GEF 12/G32 5th Phase of Small Grants Program in Brazil

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2017-2021, Brazil
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
12/2018
Completion Date:
07/2018
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR UNDP-GEF-SGP TE.docx tor English 77.44 KB Posted 499
Download document BRAZIL SGP TE Final Report 25 07 18.pdf report English 1784.77 KB Posted 446
Download document BRAZIL SGP TE Annex10 25 07 18.pdf related-document English 719.74 KB Posted 417
Download document BRAZIL SGP TE Annexes 1-9 27 07 18.pdf related-document English 3893.98 KB Posted 443
Title GEF 12/G32 5th Phase of Small Grants Program in Brazil
Atlas Project Number: 00070540
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021, Brazil
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2018
Planned End Date: 12/2018
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.3. Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste
SDG Goal
  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
  • 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
  • 1.5 By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters
  • 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
  • 15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 20,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Juliana Wenceslau MSc juliana.santos@undp.org BRAZIL
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: 5th Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Program in Brazil
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Multifocal Areas
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 4560
PIMS Number: 4578
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Environment, ISPN
Countries: BRAZIL
Lessons
Findings
1.

3.1.Project Design/ Formulation

a. Project Design

Relevance of the Project design was analyzed to assess the relevance and coherence between the standards, objectives, measures and means that govern and guide the action. The extent to which the Project ´sobjectives are consistent with the needs and interests of individuals and the needs of Brazil and Objectives of the GEF was considered.


Tag: Relevance Programme/Project Design

2.

b. Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic /strategy; Indicators)

The Project ´s Logical Framework and it ´s indicators were analyzed to review achievement of results, regarding their coherence, pertinence and probability, and can be easily reviewed for updating targets in future SGP projects. Sixteen indicators (2017 PIR)were analyzed: 3 for Objective, 4 for Outcome 1, 4 for Outcome 2; 2 for Outcome 3, and 3 for Outcome 4; as well as the Base Line established on 2012 and the final targets set for 2018. It includes some indicators disaggregated by gender, but it could be very productive information to have a complete idea of the impact to have these same indicators disaggregated by ethnic origin and age, including disaggregating data for heads of households.


Tag: Programme/Project Design Results-Based Management

3.

c. Assumptions and Risks

According to the Project Document (2013) five factors were recognized as main risks at the beginning of the program:

  1. Under performance risk due to the Project management capacity limitations of the CBOs (low risk);
  2. Geographical expansion to the Caatinga biome may pose logistical capacity challenges to the GEF-SGP team (low risk);
  3. Access to markets for sustainably produced goods and services (medium risk);
  4. Difficulty in assessing and monitoring carbon stocks (medium risk); and
  5. Communities ´resistance to change current agricultural or natural resource use practice (medium risk). For each of these factors, the corresponding mitigation measures proposed were analyzed according to the risk matrix below.

Tag: Project and Programme management Value Chain Agriculture Natural Resouce management Challenges

4.

d. Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated into project design

Being implemented for over 25 years, the design of this phase for SGP Brazil has incorporated a vast amount of lessons learnt from field work.

Also, GEF-SGP Brazil, has maintained close dialogue with the World Bank and various stakeholders of the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest. Building on this experience, mainly in the Amazon, the many lessons learned can now be applied to initiatives in other biomes. GEF –SGP has followed the implementation of the Amazon Region Protected Areas (ARPA), a large GEF FSP, to learn about way to demarcate areas for sustainable use, in addition to reinforce conservation. GEF-SGP Brazil contributed to and participated in the preparation of the Sustainable Cerrado Plan, signed with the Ministry of Environment, two state governments, FUNBIO and the Chico Mendes Institute in 2010.


Tag: Relevance Global Environment Facility fund Small Grants Programme Partnership

5.

e.Planned stakeholder participation

Most interviewees emphasized communities and their members being engaged since the beginning of the Project. Different CSOs networks were invited through NSC and ISPN to disseminate the guidelines for stakeholder’s participation. The relationship between ISPN and local communities was planned with a participatory approach in mind, which was reflected in the design of the project. In this sense, and based on the evidence provided by the field visits and interviews, it becomes clear that there is a close communication between the National Coordination and its partners at different levels, both local CBOs and NGOs and other partner organizations (civil, local Governments, etc.).


Tag: Partnership Civil Societies and NGOs National Institutions

6.

f. Replication approach

SGP Brazil has a replication and knowledge management strategy among the organizations that develop common tools. At PPP-ECOS 23th year(exchange workshop organized by SGP Brazil), its replication capacity has consolidated, as well as knowledge management regarding successful and not successful experiences. SGP Brazil Lessons and Experiences Seminars have made a great contribution on this tool replication scheme. On the other hand, SGP global promote regional replication workshops periodically fostering exchanges among the 125 SGP Global Country Programmes that enable to replicate experiences from other countries. Last April an exchange workshop, among SGP Upgraded Country Programmes was held at Quito, Ecuador to inter alia share and disseminate knowledge and experiences from successful on-the-ground actions for replication and upscaling of community –based landscape planning and management approaches and practices. Lastly, the replication approach could be done among Brazil ´s regions, such as to replicate experiences from Caatinga in the Cerrado.


Tag: Small Grants Programme Regional Knowledge management

7.

g.UNDP comparative advantage

UNDP plays an outstanding leading role and is recognized for providing valuable contributions on policies and knowledge transference to the country, and its image is favorable within the national government.

Accountability and transparency easily available for public opinion.

Possibility of international projection of the experiences developed under UNDP ´s scope and on receiving expertise from projects from other parts of the globe (acting as a possible knowledge platform).

Multi-level incidence and influence, using its own policy guidelines (as CPD by period), with civil society, its organizations, private sector (companies and their federative organizations) and with the public sector at all levels.


Tag: Knowledge management Policies & Procedures

8.

h.Linkages between program and other interventions within the sector

The SGP in Brazil is a multifocal program. Brazil has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD) and is therefore eligible for GEF financing in the three Focal Areas.

The SGP in Brazil is also directly relevant to, supportive of, and consistent with national priorities and policies such as: the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP 2003, that identified the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes as priority conservation areas); the National Program for Cerrado Biome Conservation and Sustainable Use (2005); the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of  Deforestation and Burning in the Cerrado Biome (PP Cerrado 2009); the National Policy on Traditional Peoples and Communities (2007) coordinated by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Social Development; the National Plan for Promotion of Socio-biodiversity Product Chains (SGP actions are relevant to this Plan, but the implementation of this was not as active as expected); the Food Acquisition Program from Family Agriculture (PAA) and the National School Food Program(PNAE), coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture; and the Plan for Deforestation Prevention and Control in the Caatinga.


Tag: Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Small Grants Programme Regional Partnership Policies & Procedures Results-Based Management

9.

i. Management arrangements

The Project is executed by ISPN (Instituto Sociedade, Populacão e Natureza), a Brazilian NGO, that has been implementing the SGP since its establishment in Brazil in 1995, acting as implementing partner of UNDP that is the GEF implementing organization. This arrangement means that the SGP National CoordinationTeam, that is composed of two persons: the Country Program Manager and administrative assistant is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the program. They are integrated in a team with the ISPN staff. This integration allows the ISPN staff to be involved in the implementation and supervision of the SGP grant projects; it also means that the technical team available to SGP (seven persons) is much larger than other similar projects, providing a good environment for strategic and technical discussions regarding the Project and its results and influence. The National Coordination Team maintains a close articulation with UNDP Country Office that supports ISPNon all matters related to project implementation and that is also an active member of the SGP National Steering Committee (NSC).

UNDP provides overall project oversight and takes responsibility for standard GEF project cycle management services beyond assistance and oversight of program design and negotiation, including project monitoring, periodic evaluations, troubleshooting, and reporting to the GEF.


Tag: Global Environment Facility fund Small Grants Programme Oversight Partnership Project and Programme management Civil Societies and NGOs

10.

3.2.Project implementation

In this section,an evaluation was undertaken on those aspects that are critical to the successful implementation of a project and the achievement of its objectives and results.In the first instance, the management of implementing agencies and project execution were assessed.

a.Adaptive management (changes to the project design and project outputs during implementation):

During this OP5, and with the SGP operating as an “upgrading” program, management arrangements and procedures worked well, according to key stakeholders’ opinions and evaluator’s observations.

The Project is implemented by UNDP with ISPN as implementing partner. The SGP National Coordination Teamis based at ISPN and handles technical and administrative relationships with partners and grantees. UNDP Country Office manages the transfers of funds to grantees and ISPN to cover the SGP NC expenses.

The coordination between ISPN, the SGP and the UNDP CO was good; the UNDP Program Officer is a member of the NSC and participates in most of the meetings and tasks and maintains a good idea of project activities, potential, problems, etc.

The Brazil SGP is well recognized and respected within UNDP CO and Federal Government.


Tag: Operational Efficiency Oversight Policies & Procedures Project and Programme management

11.

b.Partnership arrangements (with relevant stakeholders involved in the country/region):

This aspect evaluates the process of adaptation and transformation from the outputs generated by the Project. Stakeholders' participation in the project ´s implementation was considered, and the sustainability and effectiveness of the results achieved.

The main stakeholders of the Project are local communities from the prioritized biomes who design and implement small grants projects. GEF-SGP partners are associations, cooperatives and NGOs that represent or assist local communities from the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes.

The Cerrado Network (Rede Cerrado) and the Semi-Arid Articulation (ASA) organization are special stakeholders because they congregate hundreds of CBOs and NGOs present in these biomes. They are represented in the NSC and contribute to disseminate information about GEF-SGP.


Tag: Partnership Civil Societies and NGOs National Institutions Private Sector

12.

c.Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system was effective and provides adequate information for the project ´s indicators. ISPN ´s team involvement in the project’s implementation and supervision was considered appropriate for the involved stakeholders, including their technical quality as well as the flexibility for problem resolution.

The monitoring strategy on the objectives and expected results achievement, included organization ´s enhancement on behalf of ISPN, through training on several aspects such as planning, accountability, procurement guides, audits, among others.

On one hand, the inclusion of the M&E system from the beginning of execution, has favored supervising and the application of the necessary adjustments on time. On the other hand, ISPN ´s experience on community work and on the field, enhanced trust bonds and thus, ownership on behalf of the involved parties.


Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Oversight Quality Assurance Capacity Building

13.

d.Project Finance

The Terminal Evaluation assessed the key financial aspects of the project, including the scope of the planned and realized co-financing. Project cost and financing data were analyzed, including annual expenses. The variances between planned and realized expenditures were assessed.

The effectiveness was better than the average of GEF projects. The SGP monitored the co-financing reports of beneficiaries and other co-financing sources identified in the PRODOC. Management costs remained at levels like those of previous operations, and there were no criticisms of the costs of project coordination by the authorities or other organizations involved.

Sandra Cesilini -TE Final Report 33The previous table shows that the general level of co-financing at the time of the MTRtime was 46%, and at the time of the TE is 140%(GEF Agency/UNDP Grant not included).


Tag: Efficiency Global Environment Facility fund Small Grants Programme

14.

e.Monitoring and evaluation: design at entry and implementation

This aspect involves the quality and usefulness of the monitoring and evaluation system, analyzing the tools and mechanisms established to weigh the results of project ´simplementation ISPN ´s monitoring and training strategy, planning, accountability, procurement guide, audits, etc. were essential for the project ´s effectiveness.

The project board bi annual meetings were the main decision-making mechanisms used for adaptive management using the information provided for Steering Committees ´meetings. The participation was generally good, with consistent leadership by ISPN and the national program coordinator.

Project implementation reviews (PIRs) were completed on an annual basis (each July), reflecting the progress made by the end of June of the respective year long period. The evaluator found the PIRs to be sufficient regarding detail, and input was provided by the National Coordinator, the UNDP program officer and the UNDP-GEF regional technical advisor.


Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Oversight Quality Assurance

15.

f.UNDP and Execution Partner implementation / execution coordination, and operational issues

UNDP plays a distinguished role in leading civil society and a 25-year experience in SGP.

Its strategy in working with civil society for the project ´s presentation and supervision ensuring the quality of the supported projects.

The organization guarantees accountability and transparency and works on developing clear information for the Project ´s Steering Committee.

ISPN counts with highly trained staff with ability to articulate upwards with government and donors and downwards with civil society networks, fostering incidence in the addressed issues, makes organizations visible, contributes in creating awareness internationally and nationally on the importance of conserving biomes that are not usually seen as critical in Brazil, were the Amazons gets all the attention.


Tag: Coordination Operational Efficiency Awareness raising

16.

3.3. Project Results

3.3.Project Results Envisaged targets for the projects ‘objectives and results indicators were mostly exceeded.

Both Logical Framework and Framework based on results have been Highly Satisfactory (HS)for evaluating progress towards the objective and the envisaged results. Mid-term evaluation (September 2015) and 2016 Substantial Review made some adjustments in some indicators targets as follows:

  • Outcome 1: New indicator and target. Number of families in Caatinga and Cerrado generating income from marketing biodiversity products. New target: 5000 families.
  • Outcome 2: New target: it is reduced to 3000 the number of hectares under agro ecological management.

Tag: Agriculture Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Site Conservation / Preservation Water resources Poverty Alleviation Value Chain Capacity Building Civil Societies and NGOs Indigenous people Women and gilrs Youth

17.

b.Relevance

The Full-SizeProject of GEF ´s SGP 5th Operational Phase is relevant regarding the country ´s goals, the 2030 Agenda, the community objectives at local level and GEF ´s areas of intervention. The Project, which was intended to guarantee environmental global benefits through community initiatives as well as conservation actions and biodiversity sustainable use, and the maintenance of carbon stocks in the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes is relevant and innovative within these biomes. The Project is considered Relevant (R)according to the objectives of GEF ´s focal areas and priorities regarding environments and local, regional and national development.


Tag: Biodiversity Environment Policy Relevance National Regional Agenda 2030

18.

c.Effectiveness & Efficiency

It is considered that resources have been managed in a Highly Satisfactory(HS) way. ISPN' s committedco-funding has been executed adequately and is being recorded in the projects and program levels.

Counterpart funds (Satoyama Initiative), Amazon Fund and other funds were executed correctly and in due time, complementing GEF' s funds.

The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system was effective and provides adequate information for the project' s indicators. ISPN' s team involvement in the Project’s implementation and supervision was considered appropriate for the involved stakeholders, including their technical quality as well as the flexibility for problem resolution.

The Project' s outputs and outcomes are visible in the field as better agricultural practices, conservation and water management actions, agroforestry and silvo pastoral systems, new alternatives for sustainable production, equipment, installations, empowered organizations, publications, web sites, etc.

The envisaged objectives were achieved and, in some cases, even exceeded. In this sense, the Project's effectiveness is considered Highly Satisfactory(HS).


Tag: Agriculture Water resources Effectiveness Monitoring and Evaluation

19.

d.Country ownership

The Project is consistent with several National policies, agreements and plans among others, such as National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, National Program for Cerrado Biome Conservation and Unsustainable Use, Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Burning in the Cerrado biome, National Policy on Traditional Peoples and Communities, National Plan for Promotion of Sociobiodiversity Product Chains, Food Acquisition Program from Family Agriculture, Plan for deforestation Prevention and Control in Caatinga, National Action Program of Combat Desertification and to Mitigate the Effects of Drought, Climate Change Policy and National Plan on Climate Change.


Tag: Ownership

20.

e.Mainstreaming

The main concept that guided this section ´s evaluation was “Biodiversity mainstreaming is the process of embedding biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies and practices of key public and private actors that impact or rely on biodiversity, so that it is conserved and sustainably used both locally and globally”(op cit.page7).

Brazil ´s UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) from period 2007-2011 was taken into account during the project ´s first phase design. The UNDAF five prioritized expected results were derived from the 2005 Common Country Assessment (CCA) findings. The GEF-SGP Brazil Project has been designed to contribute to the Fifth UNDAF Result “Efficient use of natural resources to ensure equitable and environmentally sustainable economic development”. By targeting women ´s groups as well as traditional and indigenous communities, GEF SGP Brazil also contributes to the second UNDAF expected result “Gender, racial and ethnic inequalities reduced, taking into consideration the impact of territorial differences”. The main target beneficiaries of the GEF SGP are indigenous communities, small farmers and other traditional population such as afro-descendant, wild species collectors, artisans and Brazil nut and babaçu collectors that depend on ecosystem services for maintaining their livelihoods. GEF SPG Brazil strategy is also aligned with goal seven of the Millennium Development Goals on environmental sustainability, a UNDP priority in Brazil.


Tag: Biodiversity Ecosystem services Natural Resouce management Gender Equality MDGs Agenda 2030 SDG Integration National Institutions

21.

The synergy between Brazil's priorities and the international agenda can be seen in the convergence between the 28 strategic guidelines of the Brazilian Government’s Multi-Year Plan 2016-2019 (MYP 2016-2019) and the 17 SDGs. Consequently, the United Nations System in Brazil, along with its partners, has selected five priority areas for the next cycle of strategic planning. These are the same pillars as the 2030 Agenda: People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnerships (5 Ps). UNDP is working with SGP and the GoB in order to implement national environmental legislation, multilateral and international commitments, focused on biodiversity, desertification, chemicals, Montreal protocol and climate change, supporting the GoB in the implementation of an environmental regulatory framework and related policies that promote sustainable management of natural resources, effective ecosystem services, land use and land use change, recovery of degraded areas, as well as territorial and environmental management, by indigenous people, quilombolas and rural populations in order to improve their resilience to climate change, to reduce land degradation and also to guarantee their constitutional rights. By working with vulnerable groups, UNDP will promote their productive inclusion and access to markets, increasing their income from maintaining the standing forests. Special focus was placed on vulnerable areas and populations with low and medium HDI, especially North and Northeast rural poor and afro-descendant women, indigenous people, agro-extractivists and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, working more intensely with states and municipalities. A focus on reduction of inequalities and building resilience to shocks will be adopted across the portfolio, especially by promoting alliances between national, local and public-private institutions and UN agencies.

UNDP and the SGP are cooperating with national and subnational authorities, academia and civil society providing good practices and pilot experiences that could help in the design of public policies that have a gender sensitive and inter-sectorial approach, with a focus on the poorest and more vulnerable areas of Brazil. In this context, the project ´s results are considered to have made relevant  and sustainable contributions mainly in the results of the Project and the Sustainable Development Goals12.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Resilience building Biodiversity Ecosystem services Natural Resouce management Partnership Value Chain Coordination Agenda 2030 Indigenous people National Institutions Vulnerable Women and gilrs

22.

Moreover, the project ´s results are considered to have made relevant and sustainable contributions mainly related to Goal 1: No Poverty; Goal 2: Zero Hunger; Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being for People; Goal 4: QualityEducation; Goal 5: Gender Equality; Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation; 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth; Goal; Goal 10: Reducing Inequalities; Goal; Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production; Goal 13: Climate Action; Goal 15: Life on Land; Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; and Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals13

Progress was evaluated to assure the programmer’s achievements embedding biodiversity, gender and vulnerable groups (mainstreaming). These aspects were evaluated at participatory level, in different workshops. The evaluator observed this achievement during the II Lessons and Experiences Seminar of the PPP-ECOS in Cerrado and Caatinga held between May 8th and May 10th. (See Annex 4) to generalize the ownership of biodiversity conservation, fight against land degradation, climate change impact at local level and human rights approach sustained by UNDP. This was achieved through various activities, such as beneficiaries training, the development of guidelines and other important training pieces, and communication campaigns at local and regional level, among others. Following, the cited documents“most apparent win-win programs involve trade-offs between desired conservation outcomes and desired social outcomes” (op cit.page 8).


Tag: Agriculture Forestry Biodiversity Communication Knowledge management SDG monitoring and reporting

23.

Another fundamental aspect that has a profound relevance on sustainability and long-term impacts is the debate at national and subnational level of regulations. Some of them suggested from SGP experiences, were incorporated to protect traditional crops and native flora and fauna,in accordance with the PRODOC guidelines.

Different researchers also worked on payment for ecosystem services (PES)as was pointed out in the intermediate evaluation through the professionals; Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+); environmental certification; and climate change adaptation.

The communication actions carried out to mainstream the achievements stands out as a successful strategy in terms of community ownership and involvement in conservation. Social communication campaigns focused to consumers and public opinion helped in consciousness creation. The community has incorporated very important conservation practices for future generations. It is key that this knowledge is appropriate and permanently installed in the community, in order to guarantee its sustainability.


Tag: Ecosystem services Sustainability Communication

24.

f.Sustainability

The Project ´s Sustainability is considered likely (L) given the moderates financial risks, and low socioeconomic, institutional and governance, and environmental risks to maintain long-term program results.

It is critical to develop and strengthen links with government agencies in order to ensure the project’s continuation and it ´s results ´ sustainability.

Sustainability could be achieved through diverse funding sources and expects to form part of GEF 7 with its current institutional partners.

Youth ´s participation in the Project and the construction of capacities within this group; jointly with the reduction of migration to the city, are aspects that substantially contribute to each project ´s sustainability and in the sustainability of the whole program.

UNDP ´s support implies sustainability for the involved organizations through making their problems in threating contexts visible.


Tag: Sustainability Capacity Building

25.

Progress to mainstream Project’s results and enhance its ownership has been evaluated. This was accomplished through several activities such as training for beneficiary organizations, articulation with experts, universities and some government institutions. This is a critical aspect with strong relevance on the Project’s sustainability and long-term impacts. Some sanitary norms in the honey industry were updated, although it is necessary to continue working on the design and approval of a regulation for native honey. Also, micro funding mechanisms were implemented such as revolving funds, that enable other families own the Project’s results and becomes part of this initiative. Besides the revolving funds, the Swiss Embassy has fostered access to the Innovation Support Fund (FAIS).

Communication actions have also contributed to the results dissemination and to the communities’ involvement.

The community has incorporated conservation practices which are very important for future generations. It is crucial for these lessons are owned and installed on a permanent basis within communities to ensure their sustainability.


Tag: Sustainability Ownership

26.

g.Impact

The TE assessed the achievement of impacts or progress towards the achievement of future impacts, since it is usually difficult to appreciate these withinthe lifetime of each project. Particularly, the reviewed aspects were: i) verifiable improvement in the ecological status of the intervened biomes, ii) verifiable reduction of stress on their ecological systems. For this purpose, two dimensions were analyzed: i) the implementation of indicators on environmental stress reduction or the improvement of the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes ´ ecological status; and ii) if any adjustments have been made on assumptions and risks considered during the design stage in order to contribute to the objective ´s achievement.

Even if agricultural expansion has had a positive impact on the region ´s economy, its negative effect on the environment and local communities are substantial(such as deforestation, soil loss, landscape fragmentation, water sources pollution and rural families ´ displacements). This could result in ecological stress and impacts such as biodiversity loss, among others.


Tag: Biodiversity Ecosystem services Natural Resouce management Impact

27.

In addition to their territory downsizing, communities face water scarcity, soil erosion and impoverishment, which are the main reasons for rural depopulation. These are critical aspects for the project ´ssustainability and long-term impacts.

During the project ´s implementation, reports and surveys were undertaken, and maps were developed in order to visualize each project situation. In order to complete the analysis, stakeholder ´s opinion was included to inquire on their perspective on the Project and explore (qualitatively) on the impacts on the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes. Nevertheless, there was not a specific monitoring, with quantitative and methodic approach, with an experimental method, that can desegregate results with and without the program, in order to measure the scope of those impacts, which are referred on the recommendations.

Evidence gathered during the TE:

Even if improvement verification systems were not implemented on the biomes ´ ecological status, nor indicators on stress reduction of ecological systems that have been intervened; interviewees generally concur in that “the impact is significant and there is evidence on the Project contributing to progress on environmental stress reduction and the improvement on the ecological status”. On the other hand, there are no evidences of changes in the assumptions and risks considered in the Program’sdesign nor during its implementation.


Tag: Ecosystem services Impact Rural

28.

During the interviews to stakeholders, almost unanimity, positive impacts were related to social dimensions approached in the initiatives, such as: i) an enhancement of the organizational and associative capacities of the local communities and their organizations, ii) a progress in productive best practices and resources management (added value, marketing), and iii) a reversion in internal migration processes (mainly youth) towards the main urban centers, including the return of rural families due to the new opportunities for generation income in a relatively stable manner and better life quality to those in the urban centers.

Relevant examples, which point out the lack of quantitative indicators, are Central do Cerrado ´s activities. Even if they achieved to incorporate 60.000 hectares under sustainable management practices (with recorded best practices), which would imply a reduction in the ecological system ´s stress for this biome, with the exception of the peasants work on land degradation, but is not developed with biodiversity indicators.


Tag: Impact Rural Urban Capacity Building

29.

Another example comes from analyzing the expected positive impacts on water sources conservation by local communities, the logging and deforestation reduction achieved through alternative extractive actions, or the reduction of drought induced stress by catching and storing rain water for production (in tanks). This will require specific quantitative indicators design and implementation to identify and measure of the contributions to conservation through the ecological system ´s sustainable use.


Tag: Natural Resouce management Water resources Impact

30.

At the moment of PIR 2017, the envisaged gender analysis had not taken place, but different studies are being carried out in 2018. Nevertheless, some achievements related to gender equity promotion and women empowerment were identified in the PIR15.

Gender is a cross-cutting issue in SGP Brazil (PPP-ECOS), almost 30% of the grants have specific actions aimed at gender equality and empowering women, and 13 grants are managed by women and focus exclusively on this constituency.

According to PIR 2017 report, the COMDEKS Programme in Brazil completed its activities, and as an additional result of the supported initiatives, the first Women's Association was established in the landscape. With the remaining funds of BRA/COMDEKS/14/01, the women association's headquarter was built. Other women groups were also strengthened through BRA/COMDEKS/14/05 by establishing a facility for local fruits processing into preserves and marmalades. It is one of the few initiatives in the region that is completely run by women and aiming to improve their livelihoods by generating income. All grantees discussed gender issues through capacity development activities and women participation was guaranteed in every COMDEKS activity, since it is still a challenge in the landscape.


Tag: Food Security Rural development Gender Equality Women's Empowerment Poverty Alleviation Value Chain Capacity Building Technical Support Civil Societies and NGOs Indigenous people Youth

Recommendations
1

While the SGP regional partners (such as APA-TO, CAV, CAA, MIQCB, ASSEMA, CTI and others) are providing long-term support to the CBOs in their areas, it is important for the SGP to develop strategies with these organizations to keep supporting SGP-supported CBOs beyond the SGP grant projects. In other words, local groups will not become autonomous and sustainable over a period of two years with a small grant; longer processes are needed. Hence the importance of defining these strategies and rely on the work of strategic partners beyond the duration of the grants.

2

Reinforce the idea that processes require greater time (even if SGP guides restrict those times).

3

Since long term actions are needed to reinforce local group’s autonomy and sustainability processes, it is recommended to define strategies to delegate work on the strategic partners beyond SGP funding.

4

The SGP agro-ecological work is very good and very important and it is very focused on water issues and plant production. However, the MTR perceives much less emphasis on including cattle rising in the agro-ecological approach. Livestock production is the activity that after agribusiness occupies more land and causes more degradation of the Cerrado. Therefore, a more explicit emphasis on cattle raising issues is recommended, for example through pilot grant projects helping peasants to evolve from extensive ranching to stabled systems articulated with release of land for natural regeneration of the Cerrado. Discussion on organic or ecological production effects on families´ income should be deepened since there is no consensus on these issues on behalf of the implementing entities.

5

Projects supported by the SGP include women and youth. However, the logical framework has no targets or indicators on this issue and not obvious unbundled records of activities, participation and impact on these groups. The SGP should advance in this respect, at least at the record level; merely recording information on these aspects draws attention to them and create space for more explicit activities about them.

6

Elaborate management tools for working with vulnerable groups: where indicators could contain information such as “leadership change in organizations” and include a gender and intercultural analysis to know how to proceed in each ethnic group given the difficulties that often exist in communities to adapt this gender approach to their own cultural heritage

7

The SGP should continue supporting efforts to simplify regulations for marketing family agriculture and biodiversity products with basic processing (pulps, jellies, preserves, flour, etc.). Basic processing adds value to products and much needed income to rural families; unnecessary or excessive regulations blocking access to markets need to be adjusted or removed.

8

There seems to be many opportunities to tenders, sales, projects, funding, etc. for CBOs and local organizations from different federal, state and municipal entities, but the information about this seems to be fragmented and scattered. The SGP should analyze the possibility of supporting efforts to perform clearing-house actions to organize the information and make it more accessible for Cerrado and Caatinga organizations. Capitalize GEF 7 opportunity and the inclusion of new countries to share replicable experiences and lessons learnt considering SGP Brazil seniority and success, thus, promoting support for its continuation among civil society and government. Program promotion and expand and strengthen links with government strategic partners for supporting and fostering local communities and their initiatives. Attention should be drawn on the bottom-up approach enables an implementing lesson that cannot be accomplished through government levels.

1. Recommendation:

While the SGP regional partners (such as APA-TO, CAV, CAA, MIQCB, ASSEMA, CTI and others) are providing long-term support to the CBOs in their areas, it is important for the SGP to develop strategies with these organizations to keep supporting SGP-supported CBOs beyond the SGP grant projects. In other words, local groups will not become autonomous and sustainable over a period of two years with a small grant; longer processes are needed. Hence the importance of defining these strategies and rely on the work of strategic partners beyond the duration of the grants.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/22] [Last Updated: 2020/12/27]

ISPN totally agrees and will continue to do so.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. This is a constant challenge and the NHI will continue to put effort on that. A key action is to identify other sources to support these strategic projects in a longer term, as well as matching with co-financing in order to amplify project's effect and duration. Example: with APA-TO we supported a submission of a bigger project to the Amazon Fund and with CTI a bigger project for USAID - both promoting longer processes of support for CBOs through regional NGOs.
[Added: 2018/11/22]
ISPN 2020/07 Overdue-Initiated
2. Recommendation:

Reinforce the idea that processes require greater time (even if SGP guides restrict those times).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/22] [Last Updated: 2020/12/27]

ISPN totally agrees and will continue to do all that is possible to guarantee that a CBO can implement its project in a realistic time-frame considering SGP Operational Procedures.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
. Continue to amend MOAs when needed, 2. Provide additional support to CBOs even after project conclusion. 3. Help CBOs to seek for co-financing to allow a longer period of project implementation.
[Added: 2018/11/22]
ISPN 2020/07 Overdue-Initiated Under development and to be continued in the next FSP during OP7
3. Recommendation:

Since long term actions are needed to reinforce local group’s autonomy and sustainability processes, it is recommended to define strategies to delegate work on the strategic partners beyond SGP funding.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/22] [Last Updated: 2020/12/27]

ISPN agrees and will continue to do so.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
- As mentioned in recommendations 1 and 2. - SGP Brazil seeks to identify regional and strategic NGOs and/or CBOs in order to support local communities and promote local and regional network to strengthen SGP supported actions.
[Added: 2018/11/22] [Last Updated: 2019/07/23]
ispn 2020/07 Overdue-Initiated History
4. Recommendation:

The SGP agro-ecological work is very good and very important and it is very focused on water issues and plant production. However, the MTR perceives much less emphasis on including cattle rising in the agro-ecological approach. Livestock production is the activity that after agribusiness occupies more land and causes more degradation of the Cerrado. Therefore, a more explicit emphasis on cattle raising issues is recommended, for example through pilot grant projects helping peasants to evolve from extensive ranching to stabled systems articulated with release of land for natural regeneration of the Cerrado. Discussion on organic or ecological production effects on families´ income should be deepened since there is no consensus on these issues on behalf of the implementing entities.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/22] [Last Updated: 2020/12/27]

ISPN agrees that this is an essential issue for agroecology in the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. The work with cattle raising will be supported in the new FSP of the Seventh Phase of the SGP Brazil
[Added: 2018/11/22]
ISPN 2020/07 Overdue-Initiated
5. Recommendation:

Projects supported by the SGP include women and youth. However, the logical framework has no targets or indicators on this issue and not obvious unbundled records of activities, participation and impact on these groups. The SGP should advance in this respect, at least at the record level; merely recording information on these aspects draws attention to them and create space for more explicit activities about them.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/22] [Last Updated: 2020/12/27]

ISPN totally agrees with that.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
In the next FSP during OP7 this will be fully implemented since the beginning of the project through specific indicators.
[Added: 2018/11/22]
ISPN 2020/06 Overdue-Initiated
6. Recommendation:

Elaborate management tools for working with vulnerable groups: where indicators could contain information such as “leadership change in organizations” and include a gender and intercultural analysis to know how to proceed in each ethnic group given the difficulties that often exist in communities to adapt this gender approach to their own cultural heritage

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/22] [Last Updated: 2020/12/27]

This is a good recommendation, however it seems a little difficult to implement

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
ISPN can investigate a way to address to this recommendation during OP7.
[Added: 2018/11/22]
ISPN 2020/06 Overdue-Initiated
7. Recommendation:

The SGP should continue supporting efforts to simplify regulations for marketing family agriculture and biodiversity products with basic processing (pulps, jellies, preserves, flour, etc.). Basic processing adds value to products and much needed income to rural families; unnecessary or excessive regulations blocking access to markets need to be adjusted or removed.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/22] [Last Updated: 2020/12/27]

ISPN agrees and will continue to do so.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
During OP7, SGP will continue to support grants focused o processing and adding value to biodiversity; 2. ISPN is increasing its advocacy actions in order to have a greater impact in adjusting the regulatory framework to benefit local communities and IPs through a co-financing project supported by CLUA.
[Added: 2018/11/22]
ISPN 2020/07 Overdue-Initiated
8. Recommendation:

There seems to be many opportunities to tenders, sales, projects, funding, etc. for CBOs and local organizations from different federal, state and municipal entities, but the information about this seems to be fragmented and scattered. The SGP should analyze the possibility of supporting efforts to perform clearing-house actions to organize the information and make it more accessible for Cerrado and Caatinga organizations. Capitalize GEF 7 opportunity and the inclusion of new countries to share replicable experiences and lessons learnt considering SGP Brazil seniority and success, thus, promoting support for its continuation among civil society and government. Program promotion and expand and strengthen links with government strategic partners for supporting and fostering local communities and their initiatives. Attention should be drawn on the bottom-up approach enables an implementing lesson that cannot be accomplished through government levels.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/22] [Last Updated: 2020/12/27]

ISPN agrees and will continue to do so.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
- SGP will continue to organize information through its knowledge management material during OP7, such as what we have been doing in the previous phases: a) manual facility construction for CBO's for NTFP and agroecological products; b) manual for project elaboration; c) administrative manual for small grants management, etc.
[Added: 2018/11/22]
ISPN 2020/07 Overdue-Initiated

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