes (MUL) is 760,900
Reasons for change
Updated information on forest remnants
in the 3 Departments as per preliminary
results of the National Forest Inventory
5
918,000 Ha.
Ha.
At least 10% increase of secondary forest
cover outside of protected areas within
project target area (%) from natural
regeneration.
At least 20% increase in coverage of
representative native tree species in the MUL
(outside of protected areas) in the early stages
of natural succession that are characteristic of
the UPAF. Removed and some essential aspects
captured in the above indicator
Increased abundance of native forest species
Tabebuia spp. (lapacho) Cedrela spp.
(Cedro), Cordia trichotoma (Peterevy) and
Pterogyne nitens (Yvyra ro) outside of
productive areas within target landscape.
This reflects better the selected strategy
and Outputs of outcome 3 (see above)
and is more realistic for the timeframes of
a project
Removed due to further analysis of the
high costs (time and resources) and
difficulty for measurement along with the
small changes likely in the project
lifetime. Native species will be used in
forest set aside enrichment and riverine
restoration and this will be monitored
though the previous indicator
Up to 3,174,082 ha of land within target
MUL brought under effective sustainable
landscape management
Up to 1,858,000 ha of land within target MUL
brought under effective sustainable landscape
management through adoption of best practices
through direct effect of project interventions
and replication:
Direct project effect: 500,000 ha of soy
and 60,000 ha of livestock
Replication: 900,000 ha of soy and
398,000 ha of livestock
Updated information on land use. The
surface area under soy and livestock
production in the 3 Departments is 2.8
million ha. The project targets 65% of
that area.
Improved
institutional
capacities
to
effectively plan, implement, monitor and
mainstream biodiversity into production
activities at landscape level as measured by at
least 20% increase in Capacity Scorecard
(baseline to be established during PPG).
Improved institutional capacities to effectively
plan, implement, monitor and mainstream
biodiversity into production activities at
landscape level as measured by 80% average in
Capacity Scorecard (baseline: SEAM and
INFONA average 46%)
The target has been set taking into
account the proposed institutional
strengthening.
Direct reduction of pressures in Upper
Paraná Atlantic Forest ecosystems from
production sectors as evidenced by a) 30%
reduction in the use of charcoal within the
target MUL; b) and 25% reduction in
contamination of surface water bodies
Direct reduction of pressures in Upper Paraná
Atlantic Forest ecosystems from production
sectors as evidenced by a) 50% reduction in the
use of firewood from native forests by grain
silos and dryers in the target MUL; and b) 5%
reduction in sedimentation of surface water
bodies
The charcoal target was dropped given
that the project will focus on the soy
supply chain, working with medium and
large producers and related industries. As
these currently use firewood from native
forest from silos working with them and
finance institutions to change to
plantation wood will reduce pressure on
native forest. The contamination target
was changed given the complexity and
high costs of monitoring.
Up to 20% of target MUL production under a
recognized
sustainability
certification
scheme.
50% of the soy cultivated area in 3 priority
MUL under a recognized sustainability
certification scheme (250,000 ha)
Based on current experience of
commodity buyers and consultations in
PPG.
At least $1 million worth of loans conditioned
to adoption of sustainability criteria have
been disbursed to farmers.
80% of the loan portfolios for soy and livestock
conditioned to submitting environmental
management plans for approval of loans. At
least 50% of the loan portfolios of 4 major
financial institutions mainstream best practices
in the lending procedures and contribute to
upscaling of best practices.
By working with the major banks, it
would be possible to have a greater
coverage.
At least 25% increase in area of set-a-sides
established legally and being managed to
secure biodiversity and ecosystem services.
90,000 ha of legal set-asides and 30,000 ha of
protective forests of watercourses restored
through reforestation and natural regeneration,
and being managed to secure biodiversity and
ecosystem services.
Based on PPG studies and updated
information on the priority sites
Up to 60% of fines charged from
infringement of set-aside regulation of the
forestry law between 2013-2016 are allocated
to SEAM and contribute to enforce the
forestry law.
Up to 60% increase in the amounts collected by
SEAM for fines charged from infringement of
forest and environmental regulations, contribute
to enforce the forestry law (baseline:
US$270,000/yr; target US$432,000/yr)
SEAM has proposed to National
Congress a Fees Law that will enable the
institution to collect fines, that currently
is not able to.
6
Improved knowhow of at least 1000 soy,
sugar and livestock producers to apply the
available best practices to conserve
biodiversity, reduce soil degradation, conduct
land use planning for sustainable land
management within target landscape.
Improved knowhow of at least 4000 soy and
livestock producers to apply the available best
practices to conserve biodiversity, reduce soil
degradation, conduct land use planning for
sustainable land management within target
landscape.
Fine-tuning
financiers.
of
numbers
with
co-
As a consequence of the regrouping of some Outputs and more detailed development of the project interventions there
has also been some changes in the resources distribution between the PIF and CEO endorsement stages. The GEF
allocation to Outcome 1 has increased. This is because the institutional training for municipal surveillance of
deforestation that had been included in Outcome 2 is now in Outcome 1. Furthermore through the PPG studies the
pivotal role of the forest monitoring system in improving monitoring and enforcement has been confirmed and the
design expanded to allow access from a broader range of institutions to ensure coordinated response for enforcement
and to guide purchasing policies of the main commodity traders. Piloting of joint enforcement in 4 municipalities will
also require the updating of the monitoring system with detailed land registration and mapping of forest also
increasing somewhat the cost of the monitoring system. The management costs increased in recognition that there will
be multiple institutions involved in delivery of project outputs and very strong coordination will be needed between
them. These include the Governmental Ministries of Agriculture and Livestock, and Industry and Trade; the
Environment Secretariat; the National Forest Institute as well as the private sector (commodity buyers) and producers.
Each will need to plan and deliver project related work and coordinating this in a coherent framework and leading
discussions over project advances requires a strong management team.
A.6 Risks, including climate change, potential social and environmental risks that might prevent the project
objectives from being achieved, and measures that address these risks:
The PIF recognised the following risks: 1) Difficulties to coordinate action between MAG and SEAM due to
perceived conflicting competences of both institutions; 2) Commodity trading companies not willing to take part in
the market based activities of the project; 3) Financial Institutions unwilling to revise lending policies; 4) Weak
capacity of implementation of government structures might result in significant delays in implementation and low
delivery; and 5) The international prices of commodities (soy, cattle sugar cane) increases, without internalizing
negative impacts on environment, resulting in increasing pressure to expend production areas.
The Results Framework now furthermore recognises that project success is dependent on: 1) The public agencies
involved in the project (SEAM, INFONA, MAG, Public Ministry) do not allocate sufficient budgets to implement
their commitments under the project; 2) Difficulties to coordinate Project implementation between the MAG, SEAM
and INFONA due opposing perceptions of the roles of each institution; 3) Lack of interest of small farmers to adhere
to the environmental services certification system under the Environmental Services Law (3001/06); 4) Impacts of
climate change: climate variability and extreme weather events (droughts, early or late frosts, high intensity rain) on
production of soy and livestock; 5) Low degree of connectivity between forest fragments in certain areas increase the
time period needed to attain measurable results in terms of biodiversity increase; 6) Certain production practices that
are extremely harmful to forest ecosystems (ie. fire for pasture renovation) are strongly rooted amongst producers;
and 7) Lack of interest of potential buyers in buying SEAM forest set-aside certificates, or prices obtained are lower
than the ones estimated.
In order to ensure reducing these risks, key mitigation measures for each of the mentioned risks include: 1):
negotiating and advocating for timely planning and management of institutional budgets; 2): clear assignment of
responsibilities for each outcome and output taking into account the institutional mandates; 3) selecting the best
approach to work with small farmers in order to ensure their engagement, making sure they clearly understand the
proposed activities and the commitments they are expected to assume, and providing technical assistance; 4) and 6)
promoting sustainable land and forest management; 5) identifying priority areas for connectivity; 7) developing a
brokering system to market forest set-aside certificates and stimulating demand. For further details see Part II, section
2.3 of the Project Document.
In addition during PPG the UNDP Environmental and Social Safeguard screening (see Annex 6) was applied to further
assess the opportunities to increase positive impacts of the project and identify measures needed to reduce any potential
adverse effects. As a result specific design elements were included in project design and will be monitored in project
7
implementation: (i) reforestation and afforestation activities follow guidelines developed by SEAM and INFONA; use
native species and appropriate mixes to regenerate forest set asides; and the use of exotic species-funded through non GEF
sources - would only occur on degraded land and for the purpose of substituting firewood from native forest; (ii) The
support to adoption of minimal environmental standards for soy and beef production would include compliance of the EIA
law and other environmental regulations, and best practices including the handling of agrochemicals; (iii) project activities
near or involving indigenous people will follow the step by step consultation process outlined in the IP strategy agreed
upon with IP organisations; and (iv) Project implementation follows the gender strategy outlined in the Project Document.
A.7 Coordination with other relevant GEF-financed initiatives
The PIF identified coordination with the GEF World Bank Project Improving Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Land Management in the Upper Parana Atlantic Forest of Paraguay. During the PPG the following
additional projects were identified for coordination:
Name of Project
Restoration of Forests
(WWF/
A
Todo
Pulmón
Paraguay
respira)
Objective
Objectives are: i) landscape reforestation
and restoration in the Monda-y River
basin; ii) improvement of the livelihoods
of vulnerable women groups through tree
nurseries to generate incomes; iii)
communication and transfer of
technology to support model farms and
best practices amongst small, medium
and large producers and cooperatives.
National Program for
Soil
Management,
Conservation
and
Recovery (MAG)
National level program with the objective
of fostering recovery and maintenance of
soil fertility in agriculture through direct
sowing. Provides training to technicians
and leader farmers and promotes the
adoption of conservation practices.
Inclusion of Family
Agriculture in Value
Chains
(Paraguay
Inclusive
Project)
(MAG)
The project seeks to: i) strengthen rural
organizations; ii) facilitate partnerships
between family farmers and value chains;
iii) facilitate access of family farmers to
credit for investments and working
capital; iv) promote diversification of
production, adoption of appropriate
technologies; increase of food security;
and v) increase employment opportunities
for the poor rural population, especially
women and youths. The intervention area
is the Eastern Region.
The Project will prepare a carbon
inventory on the basis of UN-REDD+
results. It will provide SEAM, INFONA
and University with a laboratory for
analysis of data, equipment and supplies
(GIS, vehicles, computers, laboratory
equipment for soil, water, and air).
Intervention area: protected areas.
The Project will provide technical
assistance to develop a methodology to
quantify carbon stocks and a monitoring,
reporting and verification system through
satellite imagery. It will establish
measurement plots in the Eastern and
Chaco regions.
Forest
Preservation
(Carbon inventory)
(SEAM)
MRV
REDD+
FFPRI (SEAM)
-
Coordination
Both Projects will coordinate actions in the Alto Parana priority site.
Key issues for coordination include the elaboration of restoration plans
for protective forests of watercourses; implementation of tree nurseries
with indigenous communities, women and youths; and validation of the
Best Practice Manuals. A Todo Pulmón will be invited to participate in
preparation of the Annual Work Plan to identify potential
complementary activities. Each Project will incorporate these activities
in their respective work plans. Mid and end-year meetings will be held
to review progress. Complementary activities to both projects in the
priority site will be planned and implemented jointly to ensure efficient
use of resources and cost-effectiveness.
The program will provide inputs to the GEF Project for elaboration of
the Best Practice Manuals, given their accumulated experience in soil
conservation and management. The GEF Project will support the
Program and the Paraguayan Federation of Direct Sowing to prepare a
Direct Sowing Program. The Program will be invited to participate in
preparation of the Annual Work Plan to identify potential
complementary activities. Program technicians will participate in
training by the GEF project to increase their knowledge and
mainstream biodiversity considerations into their day-to-day work.
Both projects will collaborate in the development of best practices for
sustainable production. The GEF project will pilot a small farmer
approach that combines forest conservation and sustainable production
that the PPI project can replicate. PPI will be invited to participate in
preparation of the Annual Work Plan to identify potential
complementary activities. Each Project will incorporate these activities
in their respective work plans. Mid and end-year meetings will be held
to review progress. Complementary activities to both projects in
Canindeyu will be planned and implemented jointly to ensure efficient
use of resources and cost-effectiveness.
Both Projects will hold meetings to coordinate procurement of
equipment within the framework of the Monitoring System and
surveillance schemes to be developed by the GEF Project.
Both Projects will hold meetings to coordinate issues related to
measurement of carbon benefits within the REDD+ pilot project and
activities regarding monitoring and surveillance for enforcement, and
monitoring of biodiversity.
8
B. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOT ADDRESSED AT PIF STAGE
B.1 Describe how the stakeholders will be engaged in project implementation
Active participation of the diverse stakeholders will be promoted through the following mechanisms:
 The project management structure will ensure participation of key stakeholders during project planning,
implementation and M&E. The Project Board is made up of the political and technical representatives of the
executing and implementing agencies and departmental governments and will provide overall guidance for project
implementation. Other stakeholders may be invited to participate in the Project Board meetings where deliberation,
negotiation, elaboration of strategic guidelines and approval of work plans will take place.
 For each project output a leading institution and/or organization has been identified based on roles and mandates
within the environmental, forest, agricultural, financial and other project-related sectors (see table in Section IV, Part
III, Stakeholder Involvement Plan of the Project Document). Each lead institution will be responsible to coordinate
the development of the output ensuring participation and collaboration of other stakeholders involved, including
leading the participatory planning of the Annual Work Plan (AWP) for the output; convening meetings of the
stakeholders to plan and implement the foreseen activities; negotiating agreements between stakeholders; reporting of
project progress to the Technical Committee and the Project Board. The PMU and the Technical Committee will
oversee and support the lead institution in preparing the AWP. The PMU will consolidate these operational plans into
the project’s general AWP, which shall be analyzed, validated and approved by the Project Board, and later socialized
to the public in general.
 The Local Committees will ensure adequate planning and implementation of activities in line with the project
objectives and local development and stakeholder priorities, as well as complementarity with ongoing and planned
programs and projects. The Project Board, Technical Committee, Project Management Unit and Local Committees
will be closely linked, ensuring in this manner that stakeholder concerns are up-streamed into higher project
management levels and likewise project management decisions and their impacts on the region are down-streamed to
keep stakeholders duly informed.
 The National and Departmental Soy and Beef Platforms will allow the participation of stakeholders. They will provide
the opportunity for presenting project strategic directions and advances that are of specific relevance to stakeholders
and at the same time will act as forums where they can express concerns, interests and suggestions.
 The Gender and Indigenous Peoples strategies will ensure involvement of women and indigenous peoples, taking into
account their specific needs and demands (see Part II, section 2.1 Project rationale and policy conformity, pg.37 of the
Project Document for details).
 At field level, the project´s training and outreach programs will make use of both bottom-up and top-down approaches,
integrating the different points of view of the local stakeholders and beneficiaries as well as those of the institutions,
authorities and decision makers. On the ground interventions selected by the project will serve the purpose of
demonstrating that the alternative sustainable management practices to be promoted are feasible, cost-effective, and a
greater benefit will be attained with their adoption compared to the conventional practices. Coordination with ongoing
and planned programs and projects for replication and upscaling of experiences and lessons learned
 Project M&E through several mechanisms provided for by the project such as: (i) follow-up meetings of national and
departmental platforms; (ii) Project Board reviews; (iii) national workshops for verification of indicators, with the
participation of local and national stakeholders, as well as representatives from the project’s direct beneficiaries. The
AWP will be the main M&E, which implementation shall be assessed with stakeholder participation. Progress
towards meeting objectives shall be evaluated including products, quality and timing using adequate participatory
tools that provide pertinent inputs to adjust project implementation strategy.
B.2 Describe the socioeconomic benefits to be delivered by the project at the national and local levels; gender
dimensions, and how these will support the achievement of global environmental benefits
The project will stimulate adoption of sustainable production practices within 3 priority sites in the Departments of Alto
Parana, Amambay and Canindeyu in the UPAF ecoregion of Paraguay. The project will provide direct training to 4,000
producers in these sites who account for the use of over 500,000 ha for mainly soy and livestock production (see section
2.1 Project Rationale and Policy Conformity of the Project Document for further information on the priority sites).
Through replication, the project will reach an additional 1.2 million ha within the priority sites and the rest of the
Departments. This will result in increased income and new market opportunities for producers adopting sound
9
environmental practices recognized and agreed with international and domestic buyers who will be engaged through
project activities. The proposed financial instruments will cover the costs to farmers of shifting to sustainable forms of
production. In the medium to long term more sustainable production systems tend to be more profitable than conventional
practices. Several studies have demonstrated the costs and feasibility of sound environmental practices. For instance,
increased yields from direct sowing may increase profits by US$135/ha; contour lines have a cost ranging from US$300 –
US$800; and the use of 60-80 ton/ha of pig manure has produced savings of US$130/ha in production costs. The cost of
the nutrients lost under the conventionally cultivated area of almost 460,000 ha in 1997 was estimated at US$424 million
or about US$920/ha. At the same time, medium and large farmers who adopted conservation agriculture practices almost
completely eliminated soil nutrient losses, thus providing a net saving in lost nutrients of US$433 million (see Output 2.1
of Project Document, pg 52). Long term funding will be made available for those investments in reforestation that provide
profitable margins for the landowners who wish to reforest with native species to compensate their environmental
liabilities under the law or reforestation for wood energy that provide environmental benefits and reduce pressure over
native forests (see Output 2.2, pg. 58). Soy certification schemes will motivate the generation of social benefits in
accordance with the requirements of the RTRS and/or ISCC norms and criteria, which cover aspects such as fair pay,
adequate living conditions and safe working conditions for workers. The project will improve the access to domestic and
international markets and financial services, stimulating increased adoption of sustainable production, which in turn will
stimulate the international demand of sustainable products.
The project has developed a gender strategy and an indigenous peoples strategy (see Part II, section 2.1 Project Rationales
and Policy Conformity of the Project Document for details). Gender related activities within the project framework
include a diagnosis of the roles of men and women in the soy and livestock productive systems; mainstreaming of gender
considerations in best practice manuals and environmental standards; gender oriented training; environmental awareness
raising to women; promote women-run tree nursery services to take advantage of the business opportunities generated
from the increased adoption of silvopastoral systems within the target MUL; replicating micro-finance services among
women in small scale agriculture as an instrument to promote access to credit, empowerment of women and fostering
savings. The project will seek gender representation in the platform meetings it will facilitate, as part of the land use
management planning that will be supported through this project. These activities will: 1) give value to the role of women
in soy and livestock productive systems and make such role visible; 2) increase access of women to training and technical
assistance in best practices, SLM, SFM; to credit and enable their formalization to improve their livelihoods; and 3)
increase the close relationship between sustainable management of natural resources and the role of women, thereby
ensuring dissemination to future generations. Indigenous communities are present in the project intervention areas, and
especially in the Canindeyu priority site. Although the main focus of project actions is not specifically on indigenous
communities or does it directly target them, these actions will have positive impacts on indigenous communities that have
land bordering soy crops through reducing encroachment and potential negative impacts of agro-chemicals. The
identification of project interventions viable for indigenous communities will follow and respect their organizational ways
and cultural norms; will ensure that they show respect for their dignity and human rights and will be carried out with an
intercultural approach, from the worldview of each ethnic group´s culture, and fundamentally respecting their collective
and individual rights protected by international and national regulations and including safeguards to ensure action do not
negatively affect the livelihoods of indigenous communities.
B.3 Explain how cost-effectiveness if reflected in the project design
The proposed project aims to address the primary goal of securing the long-term viability of globally significant
biodiversity in the UPAF. To achieve these objectives, the project identified three main types of interventions: (i)
institutional strengthening for planning, monitoring, surveillance and enforcement of the environmental and forest
regulatory framework; (ii) fostering market-based and financial instruments to prize sustainable production of soy and
livestock; and (iii) improving the knowledge of landholders for widespread adoption of sound environmental practices for
environment-friendly production.
Cost-effectiveness is reflected in this design as all three interventions are collectively attending barriers to addressing
primary drivers of deforestation and degradation of forests and the loss of valuable ecosystem services and habitat within
the UPAF in a least-cost approach. The project will build upon the existing baseline activities and national and local
capacities, as well as available infrastructure to resolve issues undermining the conservation and sustainable production
objectives that government authorities and private sector stakeholders aspire too. Furthermore, the interventions are
designed to capitalize on existing efforts and capacities, and adding value by enlarging and catalyzing efforts already
underway. The project will work with public and private stakeholders that are carrying out activities within the UPAF,
helping them to mainstream biodiversity considerations and sound environmental practices into their current work
programs and activities. Collaboration with this broad base of national and local level institutions and international advice
10
that the project will receive will help to access cost effective field based expertise of the institutions involved in projectrelated activities. Effective coordination with other programs, projects and initiatives, will serve for reinforcing synergies,
avoiding duplication of efforts and reducing overall costs. Regular coordination meetings with projects and programs will
serve to identify complementarity and joint planning and implementation of activities in the field will contribute to costeffectiveness. The project will make use of SEAM and INFONA offices in the project intervention areas. This will reduce
the project’s direct costs.
GEF funds will be used primarily for interventions addressing the policy and regulatory frameworks, institutional capacity
building, targeted technical assistance to public and private stakeholders, for training and for dissemination of
information. By fostering inter-institutional coordination and cooperation as well as operational frameworks (ie. improved
regulations, joint institutional procedures for surveillance and enforcement, monitoring systems, development of best
practices and financial and market instruments) a more effective and efficient use of resources of the institutions is
expected as well as increased long term funding to sustain project results. The use of market-based instruments and
promotion of commercial relations between farmers and commodity buyers will serve to maximize cost-effectiveness
given that, following relatively short-term and limited investment by the project in facilitation, the ongoing transaction
costs of these instruments and relations will be absorbed by the stakeholders involved, resulting in major benefits relative
to the initial project investment.
Stakeholder participation at all project levels will contribute to the cost-effectiveness of the project. The project structure
(Project Board, Technical Committee, Local Committees) as well as the platforms and will ensure adequate planning and
implementation of activities in line with the project objectives and local development and stakeholder priorities, as well as
complementarity with ongoing and planned programs and projects. National and local level coordination mechanisms
will be closely linked, ensuring in this manner that stakeholder concerns are up-streamed into higher project management
levels and likewise project management decisions and their impacts on the region are down-streamed to keep stakeholders
duly informed. The platforms will have a key role in this process. At field level the project will benefit from the
experiences and knowledge of individual producers, cooperatives, commodity buyers, NGOs and other institutions.
Systematization of project experiences and lessons learned will contribute to cost-effective upscaling and replication of
project results throughout the UPAF and other regions of the country.
C.
DESCRIBE THE BUDGETTED M&E PLAN
Project M&E will be conducted in accordance with the established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by
the project team and the UNDP-CO with support from the UNDP/GEF RCU in Panama City. The Project Results
Framework in Section 3 provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their
corresponding means of verification. The M&E plan includes an inception report, project implementation reviews,
quarterly and annual review reports, and mid-term and final evaluations. The following sections outline the principle
components of the M&E plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The M&E budget is provided in the
table below. The project’s M&E plan will be presented and finalized in the Project Inception Report following a
collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.
Project Inception Phase
A Project Inception Workshop (IW) will be held within the first three (3) months of project start-up with the
participation of the full project team, relevant GoP counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation
from the UNDP-GEF RCU, as well as UNDP-GEF headquarters (HQ) as appropriate. A fundamental objective of the IW
will be to help the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goal and objectives, as well as finalize
preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project results framework and the GEF Tracking
Tool. This will include reviewing the results framework (indicators, means of verification, and assumptions), imparting
additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise, finalizing the Annual Workplan (AWP) with precise and
measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project.
Additionally, the purpose and objective of the IW will be to: a) introduce project staff to the UNDP-GEF team that will
support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible RCU staff; b) detail the roles, support
services, and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff in relation to the project team; c) provide a
detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and M&E requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project
Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR), mid-term review and final
11
evaluation. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project-related budgetary
planning, budget reviews including arrangements for annual audit, and mandatory budget re-phasings.
The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the
project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines and conflict resolution mechanisms.
The Terms of Reference (ToRs) for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in
order to clarify each party’s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase. The IW will also be used to plan
and schedule the Tripartite Committee Reviews. A report on the Inception Workshop is a key reference document and
must be prepared and shared with participants to formalize various agreements and plans decided during the meeting (see
details below).
Monitoring Responsibilities and Events
A detailed schedule of project review meetings will be developed by the project management in consultation with project
implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule
will include: a) tentative timeframes for Project Board (PB) Reviews (or relevant advisory and/or coordination
mechanisms); and b) project-related M&E activities.
Day-to-day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator based on the
project's AWP and its indicators. The Project Coordinator will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced
during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial
fashion. The Project Coordinator will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in
consultation with the full project team at the IW with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF RCU.
Specific targets for the first-year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be
developed at this workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and
in the right direction and will form part of the AWP. Targets and indicators for subsequent years will be defined annually
as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team. Measurement of impact
indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined through specific studies that are to form
part of the project’s activities.
Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP CO through quarterly meetings with
the project implementation team, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock of and to
troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure the timely implementation of project
activities. The UNDP CO and UNDP-GEF RCU, as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to the project’s field sites, or
more often based on an agreed upon schedule to be detailed in the project's Inception Report/AWP to assess first-hand
project progress. Any other member of the Steering Committee can also take part in these trips, as decided by the Steering
Committee. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the UNDP CO and circulated no less than one month after the visit
to the project team, all Steering Committee members, and UNDP-GEF.
Annual monitoring will occur through the PB meetings. This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly
involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Project Board review at least once every year.
The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve (12) months of the start of full implementation. The project
proponent will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it to UNDP CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at
least two weeks prior to the PB for review and comments.
The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the PB. The Project Coordinator will present the
APR to the PB, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the PB participants. The Project
Coordinator will also inform the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on
how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary. The
PB has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks are not met. Benchmarks will be
developed at the IW, based on delivery rates and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs.
The Terminal PB Review is held in the last month of project operations. The Project Coordinator is responsible for
preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and to UNDP-GEF RCU. It shall be prepared in draft at
least two months in advance of the PB meeting in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the
PB meeting. The terminal PB review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to
12
whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides
whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle
through which lessons learned can be captured to feed into other projects being implemented.
Project Monitoring Reporting
The Project Coordinator, in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team, will be responsible for the preparation and
submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process and that are mandatory.
A Project Inception Report (IR) will be prepared immediately following the IW. It will include a detailed First
Year/AWP divided in quarterly timeframes detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation
during the first year of the project. This work plan will include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the
UNDP CO or the RCU or consultants, as well as timeframes for meetings of the project’s decision-making structures. The
IR will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the AWP,
and including any M&E requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12-month
timeframe. The IR will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions,
and feedback mechanisms of project-related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project
establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may affect project
implementation. When finalized, the IR will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one
calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to the IR’s circulation, the UNDP CO and UNDPGEF’s RCU will review the document.
In light of the similarities of both APR and PIR, UNDP-GEF has prepared a harmonized format for use in fulfilling the
following two requirements:

The Annual Project Report (APR) is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP CO central oversight, monitoring, and
project management. It is a self-assessment report by the project management to the CO and provides input to the
country office reporting process and the Results-Oriented Annual Report (ROAR), as well as forming a key input to
the PB Review. An APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the PB Review, to reflect progress achieved in
meeting the project’s AWP and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through
outputs and partnership work. The format of the APR is flexible but should include the following sections: a) project
risks, issues, and adaptive management; b) project progress against pre-defined indicators and targets, c) outcome
performance; and d) lessons learned/best practices.

The Project Implementation Review (PIR) is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an
essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons
from on-going projects. Once the project has been under implementation for one year, a PIR must be completed by
the CO together with the project management. The PIR can be prepared any time during the year and ideally prior to
the TPC review. The PIR should then be discussed in the PB meeting so that the result would be a PIR that has been
agreed upon by the project, the Implementing Partner, UNDP CO, and the RCU in Panama. The individual PIRs are
collected, reviewed, and analyzed by the RCU prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP-GEF
headquarters.

Quarterly Progress Reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP
CO and the UNDP-GEF RCU by the project team. Progress made shall be monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results
Based Management Platform and the risk log should be regularly updated in ATLAS based on the initial risk analysis.
Specific Thematic Reports focusing on specific issues or areas of activity will be prepared by the project team when
requested by UNDP, UNDP-GEF, or the Implementing Partner. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the
project team in written form by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These
reports can be used as a form of lessons learned exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises
to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic
Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.
A Project Terminal Report will be prepared by the project team during the last three (3) months of the project. This
comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements, and outputs of the project; lessons learned; objectives
13
met or not achieved; structures and systems implemented, etc.; and will be the definitive statement of the project’s
activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure
sustainability and replicability of the project’s activities.
Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specializations within the
overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List detailing the technical
reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the project, and tentative due dates.
Where necessary, this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may
also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive and specialized analyses of clearly defined areas of
research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the
project’s substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best
practices at local, national, and international levels.
Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the
project. These publications may be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the project in the
form of journal articles or multimedia publications. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending
upon the relevance and scientific worth of these reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical
Reports and other research. The project team will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication, and
(in consultation with UNDP, the GoC, and other relevant stakeholder groups) will also plan and produce these
publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these
activities as appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project’s budget.
Independent External Evaluations
The project will be subjected to at least two reviews/evaluations as follows. A Mid-Term Review will be undertaken at
the mid-point of the project lifetime. The Mid-Term Review will determine progress being made towards the achievement
of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness of
project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about
project design, implementation, and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for
enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, ToRs, and timing of the mid-term
review will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The ToRs for this Mid-Term
Review will be prepared by the UNDP-CO based on guidance from the UNDP-GEF RCU. The management response of
the review will be uploaded to the UNDP corporate systems, in particular the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation
Resource Centre (ERC). The GEF Tracking Tool for the project will also be completed during the mid-term review cycle.
A Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal Steering Committee meeting, and will focus on the
same issues as the Mid-Term Review. The Evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the
contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Evaluation should also
provide recommendations for follow-up activities and requires a management response that should be uploaded to PIMS
and to the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Centre (ERC). The ToRs for this evaluation will be prepared by
the UNDP-CO based on guidance from the UNDP-GEF RCU. The GEF Tracking Tool will also be completed during the
final evaluation.
Audit Clause
The GoP will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of
the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set
out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The audit will be conducted according to UNDP’s financial regulations,
rules, and audit policies by the legally recognized auditor of the GoP, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the GoP.
Learning and Knowledge Sharing
Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of
existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition, the project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in
UNDP-GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics.
UNDP-GEF RCU has established an electronic platform for sharing lessons between the project managers. The project
will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may
14
be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons
learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identifying and analyzing
lessons learned is an on-going process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project’s central
contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every twelve (12) months. UNDP-GEF shall
provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting, and reporting on lessons learned. Specifically,
the project will ensure coordination in terms of avoiding overlap, sharing best practices, and generating knowledge
products of best practices in the area of IAS management.
The indicative M&E work plan and budget is as follows:
Type of M&E activity
Inception Workshop and
Report
Measurement of Means of
Verification of project
results.
Measurement of Means of
Verification for Project
Progress on output and
implementation
ARR/PIR
Project Board Meetings
Periodic status/ progress
reports
Mid-term Review
Final Evaluation
Lessons Learned
Project Terminal Report
Audit
Visits to field sites
Responsible Parties
 Project Manager
 UNDP CO, UNDP GEF
 UNDP GEF RTA/Project
Manager will oversee the
hiring of specific studies and
institutions, and delegate
responsibilities to relevant team
members.
 Oversight by Project Manager
 Project team
Budget US$
Excluding project team staff time
US$ 16,000
To be finalized in Inception Phase and
Workshop. Indicative cost: US$ 30,000
(satellite images, materials and studies for
monitoring of project impacts)
Time frame
Within first two months of
project start up
Start, mid and end of project
(during evaluation cycle) and
annually when required.
To be determined as part of the Annual
Work Plan's preparation. Indicative cost:
US$ 30,000 (KAP surveys; field surveys)
Annually prior to ARR/PIR
and to the definition of annual
work plans








Project manager and team
UNDP CO
UNDP RTA
UNDP EEG
Project Coordinator
UNDP-CO
GoP representatives
Project manager and team
None
Annually
US$10,000
Two times per year
None
Quarterly



















Project manager and team
UNDP CO
UNDP RCU
Evaluation team
Project manager and team,
UNDP CO
UNDP RCU
Evaluation team
Project manager and team
UNDP CO
Local consultant
Project manager and team
UNDP CO
Local consultant
UNDP CO
Project manager and team
UNDP CO
UNDP RCU (as appropriate)
Government representatives
US$ 40,000
At the mid-point of project
implementation.
US$ 40,000
At least three months before
the end of project
implementation
US$ 5,000
Yearly
None
At least three months before
the end of the project
US$ 25,000 (US$5,000/yr)
Yearly
For GEF supported projects, paid from IA
fees and operational budgets
Yearly
TOTAL indicative COST
US$ 196,000
Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel
expenses
15
PART III: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT AND GEF AGENCY
A. RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT OF GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT: (Please attach the
Operational Focal Point endorsement letter(s) with this template).
DATE (MM/dd/yyyy)
NAME
POSITION
MINISTRY
GEF Political Focal
Oscar Rivas
SECRETARIAT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
04/09/2012
Point.
Minister
GEF Operational
Gilda Torres
SECRETARIAT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
04/09/2012
Focal Point
B. GEF AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF/LDCF/SCCF policies and procedures and meets the
GEF/LDCF/SCCF criteria for project identification and preparation.
Agency Coordinator,
Date
Project Contact
Email Address
(MM/DD/YY
Agency name
Signature
Person
Telephone
YY)
Adriana Dinu
December
Helen Negret, EBD +507 302-4510 Helen.Negret@undp.org
UNDP/GEF Officer-in6, 2013
Senior Technical
Charge and Deputy
Advisor
Executive Coordinator
16
ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK
This project will contribute to achieving the following Country Programme Outcome as defined in CPAP or CPD:
Outcome 3.2: Policies and programmes for conservation and sustainable use of biological and cultural resources.
Outcome 3.3: Sustainable and equitable development model
Country Programme Outcome Indicators:
3.2.1: Strengthened environmental institutions for decentralized environmental management
3.2.3: Interinstitutional and intersectoral coordination supported for conservation and sustainable use of biological and cultural resources
3.3.1: Economic incentives for sustainable production.
3.3.2: Systems and technologies for production of environmentally sustainable goods and services developed
3.3.3: Interinstitutional and intersectoral coordination strengthened to integrate sustainable development actions
Primary applicable Key Environment and Sustainable Development Key Result Area (same as that on the cover page, circle one):
1: Inclusive and sustainable growth and development
Applicable GEF Strategic Objective and Program:
BD-SO2: Mainstream Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use into Production Landscapes, Seascapes and Sectors,
LD-SO3: Reduce pressures on natural resources from competing land uses in the wider landscape
SFM REDD+- SO1: Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services
Applicable GEF Expected Outcomes:
BD Outcome 2.1 Increase in sustainably managed landscapes and seascapes that integrate biodiversity conservation
BD Outcome 2.2: Measures to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity incorporated in policy and regulatory frameworks
LD Outcome 3.1: Enhanced cross-sector enabling environment for integrated landscape management.
LD Outcome 3.2: Integrated landscape management practices adopted by local communities.
SFM REDD+ Outcome1.2: Good management practices applied in existing forests.
Applicable GEF Outcome Indicators:
BD Indicator 2.1: Landscapes and seascapes certified by internationally or nationally recognized environmental standards that incorporate biodiversity considerations (e.g. FSC, MSC) measured
in hectares and recorded by GEF tracking tool
BD Indicator 2.2: Polices and regulations governing sectoral activities that integrate biodiversity conservation as recorded by the GEF tracking tool as a score.
LD Indicator 3.1: Demonstration results strengthening enabling environment between sectors (incl. agriculture, forestry)
LD Indicator 3.2: Area under effective land use management with vegetative cover maintained or increased
SFM REDD+ Indicator 1.2 (2): Enhanced carbon sinks from reduced forest degradation
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Project Objective:
The biodiversity and
ecosystem functions of the
Atlantic Forest eco-region
is protected from existing
and emerging threats from
multi-sectoral production
practices and is a model
for replication across the
country’s bioregions and
biomes.
Surface area of forests in the Multiple Use
Landscapes (MUL) out of protected areas in the 3
Departments have a greater degree of protection,
measured by:
a) Number of hectares of forests certified for
environmental services;
b) Number of hectares of forests under sustainable
management (REDD+ pilot project);
Baseline
Means of
Verification
Monitoring System
reports
a) Less than 10
certificates have been
issued in the whole
country.
b) 0
c) Number of hectares of legal set-asides and
protective forests established with management
criteria
Targets
(End of Project)
c) No registry or
cadaster of legal setasides or protective
forests
a) 3,000 ha (to be
adjusted when the
Monitoring System is
operational).
b) 6,000 ha (to be
adjusted when the
Monitoring System is
operational).
c) 90,000 ha of legal
set-asides; 30,000 ha of
protective forests
(to be adjusted when the
Monitoring System is
operational).
Environmental
Certificates issued
within the project
intervention area
Data base of legal setasides demarcated for
restoration and
protective forests
Risks and Assumptions
International market
favors sustainable
products
Impacts of climate
variability and extreme
weather events on
productivity do not pose
risks to soy and livestock
production
Political will and support
to adequate enforcement
of the regulatory
framework
Landowners engaged in
complying with
17
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Baseline
Surface area in the MUL where sustainable
production practices (1 or more) have been adopted
on the basis of the Best Practice Manuals and
contribute to establish deforestation free supply
chains:
Practices focus on soil
conservation
and
management (medium
and large producers).
Small farmers with
degraded
soils.
Intensive use of agrochemicals. Lack of
environmental criteria.
a) Number of hectares achieved through direct
project intervention in the 3 priority areas.
Targets
(End of Project)
a) 500,000 ha (soy);
60,000 ha (livestock)
b) 900,000 ha (soy);
398,000 ha (livestock)
a) % of reduction in the use of firewood from native
forests by grain silos and dryers.
b) % of reduction in sedimentation of surface water
bodies
Percentage of increase in coverage of representative
native tree species in the MUL (outside of protected
areas) in the early stages of natural succession that
are characteristic of the UPAF
Tons of avoided emissions of CO2eq attained
through protection of forests in the REDD+ pilot
project:
a) Direct lifetime (6,000 ha)
b) Indirect lifetime (65,000 ha)
Outcome 1: Effective
governance framework for
biodiversity conservation
and SLM in multiple use
landscapes
Improved institutional capacities to effectively plan,
implement, monitor and mainstream biodiversity
into production activities at landscape level as
measured by a % of increase in the Capacity
Scorecard
a) Tons of native
firewood used by silos
to be defined in PY1
(data base to be
established in pilot
Municipalities)
b) Sedimentation to be
measured in pilot
Municipalities in PY1
To be defined in PY1
(through GIS)
Baseline map of carbon
stocks for the UPAF
estimates a minimum of
22.2 tC/ha and a
maximum of 189.8
tC/ha (average of 64
tC/ha)
SEAM and INFONA
average 46%
Monitoring System
reports.
Monitoring and
control records.
Risks and Assumptions
regulations, restoring
environmental liabilities
and participating in
sustainable value chains
Field inspections.
Reports by
institutional partners
b) Number of hectares that can be potentially
achieved through indirect effect of project
intervention (replication)
Direct reduction of pressures in forest ecosystems
from production sectors as evidenced by:
Means of
Verification
a) 50 %
b) 5%
Records of monitoring
of silos
Field measurement
data on sedimentation
20%
Satellite imagery (PY1
and PY5)
a) 1,408,128 ton/CO2eq
b) 15,254,720
ton/CO2eq
Agreement for start-up
of pilot project
At least 80% average
Capacity
(mid term)
scorecard
Capacity
scorecard
(end of project)
Percentage of increase in the amount collected by
SEAM for fines charged from infringement of forest
and environmental regulations
Average annual amount
collected by SEAM is
US$270,000
60% (US$432,000)
Percentage of environmental licenses approved in
priority areas based on the Monitoring System
0
PY2: baseline
information uploaded in
Reports from SEAM´s
Directorate General
for Administration and
Finances
Reports from SEAM´s
Directorate General
18
Government commitment
to promote the necessary
reforms to improve the
governance framework,
minimizing staff turnover
and
institutionalizing
processes.
Stakeholders committed
and involved in the
development
of
the
platforms.
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Baseline
Targets
(End of Project)
Means of
Verification
Risks and Assumptions
the Monitoring System
for Environmental
PY3: 50%
Quality and Natural
PY4: 75%
Resources
PY5: 100%
Level of agreement on sustainable production 0
PY3: minimum
Minutes and records
approaches, including deforestation free supply
environmental standards of meetings approving
chains, international certification standards, best
for soy and livestock
the
minimum
practices for production and conservation, land
production agreed by
standards
zoning criteria for corridors, biosafety.
the multi-stakeholder
platforms
Output 1.1: A package of modifications in regulations, policies and standards at national level to improve protection of the Upper Parana Atlantic Forest
Output 1.2: Institutional strengthening of SEAM, INFONA, Public Ministry, and Municipalities for improved monitoring and surveillance of deforestation and enforcement of environmental
and forest regulations in production landscapes
Output 1.3: One national and three departmental soy and beef platforms for inter-institutional and multi-stakeholder dialogue on land use planning regulations, enforcement, and incentives for
best practice adoption within production landscapes, involving all land use managers and supply chains.
Outcome 2: Financial and Surface area of soy in the 3 priority areas prepared 23,000 ha of RTRS a) 500,000 ha
Contracts
between Financial institutions
market
incentives for certification and certified under international certified soy in the
producers
and interested and involved in
framework to promote certification schemes, contributing to a deforestation Department of San b) 250,000 ha (50%)
international certifying mainstreaming
biodiversity
and free supply chain, evidenced by:
Pedro
(outside
the
agencies
environmental criteria in
sustainable
land a) Number of hectares applying minimum
UPAF) – 65,000 ha
lending procedures;
management within the environmental standards in preparation for
under ISCC scheme by
Commodity buyers´ establishing credit lines to
target
multiple-use certification under international schemes.
ADM
records
finance best practices and
landscape
b) Number of hectares certified.
certification.
Institutional partners´
reports on annual The Central Bank of
monitoring of the Paraguay adjusts its
agricultural campaign regulations to favor long(MAG, Cooperatives, term recovery of loans by
Producer associations) financial institutions.
Percentage of soy purchases in the priority areas by
commodity buyers that come from producers that
comply with best practices
Commodity buyers have
different purchasing
policies mainly based
on offer and volume
PY3: 10%
PY4: 30%
PY5: 50%
Institutional partners´
reports on annual
monitoring of the
agricultural campaign
(MAG, Cooperatives,
Producer associations)
Degree to which environmental sustainability
criteria have been mainstreamed in financial
institutions´ (FI) credit operations for soy and meat,
measured by:
a) % of compliance with the pre-requisite of
presenting environmental management plans as per
the provisions of the EIA law
Purchase receipts of
commodity buyers
Financial statements,
reports and financing
plans of the FI
a) 3 banks (Continental,
Regional and Bancoop)
have started to request
a) PY4: 80% of the soy
and livestock loan
portfolios
19
Commodity buyers and
producers interested in
expanding certification
schemes that reward
sustainable production.
Landowners interested in
participating in SEAMcertified schemes for
forests and carbon
markets
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Baseline
Targets
(End of Project)
Means of
Verification
Risks and Assumptions
environmental licenses
in mid 2013 (within the
public and private banks
sector, these banks
cover 42% of the soy
portfolio and 36% of the
livestock portfolio)
b) Number of FIs (and therefore volume of credits)
that mainstream best practices in the loan approval
procedures
Number of FI (and financing plans) granting long
term loans for reforestation/afforestation projects
Number of transactions and flow of resources
derived from:
a) SEAM forest certificates under the environmental
services law.
b) REDD+ carbon credits.
b) 0
a) PY5: 4 FIs and at
least 50% of their loan
portfolios
0
4 FI financing at least
100 plans
Financial statements,
reports and financing
plans of the FI
Transactions
a) 0
b) 0
a) Transactions
corresponding to 2,000
ha x 70 US$/ha/yr
(US$140K/yr) within
the UPAF
b) 1 agreement for
transaction x 4-5
US$/ton/CO2eq/ha/yr
Output 2.1 Increased and diversified funding complying to environmental standards promotes the integration of biodiversity and sustainable land management for MUL through financing
opportunities, incentives and REDD+
Output 2.2: Differentiated markets for sustainable soy and livestock production stimulate adoption of sound environmental practices, conservation of biodiversity, and compliance with
sustainable land use plans.
Outcome 3: Strengthened
implementation of land set
aside system and
sustainable production
practices
Degree of adoption of best practices by producers in
the 3 priority areas, measured by:
a) Number of hectares of direct sowing following
the BP Manuals.
b) % of increase in the use of live fences.
c) Number of producers adopting best management
practices of agro-chemicals
d) Number of hectares of silvopastoral systems
established
Generalized use of
direct sowing but not
necessarily done
following technical
recommendations
(management of soils
and agro-chemicals)
Alto Parana:
a) 175,000 ha
b) 10%
c) 700
d) 300 ha
Data base of producers
Amambay:
a) 5,000 ha
b) 5%
c) 100
d) 50,000 ha
Public and private
institutions internalize
best practices and are
committed to promote
their uptake by producers.
Producers (men and
women) interested in
increasing land set-asides,
restoring river banks and
adopting best practices for
production of soy and
livestock
Canindeyu
a) 40,000 ha
b) 10%
c) 200
d) 10.000 ha
20
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Baseline
Targets
(End of Project)
Means of
Verification
Number of hectares in small farmer settlements in
Canindeyu with continuous forest reserves that have
management plans (land use, fire control, BD
monitoring) under implementation and with
environmental certificates issued
0
350 Ha
Resolutions by
SEAM´s
Environmental
Services Directorate
issuing certificates
Increase in the connectivity index in:
a) high fragmentation areas (Alto Parana) through
restoration of protective forests;
b) areas with larger forest remnants (Canindeyu)
through increase in legal set-asides and private
reserves.
0
(Index will be defined in
PY1)
a) Alto Paraná: distance
between fragments
decreased by 1 point
b) Canindeyu: distance
between fragments
decreased by 2 points
Connectivity index
Improvement in the effectiveness of monitoring and
control in the priority areas measured by the number
of monitoring events and finalized processes in
accordance with the Inter-institutional Manual for
Enforcement of the Forest and Environmental Laws
0
(Data base to be
established in PY1)
50% in 4 pilot
Municipalities
Data base records
Number of soy and livestock producers that have
improved their knowledge, attitude and practices for
implementation of best practices to conserve
biodiversity, reduce soil degradation and plan land
use in the MUL of the priority areas (measured by
KAP3 indices and including disaggregation by
gender)
KAP indices to be
determined at Project
start-up
Risks and Assumptions
Satellite imagery
30% in the remaining
Municipalities
4,000 producers and
100 women (KAP
indices to be determined
at Project start-up)
KAP survey (project
start)
KAP survey (project
end)
Output 3.1: Technical assistance to medium and large-scale soy and livestock producers mainstreams best practices for sustainable production
Output 3.2: Improved forest Set aside in small, medium and large scale farms increase forest connectivity across the landscape in Canindeyu
Output 3.3: Restoration of protective forests of watercourses in the MUL of three target landscapes increases connectivity in highly deforested areas
Output 3.4: Decentralized and joint enforcement approaches improves surveillance of deforestation and compliance in 4 municipalities
3
The KAP study measures the changes in Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of a community. The first KAP survey was not done during the PPG but will be done in PY1 once the producers are
identified, to elaborate the educational diagnosis and will be done again in PY5 to measure the changes as a result of project training and outreach interventions.
21
ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS
Responses to STAP comments
STAP Comment
Response
Given the importance and critical status of the Atlantic Forest in
Paraguay and adjacent countries, STAP welcomes this proposal.
While Paraguay's Forest Conversion Moratorium begun in 2004 has
indeed reduced the rate of deforestation, compliance with current
laws is inadequate and requires new ways of addressing conservation
in multiple use landscapes, as proposed in this project. Given also
that the Atlantic Forest in Eastern Paraguay coincides with most of
the country's agriculture, industry and population, it is essential that
stakeholders nationally, regionally and locally especially current
landowners be intimately involved.
We agree with this comment. As described in the Project Document, during the PPG
phase consultations have taken place with key stakeholders through several
methodologies that included workshops, interviews, sectoral meetings and focus groups.
Representatives from the public and private sectors, NGOs and Indigenous Peoples
Organizations participated in these consultations, which had the objectives of confirming
their interest and commitment with the project, to obtain inputs for project design and in
general to ensure that their interests were duly reflected in the project strategy. The
project design has identified a number of approaches to ensure active participation of the
wide range of stakeholders that have been identified, as described in Section B.1 above.
Furthermore this partnership will be broadened through Output 1.3 with the national and
departmental soy and beef platforms to be established. The platforms will constitute the
mechanism to convene and coordinate the public and private sector to promote
sustainable production at the two levels (national and three departments) and to define
the sustainability priorities and policies for soy and meat. The objective is to develop a
long-term space where the public and private sectors can align, take ownership and
develop joint concrete actions to mitigate the negative impacts of commodity production
and maximize productivity, thereby strengthening the country's enabling environment for
sustainable commodity production. The platforms will also provide the opportunity for
presenting project strategic directions and advances that are of specific relevance to
stakeholders and at the same time will act as forums where they can express concerns,
interests and suggestions.
We agree that the title suggest a broader ambit but would like to reconfirm that the main
focus is still the Atlantic Forest. Projections of future expansion of soy include further
displacement of livestock production from the Eastern Region to the Chaco (which has
been happening for several years now) and exploring Chaco soils with aptitude for soy.
Therefore the framework and mechanisms to be put in place by the project will help to
expand monitoring and surveillance for compliance of the regulatory framework to other
ecoregions, in the case the Chaco.
The project title appears more ambitious in geographical scope than
the project itself. While it is a legitimate ambition ultimately to use
good conservation practice from the Atlantic Forest eco-region as a
model for all biomes in the country, the primary objective is to
secure this critical bio-region with its specific and complex
pressures. STAP suggests that the project title be amended to reflect
the actual scope of the project objective rather than the GoP's "longterm vision" (cf para. 4
STAP appreciates the detail included in the Project Framework that
gives a good overview of the different activities to be undertaken in
securing the remaining forest and also tackling the increasing
fragmentation of what remains. The Framework does, however,
need to be reviewed. In Component 3 especially, Expected Outcomes
and Outputs appear to be transposed. In several places, both Outputs
and Outcomes seem to be reflecting project activities rather than
project accomplishments. A restructuring of the Project Framework
will be essential to guide the executors of the project to the delivery
of global environmental benefits (GEBs) rather than standard
We would like to thank STAP for the comment. Adjustments have been made to the
project framework taking into account the suggestions made. Please see the Project
Framework and Logical framework Matrix and also refer to Section A.5 of this CEO
Endorsement Request explaining changes made and Section 2.2 Project Outcomes and
Outputs of the Project Document, pg. 40
22
Reference
in
document
Section IV,
Part III,
Stakeholder
Involvement
Plan, pg.122
Part I.B
Baseline
Analysis,
par.61 & 62,
pg.18
STAP Comment
measures of project activity. In this connection, STAP advises to
have focal area impact indicators included in the Project Framework.
A selection from the current GEF FA Strategies for BD, SLM and
SFM/REDD would be appropriate. Measures of land cover, for
example, could be considered. These impact indicators might be
chosen based upon the variables that will be used in the local-level
monitoring and tracking of GEBs mentioned at Component 2. They
might also reflect the impact indicators for national reporting under
the UNCCD.
The Barrier Analysis at the end of the section on the Project Baseline
is thorough and a useful tool to focus on the principal issues that
need to be addressed. One element missing here and in the proposal
more generally is what has become to be known as the gender asset
gap'. "Gender inequality in land ownership [in Latin America] is
related to male preference in inheritance, male privilege in marriage,
male bias in community and state programs of land distribution as
well as gender bias in the land market, with women less likely than
men to be successful buyers." (Deere, C.D. 2003. World
Development 37(6): 925-947). Gendered differences need to be
explicitly included in the proposal.
At Para 34, STAP suggests that the table “ while useful in comparing
current practices with the alternative to be put in place by the
project“ be redrawn to give a clearer picture of the global benefits
(third column). One of the items appears contradictory ("Avoided
forest habitat conservation"); others are not global' as recognized by
the GEF focal area Strategies. STAP suggests that both global
environmental and national developmental benefits be included here
to reflect how the project will/should build co-benefits for both the
environment and for local livelihoods.
5. In Component 2, STAP notes the focus on developing partnerships
with financial institutions for credit services. Micro-credit is indeed
Response
Reference
in
document
The project design includes a Gender strategy. This strategy is based on the following
considerations: 1) gender and poverty; 2) access to productive factors; 3) roles in family
farms; 4) gender and natural resources; 5) diversity and multiculturalism. The gender
strategy has the objectives of: 1) ensuring mainstreaming of gender in all activities of the
Project in order to reduce inequalities between men and women; 2) visualizing and
assessing the participation and contribution of women in supply chains and their
relationship with the environment; 3) strengthening groups of women and youths that are
members of cooperative and other production associations through environmental
education campaigns and implementation of community tree nurseries. Gender equality
will cross-cut project interventions and will follow these guidelines: 1) Elaboration of a
participatory diagnosis with gender and intercultural approach to identify roles according
to gender, within the medium and large scale agriculture; 2) design and implementation
of a training program on gender issues to all stakeholders in the project; 3) Participation
of women in all training and technical assistance activities (extension, credit, research),
both as institutional stakeholders or beneficiaries; 4) Promotion of the participation of
women and youth in environmental education campaigns, and promotion of the best
practices generated by the Project; and 5) Inclusion in the project´s M&E system the
disaggregation of data by sex and gender analysis.
The global and national benefits to be delivered by the proposed practices have been
included as requested.
Part II,
Project
Strategy, 2.1
Project
Rationale
and Policy
conformity,
pg.33
Output 3.1,
Table 20, pg
61
Annex B.
Incremental
Cost Matrix,
pg. 99
B.2
socioecono
mic benefits
above
As regards partnerships with Financial institutions, Output 2.1 is the key intervention Part II,
with these stakeholders. The project will work through two approaches. Firstly, the Project
23
STAP Comment
Response
a powerful tool for rural development, but increasingly there have
been published warnings of its limitations and potential distortions in
local society, sometimes with perverse outcomes (e.g. Mishra and
Nayak, 2004 - http://129.3.20.41/eps/get/papers/0509/0509021.doc).
Evidence of having taken note of such lessons in the design of credit
systems for land holders to change their practices would be
appreciated.
project will support a number of identified FIs to mainstream environmental standards
into their lending procedures, in particular ensuring that clients comply with the
provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment law (ie. presentation of
environmental management plans or EIAs) and secondly, to develop credit lines to
finance best practices for soy and livestock production and international certification
schemes for soy. These credit lines will target medium and large producers; therefore
they will not comprise micro-credits. As concerns micro-credits, within the framework
of Output 3.2 the project will replicate a successful UNDP supported strategy in
Paraguay for assistance to small farmers that comprises the following approaches: 1)
capacity building; 2) technical assistance for sustainable production of staple and cash
crops; 3) micro-credit services to channel investment and working capital for
improvement of production and commercialization and start-up of micro-enterprises that
add value to production; and 4) linking farmers with anchor companies to develop
inclusive and environmentally sustainable supply chains; and linking the farmers and
their families.
We thank STAP for the useful comment. The recommendation has been included in the
design. Outputs 1.1 and 1.2 will establish the enabling framework for improving
monitoring and control, including: 1) design of a monitoring system where information
will be shared by key institutions in charge of surveillance and enforcement: SEAM,
INFONA, Public Ministry and Municipalities; and 2) capacity building through updated
procedures and training. Output 3.4 will pilot decentralized surveillance schemes in 4
pilot municipalities empowering local authorities to fulfill local law enforcement. A key
element for improving broader participation in resource is the monitoring system that
will ensure timely availability of information at departmental, site and farm levels
(ecosystems, land uses and management and ownership). It will also be able to produce
reports that will function as an electronic bulletin for dissemination of basic monitoring
data and will be issued in a format that will be accessible to the public. A key aspect of
the design will be facilitating access to information as much as possible by using
everyday tools. One possible manner to achieve this could be by developing a specific
application for cellular phones where the user promptly receives the information as it is
updated in the system e.g. commodity buyers to guide purchase policies and local
stakeholders that observe potential infringements in the field. On the other hand,
monitoring of forest cover and associated biodiversity by local people is also expected to
occur through the local committees: The LCs shall also help to coordinate the
participation of institutions in the implementation of project activities (including
monitoring) in each priority area. Certification of forest set-asides by SEAM requires
the submittal of a biological monitoring plan. In the case of private landowners, they
will be responsible for implementing monitoring at farm level. In the case of small
farmer settlements who will collectively certify the forests within the settlement, the
small farmers will be trained to carry out the monitoring activities included in their plan.
The Forestry Law 422/73, establishes the obligation to maintain a legal reserve of natural
forests – commonly referred to as set asides, and riverine forests (called protective
forests in the law). The law stipulates that rural properties over 20 ha must keep a set
In the same Component (2), mention is made in the PIF of
monitoring systems run by municipalities to track global benefits.
First, STAP recommends an early analysis of the variables that will
be monitored and their inclusion as an integral part of project
monitoring, with appropriate indicators in the Project Framework.
Secondly, STAP advises that one way to engage local people is to
ensure that they are part of monitoring “ in this case of forest cover
and associated biodiversity. Participatory resource monitoring now
features widely and successfully in a number of projects “ a Chinese
example is reported by Van Rijsfort and Jineng, 2005 in Biodiversity
and Conservation 14:2543“2573. STAP encourages this project to
seek similar engagement with local people.
Component 3 will be critical to the success of this project; yet it is
only minimally described in the PIF. STAP encourages a prior
rigorous assessment of the Land Set-Aside System, including socio-
24
Reference
in
document
Strategy,
Output 2.1,
pg 52;
Output 3.2
pg. 65
Part II,
Project
Strategy,
Output 1.1,
pg. 41;
Output 1.2
pag 44;
Output 3.4
pg. 68
Part II,
Project
Strategy,
STAP Comment
economic impacts. In addition, careful thought needs to be included
on choice of sustainable production practices. One possibility is to
engage with database initiatives of good practice, such as WOCAT.
The link to other biomes mentioned in paragraph 55 needs more
critical thought, if it is to be realised in any practical sense. Transfer
of Technology initiatives even within one country have often failed
because of simplistic applications of practices to quite different
conditions.
Response
Reference
in
document
aside of at least 25% of the natural forest area of the property. Protective forests are Outcome 3,
strips of 100 mts of natural forest to each side of watercourses. As explained in the pg 61.
barriers section, due to misinterpretations of the law and weaknesses in enforcement,
landowners did not respect this regulation, deforesting areas beyond the stipulated
minimum as well as the protective forests. The project focuses on working with medium
and large producers to compensate their environmental liabilities through restoration of
set asides and protective courses with a view of increasing functional and structural
connectivity in the landscape (Outputs 3.2 and 3.3). To increase socio-economic
benefits the project includes small farmers in settlements to see how producers on small
areas that do not have to comply with set asides can benefit and secure land tenure
thereby optimizing set asides and benefits (Output 3.2). As mentioned above, both soy
and livestock production are expanding to the Chaco. The project has identified a
number of best practices to be disseminated (ie.fire management, silvopastoral systems,
pasture management, agro-chemical management, direct sowing) that can be
implemented in the Chaco (Output 3.1). Given that commodity traders are the same they
will be able to transfer the agreed minimum standards. The National Soy and Beef
Platform comprises stakeholders that intervened in the Chaco (ie. public institutions and
producer associations), hence the platform will be an effective way of transfer of project
benefits.
Responses to Council comments: Not applicable
25
Responses to GEFSec comments
GEFSec Comment
Response
Reference in
document
Please note the following during project development:
1) Confirm target areas (hectares) for project
implementation and GEBs
The project will work in 3 priority sites in the Departments of Alto Parana, Amambay and
Canindeyu. Total surface area and land uses are detailed below.
Alto Paraná
Total surface area:
549,162 ha
Agriculture:
430,945 ha
Livestock:
3,814 ha
Forests:
81.719 ha
2) Ensure all quantifiable data are generated for TTs
(BD, LD, and
SFM/REDD+
3) Detailed M&E plan including measurement of
indicators for targeted
GEBs
Amambay
Total surface area:
582,927 ha
Agriculture:
34,450 ha
Livestock:
358,208 ha
Forests:
157.320 ha
Canindeyú
Total surface area:
289,506 ha
Agriculture:
105,855 ha
Livestock:
39,899 ha
Forests:
65.122 ha
For expected GEBs please refer to A.5 above and Project Document.
Please refer to Project Results Framework (Annex A) and Tracking Tools.
Please refer to Project Results Framework (Annex A) and the M&E Plan in Section C
above.
26
Section A.5 above
and Part II, Section
2.4 Incremental
Reasoning of the
Project Document,
pg. xxxx
ANNEX C: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS4
A. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES FINANCING STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW:
PPG Grant Approved at PIF: $120,000
Project Preparation Activities Implemented
GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Amount ($)
Budgeted Amount
Amount Spent
Amount
To date
Committed
Baseline and technical analyses to further identify and cost
the actions to be included in the FSP.
Analysis of national and local capacities and consultations
for finalizing the FSP details and its implementation
arrangements.
Development of feasibility analysis, budget and key project
design elements
ANNEX D: CALENDAR OF EXPECTED REFLOWS (if non-grant
49,860
18,953
30,908
29,750
10,042
19,708
40,390
21,405
18,984
120,000
50,400
69,600
instrument is used)
Provide a calendar of expected reflows to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Trust Fund or to your Agency (and/or revolving
fund that will be set up)
N/A
4
If at CEO Endorsement, the PPG activities have not been completed and there is a balance of unspent fund, Agencies can continue undertake the
activities up to one year of project start. No later than one year from start of project implementation, Agencies should report this table to the GEF
Secretariat on the completion of PPG activities and the amount spent for the activities.
27