Evaluación final del Proyecto “Apoyo a la Reducción de la Deforestación en la Producción de Commodities en Paraguay”

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2020-2024, Paraguay
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
08/2022
Completion Date:
08/2022
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
44,000


The focus of this evaluation is the Reducing Deforestation from Commodity Production (Production) project – a child project funded under the UNDP-GEF 6 Integrated Approach Pilot (IAP) programme titled Taking Deforestation out of Commodity Supply Chains (also known as the Good Growth Partnership, GGP). The programme advances an integrated supply chain approach addressing a root cause of 70% of global deforestation attributed to agriculture commodities, specifically beef, oil palm, and soy.
The GGP combines production, demand, and investments as integrated tracks in the supply chain to enhance incentives and demand for sustainably produced agricultural commodities. The program, launched in 2017, is led by The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and implemented in collaboration with Conservation International (CI), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), UN Environment (UNEP) and the Word Wildlife Fund (WWF). The GGP also works in partnership with the governments of Brazil, Indonesia, Liberia and Paraguay, civil society and private sector actors with interests in palm oil, beef and soy commodities.

 

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TDR_Pto_97177_Reducción de la Deforestación.pdf tor English 4323.62 KB Posted 25
Download document RESUME~1.PDF summary English 317.55 KB Posted 27
Download document Production TE Report FINAL 15.07.22-1.pdf report English 5826.26 KB Posted 28
Title Evaluación final del Proyecto “Apoyo a la Reducción de la Deforestación en la Producción de Commodities en Paraguay”
Atlas Project Number: 00097177
Evaluation Plan: 2020-2024, Paraguay
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 08/2022
Planned End Date: 08/2022
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Poverty
  • 2. Environment
  • 3. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.4.1 Gender-responsive legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions strengthened, and solutions adopted, to address conservation, sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing of natural resources, in line with international conventions and national legislation
SDG Goal
  • Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
SDG Target
  • 12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
  • 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements
Evaluation Budget(US $): 44,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 44,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Guido Fernández de Velasco Team Lider
Roberto López Punto focal Nacional
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Apoyo a la reducción de la Deforestación en la producción de Commodities en Paraguay
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-6
GEF Project ID: 9180
PIMS Number: 5664
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: PARAGUAY
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

When designing a Production project, especially a “Pilot,” the PIF and
PPG phases should identify and provide sufficient resources to analyse the variables appropriate for the specific
commodities and components (policy, science, regulation, capacity, etc) for all of the results expected of the investments
and effort made.  This would include a blend of appropriate indicators that are oriented to expected results. If the project
invests in techniques to increase yields in palm oil, then the indicator of the result would be a time-bound yield
measurement at x months following training and a process indicator might be how the farmers feel about it on a scale
of 1 to 5, etc. The same recommendation goes for policies and structures. A pilot project needs to know (a) if the policies
are in-force and (b) are they providing the intended result. The former is applied in this project and the latter is absent.
The PPG phase should also define the means of verification and the cost and effort, or partnerships required, even for
monitoring that goes beyond the project as is common in GEF BD projects. results with a sufficient baseline to be able
to do this. If these tasks are deferred to the project implementation phase, then the time to develop the baseline must
be factored into the expectations and costs of the project keeping in mind that it could take several crop cycles or
multiple measurements at different times, such as opinion polls, statistics on fires, etc. to gauge the results.  The resulting
information will loop back to both project implementation and financial, institutional and socio-political dialogues.
(Addressed to the GEF).

 

2

When considering policy actions as part of project design,  successful
policy gains have certain core elements of success: (i) a policy proposal with a win-win proposition developed through
a participative process effectively leveraging or responding to demand for the policy; (ii) strategic communications to
consolidate demand for the policy; (iii) effective advocacy and stakeholder engagement strategies targeted to different
levels; (iv) strategic communications at the decision-making juncture to support the policies through the political process
and maintain momentum through a generally protracted process; (v) a highly visible and trustworthy champion that can
broker trust and facilitate decision-making and (vi) targeted capacity building and planning support to enable the process,
ensure adequate preparation for policy implementation and establish rules for discourse. These can be done by UNDP
in collaboration with partners who may be better placed than UNDP to act on some of these points. These elements
need to be considered for their level of effort, costs and timeframes when designing projects expected to produce
approved policies. (Addressed to the GEF).

3

Consider producing brief 1 minute video “newscasts” that can be
shared via whatsapp, email, or instant messaging to decision-makers. Key decision-makers are more likely to watch a
1-minute video than read a 2-page memo. This type of strategy can contribute to advocacy efforts reinforcing demand
for policies – adding value to other communications strategies employed. (Addressed to UNDP Green Commodities
Programme).

 

4

 Although the project has been completed and this recommendation is
not directly actionable by the PMU, it is recommended that in future similar projects, the executing partners seek
expressions of interest from other interested parties to document the results of the training and piloting of agricultural
intensification efforts in terms of changes in yield, cost and/or efficiencies etc. and compare these to production data
from other interventions such as IFC IPOD (Indonesia), Solidarity W.A. (Liberia), corporate agronomic records, etc.
The anecdotal yield differences reported indicate that the practices might be “bankable.”
The GEF, UNDP, FOLUR, could share and seek partners to team with Roundtables to assist in disseminating this type
of information.  If determined to be “bankable” the practices could be scaled-up through leveraged financing such as
through corporate partnerships or agricultural loans, which can then provide a source of incentives for practices, such
as integrated Pest management, that could recognize the positive externalities associated.
Related to the previous comment, these situations require a more robust M&E design approach to facilitate monitoring
and up-scaling. (Addressed to UNDP Green Commodities Programme).

 

5

 Because the support to the platforms in the short term is partially
government and donor driven, it may therefore not be permanent. If not already completed, GGP should translate the
Guidance on the Financial Sustainability of Multi-stakeholders Platforms into Spanish and Bahasa for distribution to
key partners within the platforms and donor organizations providing short term support to the platforms (FOLUR
Country Projects implementing partners, Proforest, SECO, et.al.) with the aim of working with the public and private
stakeholders to move towards financial sustainability models appropriate to each. (Addressed to UNDP Green
Commodities Programme).

 

6

Paraguay: strategy for a common vision on sustainable beef; define
"sustainable beef production". Systems approaches are often very valuable for getting collective agreement over
defining what sustainable beef production looks like. (Addressed to the UNDP – Paraguay CO).

 

7

Liberia: HCV/HCS Planning; Liberia has yet to complete mapping of
HCV/HCS values and use that base to indicate Land Use Cover Change in those areas. It is important for the
government, UNDP, FOLUR if applicable and others to plan this process, train technicians and field test the use of
the maps and dialogue.
With evolving concession agreements, this infrastructure should be in place as soon as possible as a tool for dialogue
and conflict resolutions. Discuss with MPOI/MANCO the possibility of donating resources and assure participation
of the other commodities companies that might make good use of the tool in their traceability programs. This is a very
important piece for NOPPOL to put into place. (Addressed to the UNDP – Liberia CO).

8

Indonesia: As the concession agreements are becoming more common
and aligned with general rules, facilitate a dialogue with Musim Mas in Indonesia to discuss how their arrangements
work with smallholders, the benefits, challenges, etc. UNDP could coordinate that dialogue. We would recommend a
similar in-country dialogue with Maryland and their Oil Palm producers. (Addressed to the UNDP – Indonesia CO).

 

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org