ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS
Responses to STAP comments
STAP Comment
|
Response
|
Reference in document
|
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.
|
Section IV, Part III, Stakeholder Involvement Plan, pg.122
|
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 "long-term vision" (cf para. 4
|
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.
|
Part I.B Baseline Analysis, par.61 & 62, pg.18
|
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 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.
|
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
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
Part II, Project Strategy, 2.1 Project Rationale and Policy conformity, pg.33
|
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.
|
The global and national benefits to be delivered by the proposed practices have been included as requested.
|
Output 3.1, Table 20, pg 61
Annex B. Incremental Cost Matrix, pg. 99
B.2 socioeconomic benefits above
|
5. In Component 2, STAP notes the focus on developing partnerships with financial institutions for credit services. Micro-credit is indeed 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.
|
As regards partnerships with Financial institutions, Output 2.1 is the key intervention with these stakeholders. The project will work through two approaches. Firstly, the 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.
|
Part II, Project Strategy, Output 2.1, pg 52;
Output 3.2 pg. 65
|
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.
|
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.
|
Part II, Project Strategy, Output 1.1, pg. 41; Output 1.2 pag 44; Output 3.4 pg. 68
|
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-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.
|
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 aside of at least 25% of the natural forest area of the property. Protective forests are strips of 100 mts of natural forest to each side of watercourses. As explained in the 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.
|
Part II, Project Strategy, Outcome 3, pg 61.
|
Not applicable
Responses to GEFSec comments
|
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
|
Amambay
|
Canindeyú
|
Total surface area: 549,162 ha
Agriculture:
430,945 ha
Livestock:
3,814 ha
Forests:
81.719 ha
|
Total surface area: 582,927 ha
Agriculture:
34,450 ha
Livestock:
358,208 ha
Forests:
157.320 ha
|
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.
|
Section A.5 above and Part II, Section 2.4 Incremental Reasoning of the Project Document, pg. xxxx
|
2) Ensure all quantifiable data are generated for TTs (BD, LD, and
SFM/REDD+
|
Please refer to Project Results Framework (Annex A) and Tracking Tools.
|
|
3) Detailed M&E plan including measurement of indicators for targeted
GEBs
|
Please refer to Project Results Framework (Annex A) and the M&E Plan in Section C above.
|
|
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
To date
|
Amount Committed
|
Baseline and technical analyses to further identify and cost the actions to be included in the FSP.
|
49,860
|
18,953
|
30,908
|
Analysis of national and local capacities and consultations for finalizing the FSP details and its implementation arrangements.
|
29,750
|
10,042
|
19,708
|
Development of feasibility analysis, budget and key project design elements
|
40,390
|
21,405
|
18,984
|
|
120,000
|
50,400
|
69,600
|
annex d: calendar of expected reflows (if non-grant 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
Share with your friends: |
