Consultants working for technical assistance components

5. 
   Consultants working for technical assistance components:
   

Component	Grant amount ($)	Co-financing ($)	Project total ($)
Local consultants*	945,493	0	945,493
International consultants*	425,002	0	425,002
Total	1,370,495	0	1,370,495

1. 
   DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PROJECT DESIGN OF THE ORIGINAL PIF
   

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 (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.

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.
   

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 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:

2. 
   ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOT ADDRESSED AT PIF STAGE
   

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.
  

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 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.

3. 
   DESCRIBE THE BUDGETTED M&E PLAN
   

Project Inception Phase

• 
  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.
  

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.