PIR 2013 · Web viewCon Bolivia y Argentina la comunicación es directamente con el PF. Debido a las múltiples obligaciones del PF de Bolivia, en ocasiones la comunicación se ve

document.doc

UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 13(1 July 2012to 30 June 2013)

1. PROJECT GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Title: Sustainable Forest Management in the Transboundary Gran Chaco Americano Ecosystem

Implementing Agencies:

UNEP (lead)UNDP

Executing Partners: Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development (Argentina)Ministry of Water and Environment (Bolivia)Secretariat for Environment (Paraguay).General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (GS/OAS)

Project Contacts:UNEP Task Manager

Name: Robert ErathEmail: [email protected] of PIR revision: August 2013

Regional Project Coordinator1

Name Marco FloresEmail [email protected]

Argentina Bolivia ParaguayNational Project Manager / Coordinator2

Name Alberto MaldonadoEmail [email protected]

Name Luis ChávezEmail [email protected]

Name Karem ElizecheEmail [email protected]

Government GEF Operational Focal Point3

NameEmail

NameEmail

NameEmail

Project Executing Partners 4(Government Focal Point)

NameEmail

NameEmail

NameEmail

OAS/GS Name Enrique BelloEmail [email protected]

Other partners 5

UNDP RTA Name

1Is the person managing the day to day operations of the regional components of the project and oversight and guidance of the entire project.2Is the person managing the day to day operations of the project within each country3Is the government representative in the country designed as the GEF operation focal point for projects under implementation in one country. Not necessary for regional or global projects4 Is the representative of the executing agency (in GEF terminology). This would be Government (for UNDP NIM execution) or an official from the Executing Agency (in this case OEA for the UNEP components) 5For jointly implemented projects, a representative of the other GEF Implementing Agency working on project implementation for jointly implemented projects.

1

document.doc

EmailDate of PIR revision

Geographical Scope: Regional with national components

Participating Countries:

Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay

GEF project ID: 2505 IMIS number*6: GFL-2328-2713-4B47Focal Area(s): LD-BD-CCM GEF OP #:GEF Strategic Priority/Objective:

SFM: SP2,SP3 and SP7

GEF approval date*:

29 September 2009

UNEP approval date: 01 September 2010 Date of first disbursement*:

08 September 2010

UNDP approval date:Ar: 14 Jan 2011Bo: 22 Dec 2011Py: 04 April 2011

Actual start date7: Planned duration: 60 months

Intended completion date*:

August 2015 Actual or Expected completion date:

Project Type: FSP GEF Allocation*: USD 3,249,800 UNEPUSD 3,659,291 UNDP

PPG GEF cost*: USD 500,000 PPG co-financing*:

USD 645,300

Expected MSP/FSP Co-financing*:

USD 18,370,852 Total Cost*: USD 25,779,943

Mid-term review/eval. (planned date):

January 2013 Terminal Evaluation (actual date):

n/a

Mid-term review/eval.(actual date): No. of revisions*: No

Date of last Steering Committee meeting:

February 2013 Date of last Revision*:

n/a

Disbursement as of 30 June 2013*:

USD1,334,397.60 Date of financial closure*:

n/a

Date of Completion8*: n/a

Actual expenditures reported as of 30 June 20139:

USD544,050.60

Total co-financing realized as of 30 June 201310:

$4,200,000 Actual expenditures entered in IMIS as of 30 June 2013*:

USD419,127.46

6 Fields with an * sign (in yellow) should be filled by the Fund Management Officer7Only if different from first disbursement date, e.g., in cases were a long time elapsed between first disbursement and recruitment of project manager.8 If there was a “Completion Revision” please use the date of the revision.9 Information to be provided by Executing Agency/Project Manager10 Projects which completed mid-term reviews/evaluations or terminal evaluations during FY11 should attach the completed co-financing table as per GEF format. See Annex 1. Detail in co-financing report attached to PIR. This report is to be handled as one comprehensive report of non-GEF investments and kept updated by the PMU.

2

document.doc

Leveraged financing:11

Website address of the project

Project summary12 The “Gran Chaco Americano” biome covers approximately 1,000,000 Km² in the central part of South America. It encompasses the central-north region of Argentina (comprising 53% of the total area of the Gran Chaco and 22% of the country’s surface area), western Paraguay (25% of the Gran Chaco area and 60% of the country’s area), and the southeast region of Bolivia (14% of the Gran Chaco area and 13% of the country’s area). The Gran Chaco represents the largest dry forest ecosystem in South America. Its identified biodiversity includes 3,400 plant species of which 400 are endemic, 150 mammal species 12 of which are endemic, almost 500 species of birds, 186 amphibious species, 297 reptiles.However, this globally significant ecosystem is being threatened and the area faces important socioeconomic and environmental challenges. The major threats identified are: i) deforestation for timber, charcoal production and agricultural conversion, ii) degradation of grasslands from inadequate grazing management practices; iii) fires, iv) overdependence on forest exploitation and livestock production, v) unsustainable management of water resources. The degradation of the forest ecosystems, particularly through deforestation and land conversion, has led to an increased pressure on biodiversity and to a rapid and alarming degradation of the soil resources in the region. UNEP and UNDP and the Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development of Argentina, the Vice-ministry of Watersheds and Water Resources of Bolivia and the Environment Secretariat of Paraguay propose a GEF Full Size project with the objective to reverse land degradation trends in the Gran Chaco through supporting sustainable land management in the productive landscape. The project will complement the efforts of the three countries under the Sub-Regional Action Program for Sustainable Development of the Gran Chaco by: i) mainstreaming SFM and SLM principles into policy and legal frameworks, ii) capacity building at regional, provincial/departmental and local levels, iii) developing tools and instruments to mainstream SFM and SLM concerns into regional land use planning and decision making processes, iv) on-the-ground investments and increased stakeholder participation to implement sustainable management practices to reduce land degradation and combat desertification contributing to poverty alleviation.The project expects to overcome the most important barriers by building upon the collective commitment of the three Governments to work together around the existing framework of the SRAP; it is also fully consistent with the National Action Programs to combat desertification of the three countries so as to create the conditions for the sustainable development of the local population living in the area. The project fits with the SFM area strategy specifically SP2, SP3 and SP7 and will generate environmental benefits: reduced rates of deforestation, increased regeneration of native vegetation and strengthening of conservation areas and biological corridors, contributing to recovery of ecosystem functions and services, namely soil fertility, availability of water resources, CO2 balance, habitats and plant and animal species, ecosystem carrying capacities and consequently recovery of ecosystem resilience. Achievement of environmental benefits will contribute to reduce poverty and improved livelihoods.

Project status FY1213 Following the inception phase of the project, activities centered on the implementation of activities oriented towards defining the Vision and development policy framework for the Gran Chaco Americano region, and the updating of baseline information. In the institutional strengthening component, on-going activities related to the development and implementation of a relational database and GIS platform for the Chaco region, including the procurement of hardware and software and contracting of specialized consultancies at the national and regional level. Also within this component, training workshops were conducted in Bolivia and Argentina on tools and methodologies for assessing land degradation in arid areas (LADA). The workshops, conducted with the participation of technical staff of the Secretariat for Environment of Argentina, seeks to build in-country capacities, and to incorporate LADA as a land degradation monitoring tool at the

11 See above note on co-financing12 As in project document13 Please add additional lines to keep prior year implementation status (if any)

3

document.doc

regional level.Currently in process the formulation of terms of reference and initiation of contracting processes for the formulation of a regional strategy to strengthen early warning systems for extreme climatic events and widespread fires, and the systematization of traditional sustainable technologies for land and forest management. Overall, project implementation is progressing with significant delays, due primarily to the pending initiation or hold-up of national-level activities, the lack of consolidation of the technical team (contracting of national coordinator in Paraguay and administrative assistants still pending), and changes in national authorities and technical counterparts.

Project status FY1314 Project activities delayed in relation to original timetable, due primarily to political/institutional changes in participating countries. Despite the difficulties, three important aspects were achieved during the reporting period, which helped consolidate the institutional and technical framework for project implementation: i) the resumption of activities in Paraguay, including the contracting of the National Coordinator and Administrative Assistant; ii) the technical workshop held in Asuncion in March 2013 (with the participation of the technical units of the three countries and implementing/executing agencies), which helped revamped project activities and formulate an action plan with agreed-upon milestones; and iii ) the consolidation of the technical team and country offices. These three aspects were key factors in obtaining project results and progress in specific components, as summarized below:

1. Institutional strengthening: project offices implemented (Santiago del Estero, Yacuiba, and Asunción), staffed, and in operation in the three participating countries; coordination mechanisms established with the Buenos Aires-based PCU. Training activities conducted on LADA methodology, with the participation of representatives of the three countries (?). Important regional consultancies have been concluded or are in execution. These include the GIS consultancy, with important inputs and follow-up actions from participating countries, biodiversity, land use and land use changes, and environmental services. The consultancy on the legal and regulatory framework is in its ninth month of execution and is expected to be completed soon. In progress the call for the consultancy on the identification and systematization of technologies, and the preparation of terms of reference for the consultancy on Vision and Policy for the Chaco region, to be considered at the next Steering Committee Meeting.

On—going coordination activities with Argentina´s National Fire plan, for the preparation and implementation of a regional workshop on the Chaco region. Similarly, a workshop on land use planning is being prepared in coordination with government actors, to be conducted in the second semester of 2013. The workshop will seek the exchange of information and experiences on land use planning, and help delineate a land use strategy for the Chaco region.

2. Field Application of SLM and SFM protocols. In Argentina, more than 90,000 hectares incorporated as protected area in the Chaco region as a result of law 26331. Agreements signed with Chaco provinces for the preparation of the corresponding management plans. Progress in the collection and analysis of carbon baseline information. Activities being conducted by the University of Formosa, in coordination with the PCU, through an agreement signed with the GS/OAS. Component activities being implemented in the established pilot sites of the four participating provinces. In Bolivia, institutional arrangements were finalized for project implementation. Terms of reference defined and arrangements underway for the consultancy on carbon baseline measurement, expected to be launched during the third quarter of 2013. In Paraguay, terms of reference being reviewed and adjusted, in preparation for the call for consultancies. Project and component activities being coordinated with other SEAM actions in the Chaco region.

3. Exit Strategy (extent and scope of the project) to be implemented in 2015.

4. Project management: PCU fully staffed and equipped to conduct and support project implementation. RC undertaking frequent trips to participating countries, meeting National Coordinators and Focal Points for coordination and follow-up of project

14 Progress made during current reporting period (one paragraph stating key changes since previous reporting period)

4

document.doc

activities, participating in field missions, technical workshops, and as guest participant in meetings related to the Chaco area or Chaco project themes (e.g. PES project in Argentina, Climate Change Vulnerability Study in the American Chaco, Cordillera Foundation, Chaco NETWORKS, FFEM project, etc.). Improved project visibility through the development and updating of project´s website, preparation and dissemination of brochures and other promotional materials. In May 2013, the project management team held a technical workshop for the review of the project´s logical framework and indicators, establish format and procedures the preparation of project reports, etc.

5. Monitoring and Evaluation: Project Steering Committee re-scheduled for October 2013. On-going monitoring through the preparation of monthly and quarterly project reports, with inputs from participating countries. The review and updating of the Project´s baseline information has been completed. A consultancy call for the updating of M&E system is scheduled for July.

Planned contribution to strategic priorities/ targets15

As per focal area indicators captured in logframe indicators (mainly objective level) ie METT; CO2; hectares under SLM SP2 “Strengthened terrestrial protected area networks”, SP3 “Management of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) as a means to protect carbon stocks and reduce GHG emissions (crosscutting)” and SP7Support to sustainable management of forest in productive landscapes (same as LD#2)

The project fits with the SFM area strategy specifically SP2 “Strengthened terrestrial protected area networks”, SP3 “Management of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) as a means to protect carbon stocks and reduce GHG emissions (crosscutting BD/LD)” and SP7 "Supporting Sustainable Forest Management in Production Landscapes". As such, the project draws resources from countries´ RAF allocations in biodiversity and climate change plus additional resources from the LD focal area. The project contributes to SP2 through the establishment and strengthening of both public and private conservation areas that are part of biological corridors within the demonstration sites selected for project intervention. The project contributes to SP3 by means of technical assistance for policy formulation, support for institutional and technical capacity to implement strategies and policies, development and implementation of policy frameworks to slow the drivers of undesirable land-use changes, and working with local communities to support land use practices that avoid and reduce emissions and sequester carbon. The project will concentrate work at the boundaries between forest with global biodiversity value and other uses such as agriculture. The project also contributes to the outcomes of SP7 through the strengthening of policies, legislation and institutions so that forests and their associated biodiversity are integrated into land management at the landscape level (e.g. strengthening land-use planning and monitoring of forest and tree resources); developing and implementing strategies to avoid the degradation of forest margins and forest fragments; and projects that replicate successful SLM and SFM practices in the wider landscape to restore the integrity of forest ecosystems. The project area also fits with the previously mentioned regional priorities in the strategic program in terms of "margins and buffer zones of the South American Chaco" humid forests.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE

15 For Full Size Projects this information is found in the front page of the project Executive Summary; for Medium-Sized Projects the information appears in the MSP brief cover page.

5

document.doc

State the global environmental objective(s) of the project16

The objective of this 5 year project is to reverse land degradation trends in the Gran Chaco through supporting sustainable land management in the productive landscape. To achieve this objective, the project will support activities through the implementation of the following four components: (1) Institutional strengthening, (2) Field application of SFM and SLM protocols, (3) Project exit strategy (extension and outreach after project termination date), and (4) Project management. The overall environmental project benefits will be reduced rates of deforestation, increased regeneration of native vegetation and strengthening of conservation areas and biological corridors, contributing to recovery of ecosystem functions and services, namely soil fertility, availability of water resources, CO2 balance, habitats and plant and animal species, ecosystem carrying capacities and consequently recovery of ecosystem resilience. Achievement of environmental benefits will contribute to reduce poverty and improved livelihoods.

Please provide a narrative of progress made towards meeting the project objective(s). Describe any significant environmental or other changes attributable to project implementation. Also, please discuss any major challenges to meet the objectives or specific project outcomes (not more than 300 words)

FY12Project initial activities have made progress in establishing the appropriate institutional framework for transboundary cooperation. This includes the designation of the Regional Coordinator and Project support staff, and the contracting of National Coordinators and Technical/Administrative support in each country (albeit partially completed). An inception workshop conducted in 2011 helped define project implementation plan, institutional arrangements, and annual procurement schedule (POA). The project´s first Steering Committee Meeting took place in March 2012. The meeting provided an opportunity to review progress to date, discuss communication lines, and assess proposed changes to the annual operating plan and corresponding budget revision.

FY13

Project activities delayed due to political/institutional changes in participating countries. Albeit the difficulties, progress obtained in institutional strengthening activities, particularly in the consolidation of the technical team at the regional and national level, the planning and implementation of training workshops, and the completion and/or initiation of key regional consultancies, including legal/regulatory framework, land use and land use changes, GIS development, and carbon baseline identification in selected pilot sites. Efforts underway to strengthen interinstitutional coordination mechanisms and increase awareness of local and regional stakeholders on land degradation issues, seeking the implementation of sustainable forest and land management practices.

Please provide a narrative of progress towards the stated GEF Strategic Priorities and Targets if identified in project document 17(not more than 200 words)

FY12The Chaco project has significant potential to contribute to GEF Strategic Priorities and Targets. However, the project has not been able to identify substantive progress as most of the activities are yet to be commenced, or are in very initial stages of implementation. Limited progress reached in building institutional capacity, with the implementation of land degradation assessment workshops.

FY13In Argentina, more than 90,000 hectares of land were incorporated as protected area in the Chaco region as a result of law 26331, contributing to SP2 “Strengthened Protected Area Networks”. Land degradation workshops were conducted and coordination mechanisms put in place with local stakeholders, strengthening institutional and technical capacities and local communities’ awareness and participation in sustainable land use management practices (SP3). Consultancy underway for the analysis of the legal/regulatory framework in support of efforts to reduce land degradation in production landscapes (SP7).

16 Or immediate project objective17 Projects that did not include these in original design are encouraged to the extent possible to retrofit specific targets.

6

document.doc

3. RATING PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND RISK

Based on inputs by the Project Managerthe UNEP Task Manager18will make an overall assessment and provide ratings of:(i) Progress towards achieving the project objective(s)- see section 3.1(ii) Implementation progress – see section 3.2Section 3.3 on Risk should be first completed by the Project Manager. The UNEP Task Manager will subsequently enter his/her own ratings in the appropriate column.

3.1 Progress towards achieving the project objective (s)

Project objective and Outcomes

Description of indicator19

Baseline level20

Mid-term target21

End-of-project target

Level at 30 June 2012 Level at 30 June 2013 Rating 22

To reverse land degradation trends in the Gran Chaco through supporting sustainable land management in the productive landscape

Argentina SFM and SLM practices adopted throughout 250,000 hectares in 4 demonstration

sites and demonstration effects on 300,000 hectares by PY5, thereby reducing land degradation, conserving biodiversity and increasing carbon sequestration.

The surface areas of biological corridors between Protected Areas located in demonstration sites increase by 100,000 additional hectares managed under conservation status and leading to improved connectivity.

0.5 tons C/hectare/year of additional carbon sequestered on project demonstration sites as a result of adoption of SFM and SLM practices (incremental amount of sequestration to be confirmed in PY1 after completion of baseline studies).

Improved income of 1,350 producers and their families and an additional potential 1,000 through demonstration effects by PY5 (percentage of increase in income to be estimated in PY1 after completion of baseline studies)

N/A

Bolivia SFM and SLM practices adopted throughout 200,000 hectares in 4 demonstration




Improved income of 2,436 producers and their families and an additional potential 1,000 through demonstration effects by PY5 (percentage of increase in income to be estimated in PY1 after completion of baseline studies)

N/A

18 For joint projects and where applicable ratings should also be discussed with the Task Manager of co-implementing agency.19 Add rows if your project has more than 3 key indicators per objective or outcome.20 Depending on selected indicator, quantitative or qualitative baseline levels and targets could be used (see Glossary included as Annex 1). 21 Many projects did not identify Mid-term targets at the design stage therefore this column should only be filled if relevant.22 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU). See Annex 2 which contains GEF definitions.

7

document.docProject objective and Outcomes

Description of indicator

Baseline level Mid-term target End-of-project target

Level at 30 June 2012 Level at 30 June 2013 Rating

Paraguay SFM and SLM practices adopted throughout 50,000 hectares in 4 demonstration




Improved income of 800 producers and their families and an additional potential 2,000 through demonstration effects by PY5 (percentage of increase in income to be estimated in PY1 after completion of baseline studies)

N/A

Outcome 1.1: Institutional capacities have been strengthened at regional, national and local levels to formulate and apply normative frameworks and practices available for SFM and SLM (with increased budgetary allocations or investments), taking into consideration climate change and biodiversity conservation variables

RegionalRegional vision of the Gran Chaco adopted by the Tri-national Commission

No current agreed common vision by the three countries

By 2012 Regional Vision for the Gran Chaco adopted

Agreed terms of reference. Consultancy contracting in process. Implementation schedule to be reprogrammed.

Convocatoria de consultoria lanzada. Calendario de ejecucion a ser reprogramado.

Consultancy process concluded but consultant resigned due to personal reasons. Revised timetable to be discussed and approved at next SCM (October 2013).

Llamado a consultoría concluido pero consultor presentó renuncia por motivos personales. Calendario de ejecución a ser reprogramado y definido en reunión de CD en octubre 2013

HU

Regional Development Policy for the Gran Chaco adopted by the Tri-national Commission

No current agreed policy by the three countries

By 2012 Regional Policy for the Gran Chaco

Agreed terms of reference. Consultancy contracting in process. Implementation schedule to be reprogrammed.

Convocatoria de consultoria lanzada Calendario de ejecucion a ser reprogramado

Consultancy process concluded but consultant resigned due to personal reasons. Revised timetable to be discussed and approved at next SCM (October 2013).

Llamado a consultoría concluído pero consultor presentó renuncia por motivos personales. Calendario de ejecución a ser reprogramado y definido en reunión de CD en octubre 2013

HU

8





NationalChaco SRAP Office incorporated into the institutional organization and budget allocated

By 2011 SRAP Offices have been incorporated into institutional organization charts, staff and budget allocated

SRAP office incorporated and budget allocated in Argentina. Budget allocated in Paraguay, pending activities in Bolivia.

Oficina campo Argentina incorporada con presupuesto asignado. Paraguay con presupuesto asignado. Bolivia sin oficina ni presupuesto.

SRAP offices installed and operating in Argentina (Santiago del Estero), Bolivia (Yacuiba) and Paraguay (Asunción)

Oficinas de campo instaladas y en operación en Argentina (Santiago del Estero), Bolivia (Yacuiba) y Paraguay (Asunción)

S

Number of legal, technical and financial instruments identified, designed, validated and adopted for application of SLM and SFM

Lack of specific policy and legal framework for the Gran Chaco. Lack of harmonization between existing policy and legal instruments.

By 2015 legal instruments have been completed and harmonized at national and regional levels

In Argentina, consultancy (1.1.3) in its ninth month of execution. Two consultation workshops conducted. Final validation workshop programmed for August 2013.

Argentina: Consultoría (1.1.3) en noveno mes ejecución. Dos Talleres de consulta realizados. Taller de validación final programado para el mes de agosto

No activities related to this subcomponent in Bolivia and Paraguay.

En Bolivia y Paraguay no se trabajó este tema.

S

U

9





Number of trained staffs from key public and private institutions in charge of natural resources management

Insufficient formation and training in SFM, SLM , BD and CC issues, and capacities to implement legal framework

By 2015: 1200 staffs trained in the 3 countries

Training activities in land degradation assessment and monitoring (LADA) conducted in Argentina and Bolivia. PCU staff trained in carbon measurement and monitoring.

Capacitación a técnicos de entidades públicas en la metodología LADA para evaluación y monitoreo de la degradación de tierras. Equipo del proyecto capacitado en medición y monitoreo de carbono

Continued training activities: 30 technical staff from Argentinean provinces trained in use of didactic briefcase (SAyDS-GTZ). Santiago del Estero specialists trained in GIS use and applications and image processing.

Continuación de actividades de capacitación: Técnicos de las Provincias capacitados en el uso del maletín didáctico (SAyDS - GTZ) (30 personas). Técnicos de la provincia de Santiago del Estero capacitados en manejo del SIG Chaco Argentina y procesamientos de imágenes.

LADA course reprogrammed in Paraguay.

Reprogramación de Curso LADA en Paraguay

S

U

10





Outcome 1.2: SFM and SLM policies, technical tools and practices have been developed and mainstreamed at regional, national and local levels, taking into consideration climate change and biodiversity conservation variables

RegionalTechnical and financial instruments for SFM/SLM in the Gran Chaco have been developed

Information systems strengthened, including early warning systems

No common tools and instruments specifically developed for the Gran Chaco. Lack of regional coordination

Dispersed GIS and data bases, weak early warning systems. Lack of regional coordination

By 2011 regional standards and criteria

By 2012 Gran Chaco GIS and data base

By 2012 a regional strategy for early warning and risk management

By 2013 1000 Manuals for Sustainable Management of the Gran Chaco

On-going regional consultancy. Terms of reference completed.

Consultoría regional en ejecución. TDRs de consultoría elaborados

On-going consultancy

Consultoría en ejecución

Finalized consultancy. Regional validation workshop programmed for second semester of 2013. Activities being coordinated with Argentina National Fire Plan.

Consultoría finalizada. Talleres regionales de validación programados para el segundo semestre de 2013. Coordinación de acciones con el Plan Nacional del Fuego de Argentina

Regional consultancy finalized. Regional integration workshop pending finalization of consultancy in Paraguay

Consultoría regional concluida. Pendiente un taller regional de integración en cuanto concluya la consultoría en Paraguay.

MS

NationalInformation systems strengthened at regional and national level

Existing information systems are not articulated

By 2012 existing information systems have been standardized

National consultancies finalized in Argentina and Bolivia. Pending in Paraguay.

Consultorías nacionales finalizadas en Argentina y Bolivia. Pendiente de ejecución en Paraguay

11





Technical and financial instruments for SLM and SFM in the Chaco have been developed

Specific instruments for the Chaco are non-existent

By 2012 technical and financial instruments adopted

Consultancy reprogrammed for second semester of 2013.

Consultoría reprogramada para segundo semestre de 2013

Regional standards for development of land zoning plans in the Chaco have been adopted

Non existentBy 2015 the regional standard has been validated and adopted

Contracting process completed in Bolivia. Argentina and Paraguay will conduct consultancy process in 2013

Consultancy finalized in Bolivia. Regional workshop planned for September 2013.

Consultoría concluida en Bolivia. Programado un taller regional para septiembre 2013

Level of coverage of land zoning plans

Preparation of land zoning plans at different stages according to country

By 2015 land zoning plans have been elaborated, finalized and approved

12





Outcome 2.1: A critical core of priority areas for biodiversity is strengthened through SFM and SLM activities

National

Number of plans developed locally for protected areas throughout the project intervention area

Not all the existing protected areas have management plans

By 2015, 3 management plans in Argentina, 1 management plan in Bolivia

Terms of reference for technical studies completed based on regional technical workshop

In Argentina, under law 26331, management plans of protected areas being developed in Santiago del Estero (Parque Provincial y Reserva Copo), as counterpart activity.

En Argentina, planes de manejo de áreas protegidas siendo desarrolladas bajo ley 26.331 en Santiago del Estero (Parque Provincial y Reserva Copo), se ejecuta como Contraparte.

In Bolivia, efforts underway with SERNAP for the formulation of a management plan for Aguaraque National Park.

En Bolivia, gestiones realizadas con el SERNAP para la formulación del plan de manejo del Parque Nacional Aguarague.

In Paraguay, activity reprogrammed for 2014.

En Paraguay,las actividades han sido reprogramadas para 2014.

S

MS

U

13





Increase in the area managed for conservation purposes.

14% of the surface area of the Gran Chaco under some form of protection

By 2015, 280000 additional hectares have been incorporated to the national protected area systems

TDRs para estudios técnicos elaborados sobre la base de un taller técnico regional llevado a cabo para este efecto

In Argentina, 91,267 hectares incorporated as protected areas, through implementation of law 26331 (Parque Provincial Copo and Reserva Provincial Copo, Santiago del Estero)

Letters of Understanding signed with Provinces of Formosa and Santiago del Estero for the development of management plans for natural reserves.

En Argentina, 91.267 ha. incorporadas a áreas protegidas, a través de ley 26.331 (El Parque Provincial Copo y la Reserva Provincial Copo, Santiago del Estero, Ley 6843, se ejecutan como Contraparte)

Cartas acuerdo con provincias (Formosa y Santiago del Estero) firmadas, para el desarrollo de planes de gestión de reservas naturales.

Outcome 2.2: CO2 is captured and emissions avoided through SFM and SLM practices

Tons of CO2 sequestered through SLM and SFM practices by the end of project

Lack of information on the Chaco. Small scale studies.

By 2011 carbon stocks measured

By 2015 tons of CO2

Terms of reference completed for the 3 participating countries. Training activities conducted for PCU staff.

TDRs elaborados para los 3 países. Capacidades adquiridas a nivel de proyecto

In Argentina, contract underway with the University of Formosa for the measurement of carbon stocks. First report presented.

En Argentina, carta acuerdo firmada con Universidad Nacional de Formosa. Consultoría en ejecución, primer informe presentado.

In Bolivia and Paraguay, terms of reference completed. Consultancy call programmed for August 2013.

En Bolivia y Paraguay: TDRs definidos. Convocatoria a ser lanzada hasta agosto 2013.

S

MU

14





Outcome 2.3: By the end of the project, the number of producers and the area in which SFM and SLM practices are being applied reached a critical threshold which, in the absence of major institutional barriers, allows the further adoption of SFM and SLM practices to become self-sustaining (this threshold constitutes a minimum required for SFM and SLM practices to be recognized as feasible alternatives by non-project participants)

RegionalSet of common technical criteria for design, implementation and M&E of activities in demonstration sites developed

Technology validation projects and demonstration projects evaluated

No common technical criteria for project design and implementation

By 2012 agreed common technical criteria

By 2014 1000 publications

Technical workshop programmed for 2012. Terms of reference prepared and agreed-upon

Programado un taller técnico para 2012 TDRs de consultoría elaborados y consensuados

Regional technical workshop reprogrammed for September 2013, in consideration of re-inititiation of activities in Paraguay

Taller técnico regional reprogramado para septiembre 2013 en consideración de la retomada de actividades en Paraguay

MU

SNationalNumber of technology validation projects implemented

Research by research centers, NGOs and universities

By 2015, 30 projects implemented

Call for proposals for technology validation projects programmed for second semester of 2013.

SFM projects being implemented in Argentina through law 26331.

Agreement signed with provinces of Chaco, Córdoba, Formosa and Santiago for execution of pilot demonstration projects.Llamado a concurso de proyectos de validación/ investigación, programados para el segundo semestre de 2013.

En Argentina proyectos de MSB en ejecución a través de la ley 26331.

Cartas Acuerdo firmadas con las Provincias de Chaco, Córdoba, Formosa y Santiago del Estero, para la ejecución de los Proyectos demostrativos en sitios piloto.

Number of demonstration projects implemented

By 2015, at least 22 demonstration projects implemented and results disseminated

15





Argentina: Pilot demonstration Projects in execution in the four participating provinces.Producers applying SFM and SLM practices within the framework of law 26331 and through demonstration projects.

Proyectos de demostración en ejecución en las cuatro provincias.Productores aplicando prácticas de MST y MSB, a través de ley 26.331(Contraparte)Productores aplicando técnicas de MST y MSB a través de los proyectos de demostración.

In Bolivia, consultancy for the selection of pilot areas finalized. Base documents for the consultancy call for implementation of pilot demonstration projects programmed for August 2013, under UNDP-established procedures..

Bolivia: Consultoría para la definición y ajuste de los sitios piloto concluida. Documentos base para el llamado a concurso para la implementación de los sitios piloto programado para agosto 2013 bajo procedimientos PNUD.

Paraguay: In process the identification of pilot site areas.

Paraguay: definición de los sitios piloto aún en proceso

MU

U

Number of producers in demonstration sites who have adopted SFM and SLM practices

The number of producers who currently implement best practices is unknown

By 2015, 11,000 producers have adopted SFM and SLM practices

Number of hectares of degraded areas converted into agroforestry production systems in demonstration sites

The surface area currently managed under SFM/SLM is unknown

By 2015 SFM/SLM has been adopted within 300,000 hectares of demonstration sites

16





Outcome 3.1: The end of the project leaves in place a mechanism to ensure sustainability of project-supported structures and programs that result in large scale adoption of SFM and SLM in the Gran Chaco.

RegionalThe SRAP Chaco incorporates elements to ensure its sustainability

N/A By 2015 the SRAP Chaco has incorporated the regional vision and policy, SFM/SLM best practices and indicators

No activities reported, based on the initial stage of project implementation.

Actividad aun no desarrollada, en función a la etapa inicial de ejecución del proyecto.

Activity yet to be developed at the regional scale

Actividad aun no desarrollada en el ámbito regional.

NA

MS

U

NationalNumber of potential additional producers to be incorporated into SLM and SFM practices

N/A By 2015, 13,000 additional producers are ready to adopt SFM/SLM practices

In Argentina, terms of reference prepared and activities programmed: implementation of consultancy scheduled for August 2013, 3 workshops starting August/September, and replication of activities in 2014.

Argentina:TDR elaborado. Se hizo la programación de actividades: Consultoría para agosto 2013. Tres talleres a partir del mes de Agosto/Setiembre, y replicación de actividades en 2014.

Bolivia and Paraguay: replication of activities programmed for 2014-2015.

Bolivia y Paraguay: replicas programadas para 2014 - 2015

Number of additional hectares to be incorporated under SLM and SFM

N/A By 2015 800,000 additional hectares

NAP incorporates elements to ensure its sustainability

The NAP contains strategic guidelines.

By end of project the NAP (including lessons learnt, best practices and national indicators and a portfolio of investments and funding sources)

Overall rating of project progress towards meeting project objective(s) (To be provided by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please add columns to reflect all prior year ratings)

FY2011 rating

N/A Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and explaining reasons for change (positive or negative) since previous reporting periods

FY2012 rating

MU UNEP: After a delayed start and inception phase, the project continues to face challenges for implementation mainly related to the governance structure and process from the country to the regional level. Some progress has been made in streamlining the approval process for TORs. An action plan to improve implementation is in place. A budget revision has

17

document.docUNEP-UNDP

been delivered by the coordination and is under review in UNEP. Based on this the rating is MU at best. The dynamics of coordinated country activities and their linking with and through regional coordination need to improve. Much needs to be done if this project is to be brought back on track to its objective of achieving an effective transboundary management of this ecosystem. The latter also needs to be reinforced through deliberate show of political will from all three participating countries.UNDP:

General progress UNDP Project as of June 2012:

Project activities to be implemented through UNDP have suffered delays. Implementation and resource disbursal is effected at the national level through UNDP projects each signed in the respective countries with the relevant UNDP counterparts and executing agencies. Each has a different date but the official start date of the overall UNDP GEF project comes into effect on the date of the last Prodoc to be signed. In this a case this was Bolivia on 22nd December 2011. As the end of this reporting period the UNDP project had not been under implementation for over a year and hence no formal PIR was submitted. Nonetheless as indicated in the UNEP presented PIR UNDP is in agreement with the ratings of marginally unsatisfactory given the long delays that will negatively affect the compliance of project implementation in the originally planned time and are likely to also affect progress towards achieving the objectives. UNDP is also in agreement with the proposed generic action plan presented to improve implementation and suggest that this is developed in more detail together with UNEP and project partners as soon as possible.

For example in the March 2012 Steering Committees a number of important steps were made not least of which was the approval of the overall project operational workplan. Nonetheless a set of key decisions and tasks (requested for April 2012) were left pending that have not been addressed and are negatively effecting project implementation with the ensuing delays reported in the detailed PIR. Among the most important still unresolved issues are:

Completing final national arrangements in Bolivia and Paraguay (see details below)

Clearly defined and agreed communication and decision making protocols for different project levels and staff (national; regional; inter-institutional; inter agency). The idea being an overall operational manual and specific national operational manuals developed within this framework.

Empowerment of project staff with clearly designated and defined roles and responsibilities. This includes the detailed responsibilities of national coordinators for both UNEP and UNDP project planning and implementation.

UNDP strongly urges that the coordination unit (regional and national projects) complete these operational manuals and guidance as soon as possible to enable more effective project implementation and improve synergies between regional and national level activities. It requests that these be completed and agreed upcoming formally prior to the end of 2012 as a pre-condition for approval of 2013 POAs and project activity. In addition that all countries have established offices and are fully operational

In terms of progress in UNDP project advances have been different in each of the 3 countries and are detailed below.

Argentina Bolivia Paraguay

UNDP 14 January 2011 22nd December 2011 April 4th 2011

18

document.docProject signature date

UNDP disbursement as of June 30 2012 US$

88,508 0 24,942

SRAP Chaco Office status

Office in Chaco (Santiago del Estero) has been refurbished and is operational:

Administrative assistant hired.

Procurement of equipment also completed.

Letters of agreement signed with Provinces for implementing activities detailed in the Prodoc. As these letters were signed only at the end of this reporting period the implementation of the activities outlined in the agreements- and the resources disbursement will be reflected in 2013

PIR.

Preliminary discussions have been held for office space in Yacuiba (located in the Bolivian Chaco, in the Department of Tarija) and agreement under negotiation with the Ministry of Water and Environment.

Project resources now available as all Government procedures have been complete.

Tender for hiring administration assistant in process

SEAM has made efforts to start the "initial tasks" to implement the project including indicating a national focal point; hiring technical administrative assistant (Jan 2012); participating in the inception workshop, prioritization of activities, planning workshop, proposal for institutional organisation for the project, among other). Nonetheless the delays in key decisions (see above) affected project implementation.

In addition the working group in SEAM for the project underwent several changed creating confusion as to the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved. Immediately following the end of this reporting period there were significant changes in the Government and a new working group now needs to be established. It would be very opportune if the details that were pending in the Steering Committee were resolved prior to this so that project activities in Paraguay could start up again on a more solid basis.

FY2013 rating

UNEP-UNDP

MU UNEP:

Compared to the previous reporting period, significant progress has been made by the project as described in section 1 (see “Project Status FY13”) including institutional strengthening, field applications of SLM / SFM protocols, complete staffing and equipping of the PCU and M&E actions, with expenditures reported more than doubling from last period to the present one.Despite this progress it is still difficult to measure any significant progress towards the development objectives of the project. Unequal progress in the three countries has still been subject to political/institutional changes with the unfreezing of project activities in Paraguay taking place only very

19

document.docrecently. The duly recognized efforts to strengthen interinstitutional coordination mechanisms are still paired with a substantive degree of uncertainty as described in pertinent elements of the risk assessment section, as for instance the establishment of important baseline elements is still underway towards what should already be the half-time point of the project’s implementation life-cycle.UNEP strongly urges that participating countries step up efforts to put in place more effective implementation mechanisms and elements for project management that are not contingent on changing political scenarios. The consultancy to update the M&E system being currently commissioned could greatly help in this process but only if associated with the necessary political will and prioritization of actions that has been elusive in the past to a great extent, limiting project management enhancement by agencies.UNDP:

OFP ArgOFP BolOFP Par

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager in consultation with Project Managers)

Objective/Outcome Indicator Action(s) to be taken By whom? By when?

Outcome 1.1: Institutional capacities have been strengthened at regional, national and local levels to formulate and apply normative frameworks and practices available for SFM and SLM (with increased budgetary allocations or investments), taking into consideration climate change and biodiversity conservation variables

RegionalRegional vision of the Gran Chaco adopted by the Tri-national Commission

Definir la realización o no de esta consultoría en la próxima reunión de CD fijando las fechas correspondientes para el trabajo. Caso se opte por no realizarla, los fondos podrán ser destinados a otra actividad que el CD juzgue más pertinente para el cumplimiento de los resultados y objetivo del proyecto

Comité Directivo y Coordinador Regional

Octubre 2013

Regional Development Policy for the Gran Chaco adopted by the Tri-national Commission

NationalChaco SRAP Office incorporated into the institutional organization and budget allocated

N/A

Number of legal, technical and financial instruments identified, designed, validated and adopted for application of SLM and SFM

Implementar las consultorías respectivas en Bolivia y Paraguay

RNs de Bolivia y Paraguay con los respectivos PFs

Primer semestre de 2014

20

document.doc

Number of trained staffs from key public and private institutions in charge of natural resources management

Realizar el curso de capacitación LADA en Paraguay a la mayor brevedad

RN Paraguay, Coordinador Regional

Segundo semestre 2013

Outcome 1.2: SFM and SLM policies, technical tools and practices have been developed and mainstreamed at regional, national and local levels, taking into consideration climate change and biodiversity conservation variables

RegionalTechnical and financial instruments for SFM/SLM in the Gran Chaco have been developed

Information systems strengthened, including early warning systems

Para recuperar el tiempo perdido y considerando la capacidad del equipo técnico se propone la realización de talleres técnicos regionales en lugar de consultorías (ver acciones para el producto 1.2.2)

Realización del taller regional al concluir la consultoría en Paraguay

CR y equipo técnico


Octubre 2013

Primer semestre 2014

NationalInformation systems strengthened at regional and national level

Desarrollar la consultoría en Paraguay RN Paraguay, PF y CR Agosto 2013

Technical and financial instruments for SLM and SFM in the Chaco have been developed

implementar las respectivas consultorías a la brevedad RNs y PFs Segundo semestre 2013

Regional standards for development of land zoning plans in the Chaco have been adopted

Realizar un taller de intercambio regional con actores gubernamentales para identificar similitudes en las metodologías de Land use Planning y el posterior desarrollo de estándares.

CR y equipo técnico Octubre 2013

Level of coverage of land zoning plans N/A

Outcome 2.1: A critical core of priority areas for biodiversity is strengthened through SFM and SLM activities

National

Number of plans developed locally for protected areas throughout the project intervention area

Bolivia: Continuar con las difíciles gestiones ante el Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas. Definir con este organismo la pertinencia de esta actividad y fijar una fecha límite para su realizaciónParaguay: reprogramación a la brevedad posible

RNs, PFs y CR Agosto 2013

Increase in the area managed for conservation purposes.

Outcome 2.2: CO2 is captured and emissions avoided through SFM and SLM practices

Tons of CO2 sequestered through SLM and SFM practices by the end of project

Acción propuesta: Bolivia y Paraguay: Lanzar la convocatoria para las consultorías a la brevedad posible CR y equipo técnico Septiembre 2013

21

document.docOutcome 2.3: By the end of the project, the number of producers and the area in which SFM and SLM practices are being applied reached a critical threshold which, in the absence of major institutional barriers, allows the further adoption of SFM and SLM practices to become self-sustaining (this threshold constitutes a minimum required for SFM and SLM practices to be recognized as feasible alternatives by non-project participants)

RegionalSet of common technical criteria for design, implementation and M&E of activities in demonstration sites developed

Technology validation projects and demonstration projects evaluated

Realización de un taller regional para definir los criterios. RNs y equipo de cada país Agosto – septiembre 2013

NationalNumber of technology validation projects implemented

Desarrollar criterios para ser discutidos en taller regional. RN, PF y Oficina país PNUD Agosto 2013

Number of demonstration projects implemented

Bolivia: Lanzar la convocatoria para la implementación de los sitios piloto a la brevedad posible. Desarrollar mecanismos y estrategias para implementar el mayor número de actividades

Paraguay: Definición de los SP a ser implementados a la brevedad

RN, PF

RN , ATA


Agosto 2013 y 2014

Number of producers in demonstration sites who have adopted SFM and SLM practices

Number of hectares of degraded areas converted into agroforestry production systems in demonstration sites

Outcome 3.1: The end of the project leaves in place a mechanism to ensure sustainability of project-supported structures and programs that result in large scale adoption of SFM and SLM in the Gran Chaco.

RegionalThe SRAP Chaco incorporates elements to ensure its sustainability

NationalNumber of potential additional producers to be incorporated into SLM and SFM practices

Argentina: Cumplir con lo programado

Bolivia y Paraguay: Implementar las actividades a la brevedad

RN, ATA 2014 y 2015

Number of additional hectares to be incorporated under SLM and SFM

22

document.docNAP incorporates elements to ensure its sustainability

This section should be completed if project progress towards meeting objectives was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Managers).

Problem(s) identified in previous PIR Action(s) taken By whom When1. Falta de interlocución con Paraguay e interrupción de

actividades del proyecto en el país.La estrategia desarrollada fue realizar un taller técnico en Paraguay el mes de marzo de 2013. Para esto el CR prestó el apoyo necesario donde se contrató a un RN y un ATA con quienes se elaboró un POA de emergencia y plan de adquisiciones. El taller contó con la presencia del PF de Paraguay además del equipo técnico de los otros países y representantes de las 3 agencias (PNUMA/OEA, PNUD).

Coordinador del proyecto y agencias participantes

Marzo de 2013

2. Retraso en las actividades del proyecto Reunión de CD CR, RNs, ATAs No se dieron las condiciones necesarias para realizar la reunión de CD, la cual fue reprogramada para Octubre de 2013 en la ciudad de Asunción.

Se elaboró un calendario de ejecución por trimestre para cada componente del proyecto dentro de una planificación plurianual, sin embargo, algunos retrasos han continuado persistiendo hasta la retomada de actividades en Paraguay y el inicio de las mismas con fondos PNUD en Bolivia. Esta planificación está nuevamente en proceso de actualización.

PCU (CR y RNs) Enero 2013

En el caso Argentina y Bolivia, se han ejecutado las actividades que hacen a algunos de los componentes nacionales, sobre la base del presupuesto regional disponible. En el caso de Bolivia específicamente, se realizó una consultoría concerniente a Sitios Piloto (fondos PNUD) con fondos OEA, debido al retraso en la liberación de fondos PNUD.


3. Necesidad de Identificar y nombrar delegados técnicos en cada país con capacidad para actuar en representación de los Puntos Focales correspondientes, buscando facilitar la dinámica de ejecución del proyecto.

Paraguay nombró un delegado técnico a partir de mayo 2013. Con Bolivia y Argentina la comunicación es directamente con el PF. Debido a las múltiples obligaciones del PF de Bolivia, en ocasiones la comunicación se ve dificultada.

ASAPParaguay: mayo 2013

4. Necesidad de contar con la participación efectiva del equipo técnico en la elaboración del PIR

Se realizó el taller del PIR con todo el equipo técnico en la ciudad de Santa Cruz – Bolivia.

CR, RNs, ATAs 10 – 11 de Julio de 2013

23

document.doc

3.2 Project implementation progress

Outcome/Outputs 23 Expected completion

date 24

Implementation status as of (%)

Comments if variance25. Describe any problems in delivering outputs

Progress rating26

July 2012

June 2013

Outcome 1.1: Institutional capacities have been strengthened at regional, national and local levels to formulate and apply normative frameworks and practices available for SFM and SLMResultado 1.1: Las capacidades institucionales han sido fortalecidas a nivel regional, nacional y local para formular e implementar marcos normativos y prácticas para MFS y MST

Regional OutputsOutput 1.1.127 Proposal for a regional Gran Chaco vision and development policy integrating SFM/SLM, BD and CC issues developed

Productos RegionalesProducto1.1.1: Propuesta para una visión regional y política de desarrollo del Gran Chaco integrando temas de MFS y MST, BD y CC

M3/6 – 2011 10 10

M4/7 – 2012Los Tdrs fueron elaborados y la convocatoria lanzada. El consultor seleccionado renunció poco antes de firmar contrato. No se lanzó una segunda convocatoria debido a la coyuntura regional en el momento.

HU

Output 1.1.2 Regional collaboration and coordination mechanismsProducto 1.1.2: Mecanismos de colaboración y coordinación regional

2011 – 2015 20 20Se realizaron gestiones para la realización de la próxima reunión de CD en el mes de octubre/2013 en Asunción

S

National OutputsProductos NacionalesArgentina1.1.1 SRAP Chaco Office Oficina SRAP Chaco M1 – 2011 50 100

Equipo de Proyecto contratado (RN y ATA).Adquisición de equipamiento informático e instalación de oficina con muebles existentes, en junio de 2012.

S

1.1.2 Inter-institutional coordination mechanisms Mecanismos de coordinación

interinstitucional

2011 – 2015 0 20 Viajes a distintas provincias del Chaco Argentino, para socializar el proyecto. Dificultad en las comunicaciones con algunas Provincias.

MU

1.1.3 The policy and regulatory framework has been completed and harmonized

2011 – 2012 10 75 Contratación de consultor en M9 2012, con duración de doce meses.

S

27 Information on expected date of output completion and progress made is a requirement.Información sobre la fecha prevista de terminación d e los productos y los progresos realizados es un requisito.

24

document.docOutcome/Outputs Expected

completion date


Comments if variance. Describe any problems in delivering outputs

Progress rating

July 2012

June 2013

El marco político y regulatorio ha sido completado y armonizado

9 meses de ejecución y 2 talleres de consulta realizados.

1.1.4 Capacity building programsProgramas de fortalecimiento de capacidades

2012 - 2015 0 25 Un taller realizado en M11- 2012. MS

Bolivia1.1.1SRAP Chaco Office/Oficina SRAP de Chaco M1 – 2011 50 80 Equipo técnico constituido y oficina operando S1.1.2Inter-institutional coordination mechanisms

Mecanismos de coordinación interinstitucional 2011 – 2015 20 50

Apoyo en el desarrollo de reuniones y talleres con instituciones del Chaco (Federación de Campesinos, Organizaciones Indígenas, Municipios y otros) 4 talleres Se disolvió la MANCHABOL como mecanismo de coordinación interinstitucional

S

1.1.3Environmental Services LawLey de Servicios/funciones Ambientales(Fue cambiado a Desarrollo del Marco Normativo para la gestión de los RRNN en el Chaco)

2011 – 2012 5 10 Retraso debido a disponibilidad de recursos del PNUD, MU

1.1.4Capacity building programsProgramas de fortalecimiento de las capacidades

2012 and 2015

15 25 TDR elaborado y reuniones sostenidas con diferentes organizaciones

MS

Paraguay1.1.1SRAP Chaco Office

Oficina SRAP Chaco M1/2 – 2011 30 90 RN y ATA trabajando. Oficina consolidada y funcionando en Asunción.

S

1.1.2Inter-institutional coordination mechanismsMecanismos de coordinación interinstitucional(relacionado con talleres y reuniones locales)

2011 – 2015 20 20 Demora en el re inicio de las actividades a nivel país. U

1.1.3The existing regulatory framework has been harmonized and improvedEl marco regulatorio existente ha sido armonizado y mejorado

2011 - 2012 0 0 Reprogramado para segundo semestre de 2013 U

1.1.4Capacity buildingFortalecimiento de las capacidades

2012 and 2015 0 5 Reprogramado para segundo semestre de 2013.

Agenda definida MU

Outcome 1.2: SFM and SLM policies, technical tools and practices have been developed and mainstreamed at regional, national and local levels, taking into consideration climate change and biodiversity conservation variables.Resultado 1.2: Políticas de MFS y MST , así como herramientas técnicas y prácticas desarrolladas e incorporadas en el nivel regional, nacional y local, tomando en consideración variables de cambio climático y de conservación de la biodiversidadRegional OutputsOutput 1.2.1 Gran Chaco GIS and Data base developed and functioning

M4/9 – 2011 60 90Se cuenta con un SIG regional. A nivel gubernamental no se ha podido identificar el lugar

MS

25


completion date



Progress rating

July 2012

June 2013

Productos RegionalesProducto 1.2.1: Base de datos y SIG del Gran Chaco desarrollados y funcionando

donde podría instalarse el nodo. Queda pendiente un taller regional de capacitación/difusión.

Output 1.2.2 A set of common regional standards and criteria for development of SFM/SLM tools and instruments: i) environmentally and economically sound productive unit, ii) environmental services, iii) land zoning plans, iv) monitoring of land use changesProducto 1.2.2: Un conjunto de estándares y criterios regionales comunes para el desarrollo de herramientas e instrumentos de MFS/MST: i) unidades productivas sólidas tanto económica como productivamente, ii) servicios ambientales, iii) planes de ordenamiento territorial, iv) monitoreo de los cambios en el uso de la tierra

M7/9 – 2011 5 5

Consultancies (ii) and (iii) re-oriented towards the analysis of the corresponding legal framework in the 3 participating countries in relation to environmental services and land-use zoning. TORs prepared for the 4 consultancies. The revised schedule for this activity is:

(i) M10-2013(ii) M5/7 – 2014 (upon completion of

country activities)(iii) M10-2013 y M7/8-2014(iv) M5/6- 2014

U

Output 1.2.3 Regional strategy to strengthen and articulate the early warning systems for extreme climatic events and wild firesProducto 1.2.3: Estrategia regional para fortalecer y articular sistemas de alerta temprana de eventos climáticos extremos e incendios forestales

M3/10 - 2012 10 15

. Se aguardaba la retomada efectiva de actividades con Paraguay que se dio recién en mayo 2013 TDRs y llamado elaborados. Se ha coordinado actividades para realizar un taller regional con el Plan Nacional de Manejo del Fuego de Argentina.

MU

Output 1.2.4: Sustainable traditional and new SLM and SFM technologies identified and systematized. Producto 1.2.4: Identificación y sistematización de tecnologías nuevas y tradicionales de MST y MFS

M2/11 – 2012 5 10 La convocatoria fue lanzada en junio último.

M6-2013MU

Output 1.2.5: Manual for Sustainable Management of the Gran Chaco developedProducto 1.2.5: Manual para la Gestión Sustentable del Gran Chaco desarrollado

M1/11 – 2014

N/A

National OutputsProductos NacionalesArgentina1.2.1 Information systems strengthened1.2.1 Sistemas de información fortalecidos M2/7 –

2012

25 100 Consultoría concluida, incluyendo SIG Chaco Argentina portable y móvil (OS Android).

S

1.2.2 Environmentally and economically sound productive unit

1.2.2 Unidad productiva sólida tanto económica como ambientalmente

2011 – 2012 10 10

Se ha programado un taller regional (octubre 2013) para la discusión de criterios U

1.2.3 Environmental services M6/12 – 5 5 TDRs elaborado. Consultoría reprogramada. U

26


completion date



Progress rating

July 2012

June 2013

1.2.3 Servicios/funciones ambientales 20121.2.4 Strategy and action plan for development of

land zoning plans 1.2.4 Estrategia y plan de acción para el desarrollo

de planes de ordenamiento territorial 2011 – 2012 0 50

TDRs elaborado.

Insumo para producto regional1.2.4. Concluida la sistematización y adecuación de la información asociada a la ley nacional 26331.

MS

1.2.5 Instruments to monitor land use changes 1.2.5 Instrumentos para el monitoreo de los

cambios en el uso de la tierra 2012 5 90

Consultoría concluida, informe final en proceso de aprobación.Capacitación en metodología LADA, realizada.

S

1.2.6 Strategy for economic incentives to alternative uses of the forest developed

1.2.6 Estrategia para ofrecer incentivos económicos a los usos alternativos del bosque 2012 5 15

La dirección de bosques de Stgo del Estero ha estado trabajando en temas relacionados con éste, como: ferias para productos de los bosques y artesanías, donde el proyecto ha tenido participación. En este sentido, la consultoría aún no se ha realizado y ha sido reprogramada para el primer semestre de 2014.TDR elaborado.

U

Bolivia1.2.1 Information systems strengthened1.2.1 Sistemas de información fortalecidos

2012 – 2013 30 90 Consultoría SIG finalizada, pendiente taller de

capacitación S

1.2.2 The environmentally and economically sound productive unit

1.2.2.Unidad productiva sólida tanto económica como ambientalmente

2011 – 2012 10 10 Se ha programado la discusión de criterios en un

taller regional U

1.2.3 Environmental services1.2.3 Servicios/funciones ambientales 2012 20 90

Consultoría concluida de servicios ecoistémicos, pendiente la sensibilización a nivel de municipios y otras instituciones.

MS

1.2.4 Strategy and action plan for development of land zoning plans

1.2.4 Estrategia y plan de acción para el desarrollo de Planes de Ordenamiento Territorial

2012 20 90Consultoría concluida sobre instrumentos de OT, pendiente la sensibilización a nivel de municipios y otras instituciones

MS

1.2.5 Instruments to monitor land use changes 1.2.5 Instrumentos para monitorear el cambio de

uso de la tierra2012 20 90

Consultoría de instrumentos y/o herramientas para el monitoreo del cambio de uso de la tierra concluida, pendiente el proceso de capacitación

MS


1.2.6 Estrategia desarrollada para ofrecer incentivos económicos a los usos alternativos del bosque

2012 5 5 TDR elaborados, Debido al nivel de avance del proyecto en su momento la consultoría fue reprogramda para el 2014

U

Paraguay1.2.1 Information systems strengthened1.2.1 Sistemas de información fortalecidos

2012 20 10 Retroceso en el proceso: Informes no presentados .Renuncia del consultor. M8 - 2012

MU

27


completion date



Progress rating

July 2012

June 2013

Nuevos TDRs elaborados y convocatoria realizada. Reuniones interinstitucionales realizadas M6-2013



2011 – 2012 5 5 Reprogramado para el 2014 U

1.2.3 Environmental services1.2.3 Servicios/funciones ambientales 2012 5 5 Reprogramado para el segundo semestre 2013 U



2012 0 10 Reprogramado para segundo semestre de 2013. Taller, reuniones programadas. U

1.2.5 Instruments to monitor land use changes1.2.5 Intrumentos para monitorear el cambio de

uso de la tierra 2012 5 5 Reprogramado para segundo semestre de 2013. U


1.2.6 Estrategia desarrollada para el establecimiento de incentivos económicos para el uso alternativo del bosque

2012 5 5 Reprogramado para el segundo semestre 2013. U

Outcome 2.1:A critical core of priority areas for biodiversity is strengthened through SFM and SLM activitiesResultado 2.1 Un núcleo critico de áreas prioritarias para la biodiversidad se habrá fortalecido por medio de actividades de MFS y MSTArgentina2.1.1 Technical studies for Parque Prov y Reserv.

Copo2.1.1 Estudios técnicos para el Parque Prov. y

Reserva Copo

2012 5 20 TDRs elaborado.Carta acuerdo firmada con la Provincia para su ejecución. S

2.1.2:Management plan and equipment to strengthen Parque Provincial y Reserva de Uso Multiple Copo

2.1.2 Plan de Manejo y equipamiento para fortalecer el Parque Provincial y la Reserva de Uso Múltiple Copo

2012 5 20 TDR elaborado. Carta acuerdo firmada, con la Provincia para su ejecución. S

2.1.3:Proposal for implementation of private reserves within the Teuquito Biosphere Reserve

2.1.3 Propuesta de implementación de reservas privadas en la Reserva de la Biosfera Teuquito

2012 5 20 TDRs elaborado Carta acuerdo firmada, con la Provincia para su ejecución.

S

Bolivia2.1.1 Technical studies and proposal to 2012 – 5 10 Fondos PNUD liberados, TDR elaborados , MU

28


completion date



Progress rating

July 2012

June 2013

incorporate the Quebracho Colorado Cabo Juan Reserve into the SERNAP and management plan for the Aguarague Reserve

2.1.1 Estudios técnicos y propuesta para incorporar la Reserva del Quebracho Colorado “Cabo Juan” en el SERNAP y preparación del plan de manejo para la Reserva Aguarague

2013 obstáculos institucionales para la firma de convenio con el SERNAP

Paraguay2.1.1 Technical studies for conservation areas in

private properties to establish the Teniente Enciso-Defensores del Chaco-Medanos del Chaco Biological Corridor

2.1.1 Estudios técnicos para áreas de conservación en propiedades privadas para establecer el Corredor Biológico Teniente Enciso-Defensores del Chaco-Medanos del Chaco

2012 and 2014 5 5 Reprogramado para el 2014 MU

2.1.2 Study and proposal for economic incentives to conservation in private properties

2.1.2 Estudio y propuesta de incentivos económicos para la conservación en propiedades privadas

2012 5 5 Reprogramado para el 2014 MU

Outcome 2.2:CO2 is captured and emissions avoided through SFM and SLM practicesResultado 2.2. A través de prácticas de MFS y MST se captura CO2 y se evitan emisionesArgentina2.2.1 CO2 balance model and carbon stocks

measured and monitored2.2.1 Medición y monitoreo del modelo de

balance de CO2 y reservas de carbono

2011 and 2015 5 35 Carta acuerdo firmada con Universidad Nacional

de Formosa. Consultoría en ejecución. S

Bolivia2.2.1 CO2 balance model and carbon stocks



2011 and 2015 5 10

TDR elaborados, retraso debido a discusión y consenso respecto a los sitios en los cuales se establecerán los lotes de medición

MU

Paraguay2.2.1 CO2 balance model and carbon stocks

measured and monitored2.2.1 Medición y monitoreo del modelo de balance

de CO2 y reservas de carbono

2011 and 2015 5 10 TDRs elaborados, MU

Outcome 2.3:

29


completion date



Progress rating

July 2012

June 2013

By the end of the project, the number of producers and the area in which SFM and SLM practices are being applied reached a critical threshold which, in the absence of major institutional barriers, allows the further adoption of SFM and SLM practices to become self-sustainingResultado 2.3 Para el final del proyecto, el número de productores y el área en la cual se aplican las prácticas de MFS y MST alcanzarán un umbral crítico que, en ausencia de barreras institucionales de importancia, permitirán una mayor adopción de prácticas de MFS y MST que se volverán auto-sosteniblesRegional OutputsProductos regionalesOutput 2.3.1: Criteria for design, implementation and M&E of technology validation projects and demonstration projects developedProducto 2.3.1: Criterios para el diseño, la implementación, el monitoreo y la evaluación de proyectos de validación de tecnología desarrollados

M8/10 – 2012 0 0

Demora en la definición de cómo enfocar esta consultoría en los paísesEn consenso se definió que NO se hará una consultoría. En su lugar se desarrollará un taller técnico con el equipo del proyecto y actores gubernamentales para definir los criterios en cuestión).

U

Output 2.3.2: Technology validation projects and demonstration projects evaluated and results systematizedProducto 2.3.2: Proyectos de validación de tecnología y proyectos de demostración evaluados y los resultados sistematizados

M6/9 – 2015 N/A

National OutputsProductos nacionalesArgentina2.3.1Technology validation projects designed and

implemented2.3.1 Proyectos de validación de tecnología

diseñados e implementados

2013 – 2014 0 0 Remitirse a pto 2.3.1 REGIONAL U

2.3.2 Demonstration projects designed and implemented

2.3.2 Proyectos de demostración diseñados e implementados

2012 - 2014 0 30

Cartas acuerdo firmadas con la Provincias (Chaco, Córdoba, Formosa y Santiago del Estero). Sitios Piloto en ejecución.

S

2.3.3 Support programs2.3.3 Programas de apoyo

2011 – 2015 0 25 Dos talleres realizados M10- 2012 y M5-2013 MS

Bolivia2.3.1 Technology validation projects designed and

implemented2.3.1 Proyectos nacionales de validación de

tecnología diseñados e implementados

2013 – 2014 0 0 Remitirse a punto 2.3.1 Regional U



2012 - 2014

5 10 Consultoría de ajuste de los sitios piloto concluida (con fondos OEA) Liberación de fondos PNUDCarta acuerdo suscrita con el PNUD para la prestación de servicios

MU

30


completion date



Progress rating

July 2012

June 2013

4 TDR’ elaborados para el llamado a concurso para la implementación de los sitios piloto


2011 – 2015 10 10 Reprogramado para el 2014 U

Paraguay2.3.1 Technology validation projects designed and


tecnología diseñados e implementados

2013 – 2014

En blanc

o0 Remitirse al punto 2.3.1 REGIONAL U



2012 – 2014 0 0 Reprogramado para el segundo semestre del

2013 U


2011 - 2015 0 0 Reprogramado para 2014 U

Outcome 3.1:The end of the project leaves in place a mechanism to ensure sustainability of project-supported structures and programs that result in large scale adoption of SFM and SLM in the Gran Chaco.Resultado 3.1: Para el final del proyecto se dejará en marcha un mecanismo para asegurar la sustentabilidad de las estructuras y de los programas apoyados por el proyecto que resultará en la adopción a gran escala de MFS y MST en el Gran ChacoRegional OutputsProductos RegionalesOutput 3.1.1: Regional and national events for dissemination of results/lessons learnt and exchange of experiencesProducto 3.1.1: Eventos nacionales y regionales para la difusión de los resultados/lecciones aprendidas e intercambio de experiencias

M6/9 – 2015 NA

Output 3.1.2: Integration and adoption of regional vision, policy, SFM/SLM best practices and a set of performance and sustainability indicators into the SRAP ChacoProducto 3.1.2: Integración y adopción de la visión regional, política, mejores prácticas de MFS/MST y un conjunto de indicadores de desempeño y sustentabilidad incorporados en el Plan de Acción Subregional para el Desarrollo Sustentable del Chaco (SRAP).

M2/4 – 2015 NA

National OutputsProductos NacionalesArgentina3.1.1 Replication and up-scaling of best practices3.1.1 Replicación y ampliación de las mejores

2012 – 2015

0 30 Elaboración del Periódico digital SAyDS, con ediciones digitales mensuales, para la difusión de

S

31


completion date



Progress rating

July 2012

June 2013

prácticas buenas prácticas.3.1.2 Integration and adoption of SFM/SLM best

practices and indicators into the NAP and public policies for the development of the Argentinean Chaco

3.1.2 Incorporación y adopción de las mejores prácticas e indicadores en MFS/MST incorporados en el Plan de Acción Nacional (PAN) y en las políticas públicas para el desarrollo del Chaco Argentino

M2/6 – 2015 NA

Bolivia3.1.1 Replication and up-scaling of best practices3.1.1 Replicación y ampliación de las mejores

prácticas

2012 – 2015 0 0 Reprogramado para segundo semestre 2013 U

3.1.2 Integration and adoption of SFM/SLM best practices and indicators into the NAP and public policies for the development of the Bolivian Chaco

3.1.2 Integración y adopción de las mejores prácticas de MFS/MST y de indicadores en el PAN y en las políticas públicas para el desarrollo del Chaco Boliviano

M2/5 – 2015 0 20

Apoyo al Punto Focal en actividades relacionadas de la preparación de un mapa de degradación de tierras bajo metodología LADA S

Paraguay3.1.1 Replication and up-scaling of best practices3.1.1 Replicación y ampliación de las mejores

prácticas

2012 – 2015 0 0 Reprogramar para el 2014. U

3.1.2 Integration and adoption of SFM/SLM best practices and indicators into the NAP for the development of the Paraguayan Chaco

3.1.2 Integración y adopción de las mejores prácticas de MFS/MST y de indicadores en el PAN para el desarrollo del Chaco Paraguayo

M2/6 – 2015 NA

Project ManagementGestión del Proyecto

2011 – 2015

50

33100

100

Espacio provisto y equipamiento adquirido para la UCPPersonal completo y trabajando 3 RNs, 3 ATAs, secretario, contable y CR

S

Monitoring and EvaluationMonitoreo y Evaluación

2011 – 2015

0

100

10

Línea de base revisada, actualizada y concluidaM6-2013

M3-2012Convocatoria lanzada con TDRs definidos para el

MS

32


completion date



Progress rating

July 2012

June 2013

desarrollo del sistema de M&E

Overall project implementation progress 28(To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please add columns to reflect prior years’ ratings):Comments/narrative justifying the rating for this FY and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating since the previous reporting period

FY12 rating UNEP-UNDP

MU

UNEP: Much needs to be improved in national and regional execution. However An MU rating reflects the efforts to achieve progress despite several challenges including administration and especially focal point changes.UNDP: Refer to 3.1 above

FY13 rating UNEP-UNDP

MU

UNEP: Implementation progress has increased significantly with all three participating countries having designated focal points and political differences settled at regional level after the election process in Paraguay and the elected government recognized by the neighbours. In addition, national teams are now fully staffed and in a much better position to work alongside the efforts set forth by the regional coordination team. Regarding UNEP’s portion of GEF funding, reported expenditures have risen from last year’s 8% to 17% in the present reporting period. This being said, basic elements including baseline assessments are still underway resulting in a work plan that has had to be adjusted to reflect more realistic time goals for project outputs and as such presents significantly delays compared to the original plan. Agencies have contributed with capacity building and coordination efforts with regional and national teams to proactively foster a more effective and efficient implementation, which needs to be seconded by concomitant efforts from government counterparts. Despite the efforts, in this scenario the qualification can hardly be anything but MU.

UNDPAction plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating. (To be completed by UNEP Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager29)

Outcome/Outputs 30 Progress rating31

Actions to be taken By whom? By when?

Regional OutputsOutput 1.1.132 Proposal for a regional Gran Chaco vision and development policy integrating SFM/SLM, BD and CC issues developed

Productos Regionales

HUAcción propuesta: Definir en Comité Directivo la realización de la consultoría respectiva y plan de actividades para la obtención del producto en cuestión

Comité Directivo y Coordinador Regional

Octubre 2013

28Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)29 UNEP Fund Management Officer should also be consulted as appropriate.30

31

32

33

document.docOutcome/Outputs Progress

ratingActions to be taken By whom? By when?

Producto1.1.1: Propuesta para una visión regional y política de desarrollo del Gran Chaco integrando temas de MFS y MST, BD y CC

Output 1.1.2 Regional collaboration and coordination mechanismsProducto 1.1.2: Mecanismos de colaboración y coordinación regional

S

National OutputsProductos NacionalesArgentina1.1.1 SRAP Chaco Office Oficina SRAP Chaco S

1.1.2 Inter-institutional coordination mechanisms Mecanismos de coordinación

interinstitucional MU

Argentina: Output 1.1.2 Acción propuesta: acelerar la divulgación del proyecto realizando talleres a la brevedad posible en las provincias respectivas.

RN y PF Segundo Semestre de 2013

1.1.5 The policy and regulatory framework has been completed and harmonized El marco político y regulatorio ha sido completado y armonizado

S

1.1.6 Capacity building programsProgramas de fortalecimiento de capacidades

MSOutput 1.1.4: Acción propuesta: implementar actividades a la brevedad: 3 talleres de réplica del kit educativo

RN y ATA Agosto 2013

Bolivia1.1.5SRAP Chaco Office/Oficina SRAP de Chaco S1.1.6Inter-institutional coordination mechanisms

Mecanismos de coordinación interinstitucional S

1.1.7Environmental Services LawLey de Servicios/funciones Ambientales(Fue cambiado a Desarrollo del Marco Normativo para la gestión de los RRNN en el Chaco)

MU

Bolivia: Output 1.1.3Acción propuesta: Firma de carta acuerdo entre el PF y el PNUD para acelerar procesos de implementación de actividades

PF, RN y PNUD Julio-Agosto 2013

1.1.8Capacity building programsProgramas de fortalecimiento de las capacidades MS

Output 1.1.4Acción propuesta: implementar actividades a la brevedad: reuniones y talleres con organizaciones locales y a nivel de gobierno central

RN y ATA

Consultoría reprogramada para primer semestre 2014 al igual que reuniones y talleres para este fin

Paraguay

34



1.1.5SRAP Chaco Office Oficina SRAP Chaco S

1.1.6Inter-institutional coordination mechanismsMecanismos de coordinación interinstitucional(relacionado con talleres y reuniones locales)

U

Output 1.1.2Acción propuesta: retomar a la brevedad la agenda de las reuniones que estaban programadas y desarrollarlas

RN y PF Segundo semestre 2013 y primero del 2014

1.1.7The existing regulatory framework has been harmonized and improvedEl marco regulatorio existente ha sido armonizado y mejorado

U

Output 1.1.3Acción propuesta: implementar la consultoría a la brevedad posible RN y PF Segundo semestre 2013

1.1.8Capacity buildingFortalecimiento de las capacidades MU

Output 1.1.4Acción propuesta: implementar la consultoría a la brevedad posible

RN y PF Segundo semestre 2013

Regional OutputsOutput 1.2.1 Gran Chaco GIS and Data base developed and functioningProductos RegionalesProducto 1.2.1: Base de datos y SIG del Gran Chaco desarrollados y funcionando

MSRegional Output 1.2.1Acción propuesta: realizar el taller regional a la brevedad y definir en el taller donde instalar el nodo correspondiente.

CR, RN, y PF Paraguay

A la brevedad después de concluida la consultoría en Paraguay.(ver output 1.2.1 Paraguay)

Output 1.2.2 A set of common regional standards and criteria for development of SFM/SLM tools and instruments: i) environmentally and economically sound productive unit, ii) environmental services, iii) land zoning plans, iv) monitoring of land use changesProducto 1.2.2: Un conjunto de estándares y criterios regionales comunes para el desarrollo de herramientas e instrumentos de MFS/MST: i) unidades productivas sólidas tanto económica como productivamente, ii) servicios ambientales, iii) planes de ordenamiento territorial, iv) monitoreo de los cambios en el uso de la tierra

U

Output 1.2.2Acción propuesta: Implementar actividades a la brevedad posible luego de recibir los insumos nacionales de los productos 1.2.3, 1.2.4 y 1.2.5 Esto permite dar a Paraguay el tiempo necesario para desarrollar el trabajo.


(i) M10-2013 (se definirán los criterios en un taller regional)

(ii) M5/7 – 2014 (upon completion of country activities)

(iii) M10-2013 y M7/8-2014 (se realizará un taller regional y se evaluará la necesidad de la consultoría con los resultados del taller)

(iv) M5/6- 2014

Output 1.2.3 Regional strategy to strengthen and articulate the early warning systems for extreme climatic events and wild firesProducto 1.2.3: Estrategia regional para fortalecer y articular sistemas de alerta temprana de eventos climáticos extremos e incendios forestales

MU

Output 1.2.3Acción propuesta: implementar las actividades en los 3 países a la brevedad posible como insumo para el nivel regional, considerando que Paraguay ha retomado las actividades.


Consultorías nacionales en segundo semestre de 2013 y regional inmediatamente después: primer semestre de 2014

Output 1.2.4: Sustainable traditional and new SLM and SFM technologies identified and systematized. Producto 1.2.4: Identificación y sistematización de tecnologías nuevas y tradicionales de MST y

MU Output 1.2.4Acción propuesta: realizar las actividades a la brevedad posible. Acortar el tiempo de la consultoría considerando que los países generaron bastante información

CR y equipo técnico Consultoría a ser realizada por un periodo de tres a cuatro meses a partir de julio o agosto de 2013.

35



MFS sobre el tema.Output 1.2.5: Manual for Sustainable Management of the Gran Chaco developedProducto 1.2.5: Manual para la Gestión Sustentable del Gran Chaco desarrollado

N/A

National OutputsProductos NacionalesArgentina1.2.1 Information systems strengthened1.2.1 Sistemas de información fortalecidos S



U

Argentina Output 1.2.2Acción propuesta: Desarrollar los criterios con el equipo nacional y exponerlos para discusión en el taller regional.

Equipo técnico nacional, CR y equipo

Taller regional programado para octubre 2013

1.2.3 Environmental services 1.2.3 Servicios/funciones ambientales

U

Output 1.2.3Acción propuesta: redefinir los alcances de la consultoría en función de los alcances que tuvo la Ley de Bosques.


1.2.4 Estrategia y plan de acción para el desarrollo de planes de ordenamiento territorial MS

Output 1.2.4Acción propuesta: redefinir los alcances del trabajo que se quiere realizar en función de la Ley de bosques que toma como base el Ordenamiento Territorial de Bosques Nativos. Realizar reuniones y talleres

RN, PFConsultoría reprogramada para segundo semestre 2013

1.2.5 Instruments to monitor land use changes 1.2.5 Instrumentos para el monitoreo de los

cambios en el uso de la tierra S


1.2.6 Estrategia para ofrecer incentivos económicos a los usos alternativos del bosque

UOutput 1.2.6Implementar la consultoría a la brevedad

RN, PF Primer semestre 2014

Bolivia1.2.1 Information systems strengthened1.2.1 Sistemas de información fortalecidos S

1.2.2 The environmentally and economically sound productive unit

1.2.2.Unidad productiva sólida tanto económica como ambientalmente

U

Bolivia Output 1.2.2Acción propuesta: Desarrollar los criterios con el equipo nacional y exponerlos para discusión en el taller regional.

RN, PF Segundo semestre 2013

1.2.3 Environmental services1.2.3 Servicios/funciones ambientales

MS Outputs 1.2.3; 1.2.4; 1.2.5Acción propuesta: realizar a la

Equipo técnico nacional, CR y equipo técnico

Octubre 2013

36



brevedad posible el proceso de capacitación/sensibilización



MS

1.2.5 Instruments to monitor land use changes 1.2.5 Instrumentos para monitorear el cambio de

uso de la tierraMS


1.2.6 Estrategia desarrollada para ofrecer incentivos económicos a los usos alternativos del bosque

U

Output 1.2.6Acción propuesta: debido al nivel de avance del proyecto (en su momento) se definió realizar la consultoría más adelante

RN y equipo técnico nacional Segundo semestre 2013

Paraguay1.2.1 Information systems strengthened1.2.1 Sistemas de información fortalecidos MU

Paraguay output 1.2.1Acción propuesta: realizar la consultoría a la brevedad posible. RN, PF Primer semestre 2014



U

Output 1.2.2Acción propuesta: Desarrollar los criterios con el equipo nacional y exponerlos para discusión en el taller regional.

RN, PF, y CR Agosto 2013

1.2.3 Environmental services1.2.3 Servicios/funciones ambientales U

Outputs 1.2.3; 1.2.4; 1.2.5; 1.2.6Acción propuesta: reprogramar para realizar las consultorías a la brevedad posible

Equipo técnico nacional, CR y equipo técnico Octubre 2013



U

1.2.5 Instruments to monitor land use changes1.2.5 Intrumentos para monitorear el cambio de

uso de la tierra U


1.2.6 Estrategia desarrollada para el establecimiento de incentivos económicos para el uso alternativo del bosque

U RN, PF Segundo semestre 2013

Argentina2.1.1 Technical studies for Parque Prov y Reserv.

Copo2.1.1 Estudios técnicos para el Parque Prov. y

Reserva Copo

S

2.1.2:Management plan and equipment to strengthen Parque Provincial y Reserva de Uso Multiple Copo

S

37



2.1.2 Plan de Manejo y equipamiento para fortalecer el Parque Provincial y la Reserva de Uso Múltiple Copo

2.1.3:Proposal for implementation of private reserves within the Teuquito Biosphere Reserve

2.1.3 Propuesta de implementación de reservas privadas en la Reserva de la Biosfera Teuquito

S

Bolivia2.1.3 Technical studies and proposal to

incorporate the Quebracho Colorado Cabo Juan Reserve into the SERNAP and management plan for the Aguarague Reserve

2.1.1 Estudios técnicos y propuesta para incorporar la Reserva del Quebracho Colorado “Cabo Juan” en el SERNAP y preparación del plan de manejo para la Reserva Aguarague

MU

Nacional: Bolivia: Output 2.1.1Acción propuesta: Continuar en las negociaciones para ver si es viable vencer las barreras institucionales.

RN y PF Segundo semestre 2013

Paraguay2.1.1 Technical studies for conservation areas in

private properties to establish the Teniente Enciso-Defensores del Chaco-Medanos del Chaco Biological Corridor

2.1.1 Estudios técnicos para áreas de conservación en propiedades privadas para establecer el Corredor Biológico Teniente Enciso-Defensores del Chaco-Medanos del Chaco

MU

Paraguay: Output 2.1.1; 2.1.2Reprogramación en función a la retomada de actividades

RN, PF Primer semestre 2014

2.1.4 Study and proposal for economic incentives to conservation in private properties

2.1.2 Estudio y propuesta de incentivos económicos para la conservación en propiedades privadas

MU

Argentina2.2.2 CO2 balance model and carbon stocks



S

Bolivia

38



2.2.1 CO2 balance model and carbon stocks measured and monitored

2.2.1 Medición y monitoreo del modelo de balance de CO2 y reservas de carbono

MUBolivia: Output 2.2.1Acción propuesta: lanzar la convocatoria a la brevedad posible RN A más tardar Julio-Agosto

2013

Paraguay2.2.1 CO2 balance model and carbon stocks

measured and monitored2.2.1 Medición y monitoreo del modelo de balance

de CO2 y reservas de carbono

MU

Paraguay: Output 2.2.1Acción propuesta: lanzar la convocatoria a la brevedad posible. RN A más tardar Julio-Agosto

2013

Regional OutputsProductos regionalesOutput 2.3.1: Criteria for design, implementation and M&E of technology validation projects and demonstration projects developedProducto 2.3.1: Criterios para el diseño, la implementación, el monitoreo y la evaluación de proyectos de validación de tecnología desarrollados

U

Regional: Output 2.3.1Acción propuesta: realizar un taller regional, a la brevedad posible, para la definición de los criterios en cuestión

CR y equipo Octubre 2013

Output 2.3.2: Technology validation projects and demonstration projects evaluated and results systematizedProducto 2.3.2: Proyectos de validación de tecnología y proyectos de demostración evaluados y los resultados sistematizados

N/A

National OutputsProductos nacionalesArgentina2.3.1Technology validation projects designed and

implemented2.3.1 Proyectos de validación de tecnología

diseñados e implementados U

NacionalArgentina: Output 2.3.1Acción propuesta: implementar las actividades respectivas a la brevedad posible, luego de los resultados del taller regional.

RN y ATA Después de octubre 2013



S

2.3.5 Support programs2.3.3 Programas de apoyo MS

Output 2.3.3Acción propuesta: continuar con la realización de los talleres

.RN y ATA A partir de segundo semestre

2013

Bolivia2.3.3 Technology validation projects designed and

implementedU Bolivia: Output 2.3.1

Acción propuesta: implementar las RN y ATA Después de octubre 2013

39



2.3.1 Proyectos nacionales de validación de tecnología diseñados e implementados

actividades respectivas a la brevedad posible, luego de los resultados del taller regional.



MU

Output 2.3.2Acción propuesta: lanzar la convocatoria para concurso a la brevedad posible

RN y ATA Septiembre 2013

2.3.3 Support programs2.3.3 Programas de apoyo U Output 2.3.3

Acción propuesta: Implementar la actividad a la brevedad posible

RN y ATA Durante 2014

Paraguay2.3.3 Technology validation projects designed and


tecnología diseñados e implementadosU

Paraguay: Output 2.3.1Acción propuesta: implementar las actividades respectivas a la brevedad posible, luego de los resultados del taller regional.

RN y ATA Después de Octubre 2013



U

Output 2.3.2Definir donde se implementarán los Sitios piloto RN y PF Segundo semestre 2013


U

Output 2.3.3Reprogramación de la actividad e implementar a la brevedad posible RN y PF Durante 2014

Regional OutputsProductos RegionalesOutput 3.1.1: Regional and national events for dissemination of results/lessons learnt and exchange of experiencesProducto 3.1.1: Eventos nacionales y regionales para la difusión de los resultados/lecciones aprendidas e intercambio de experiencias

NA

Output 3.1.2: Integration and adoption of regional vision, policy, SFM/SLM best practices and a set of performance and sustainability indicators into the SRAP ChacoProducto 3.1.2: Integración y adopción de la visión regional, política, mejores prácticas de MFS/MST y un conjunto de indicadores de desempeño y sustentabilidad incorporados en el Plan de Acción Subregional para el Desarrollo Sustentable del Chaco (SRAP).

NA

National OutputsProductos Nacionales

40



Argentina3.1.3 Replication and up-scaling of best practices3.1.1 Replicación y ampliación de las mejores

prácticas S

3.1.4 Integration and adoption of SFM/SLM best practices and indicators into the NAP and public policies for the development of the Argentinean Chaco

3.1.3 Incorporación y adopción de las mejores prácticas e indicadores en MFS/MST incorporados en el Plan de Acción Nacional (PAN) y en las políticas públicas para el desarrollo del Chaco Argentino

NA

Bolivia3.1.3 Replication and up-scaling of best practices3.1.1 Replicación y ampliación de las mejores

prácticas U

NacionalBolivia: Output 3.1.1Acción propuesta: implementar la actividad a la brevedad posible

RN y ATA Segundo Semestre 2013

3.1.4 Integration and adoption of SFM/SLM best practices and indicators into the NAP and public policies for the development of the Bolivian Chaco

3.1.2 Integración y adopción de las mejores prácticas de MFS/MST y de indicadores en el PAN y en las políticas públicas para el desarrollo del Chaco Boliviano

S

Paraguay3.1.3 Replication and up-scaling of best practices3.1.1 Replicación y ampliación de las mejores

prácticasU

Paraguay: Output 3.1.1Acción propuesta: implementar la actividad a la brevedad posible

RN y ATA Durante 2014

3.1.4 Integration and adoption of SFM/SLM best practices and indicators into the NAP for the development of the Paraguayan Chaco

3.1.2 Integración y adopción de las mejores prácticas de MFS/MST y de indicadores en el PAN para el desarrollo del Chaco Paraguayo

NA

Project ManagementGestión del Proyecto S

Monitoring and EvaluationMonitoreo y Evaluación

MS Monitoreo y EvaluaciónAcción propuesta: Implementar una consultoría para el diseño e implementación del sistema de M&E

Acción propuesta: Establecer en la

CR, UCP, Consultores

CD

Agosto –Setiembre 2013

Octubre 2013

41



próxima reunión del CD acciones que permitan agilizar la implementación de actividades y dar una mayor dinámica al proyecto.

Acción propuesta: Definir la fecha de la realización de la EMT y las acciones respectivas que permitan al proyecto llegar a la misma en el mejor estado posible

CD Octubre 2013

This section should be completed if project progress was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in previous PIR

Action(s) taken By whom When

Last year’s action plan for 3.1 and 3.2 was consolidated into one general plan. See section 3.1

42

document.doc3.3. Risk There are two tables to assess and address risk: the first “risk factor table” to describe and rate risk factors; the second “top risk mitigation plan” should indicate what measures/action will be taken with respect to risks rated Substantial or High and who is responsible to for it.

RISK FACTOR TABLEProject Managers will use this table to summarize risks identified in the Project Document and reflect also any new risks identified in the course of project implementation. The Notes column should be used to provide additional details concerning manifestation of the risk in your specific project, as relevant. The “Notes” column has one section for the Project Manager (PM) and one for the UNEP Task Manager (TM). If the generic risk factors and indicators in the table are not relevant to the project rows should be added. In association with UNDP RTA,the UNEP Task Manager should provide ratings in the right hand column reflecting his/her own assessment of project risks.

Project Manager Rating

Notes Task Manager Rating

Risk Factor Indicator of Low Risk

Indicator of Medium Risk

Indicator of High Risk

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

INTERNAL RISKProject management

Management structure

Stable with roles and responsibilities clearly defined and understood

Individuals understand their own role but are unsure of responsibilities of others

Unclear responsibilities or overlapping functions which lead to management problems

X PM :De más en más los roles se han ido clarificando

Roles have been progressively clarified

X

TM: An operation manual has been created with i.a. roles, procedures and protocols including reporting and communications at national and regional level. Still considerable challenges persist. A clear example is the amount of support required to complete the present PIR.

43

document.docINTERNAL RISK

Project managementGovernance structure

Steering Committee and/or other project bodies meet periodically and provide effective direction/inputs

Body(ies) meets periodically but guidance/input provided to project is inadequate. TOR unclear

Members lack commitment Committee/body does not fulfil its TOR

X PM : cambios de autoridades a nivel país en Py ha afectado esta gobernanza al ser este un proyecto de tres países.+}

Change of national level authorities in Paraguay has affected this structure as this is a three country Project

X

TM: Temporary voids in national structures greatly affect overall progress.

Internal com-munications

Fluid and cordial Communication process deficient although relationships between team members are good

Lack of adequate communication between team members leading to deterioration of relationships and resentment

X PM: la comunicación con PY estuvo cortada por un tiempo considerable en el año Communication with Paraguay partners was interrupted for a considerable part of the year.

X

TM:

Work flow Project progressing according to work plan

Some changes in project work plan but without major effect on overall timetable

Major delays or changes in work plan or method of implementation

X PM: Hay un atraso significativo en el calendario del proyectoDefinir y comunicar oficialmente la fecha de inicio del proyecto, considerando los siguientes puntos: i) el CR inició actividades en junio 2011; ii) la firma del PRODOC y liberación de fondos/país con PNUD difiere entre los países así como el inicio de la implementación de sus actividades.Significant delay in Project calendar Define and communicate officially the Project start date considering i) regional coordination start June 2011; ii) PRODOC signing and natl/fund disbursement by UNDP differs between ctrys as does activity start.

X

44


Project managementTM: Workplan adjusted with first project/budget revision and dates reflected in present PIR accordingly

Co-financing Co-financing is secured and payments are received on time

Is secured but payments are slow and bureaucratic

A substantial part of pledged co-financing may not materialize

X PM:hoy en dia los 3 paises cuentan con personal asignado al proyecto que cumplen esta y otras funciones3 ctrys have personnel assigned to the project and other tasks

X

TM: While evidence of investments at national level exist, reporting of cofinancing is delayed and not clear to project management

Budget Activities are progressing within planned budget

Minor budget reallocation needed

Reallocation between budget lines exceeding 30% of original budget

X PM: Se hizo y aprobó una revisión presupuestaria en 03/2012

X

TM: Budget revised to reflect adjustments required for a more realistic investment scenario

Financial management

Funds are correctly managed and transparently accounted for

Financial reporting slow or deficient

Serious financial reporting problems or indication of mismanagement of funds

X PM: X

TM:

Reporting Substantive reports are presented in a timely manner and are complete and accurate with a good analysis of project progress and implementation issues

Reports are complete and accurate but often delayed or lack critical analysis of progress and implementation issues

Serious concerns about quality and timeliness of project reporting

X PM: Especialmente los informes mensuales se presentan con retraso

Especially monthly reports delayed

X

TM: Reporting is deficient and requiring a great deal of support with much iteration to achieve conveyance of basic information such as the present PIR.

45


Project managementStakeholder involvement

Stakeholder analysis done and positive feedback from critical stakeholders and partners

Consultation and participation process seems strong but misses some groups or relevant partners

Symptoms of conflict with critical stakeholders or evidence of apathy and lack of interest from partners or other stakeholders

X PM:. El sentido de apropiación del mismo es diferente en los 3 países.

Sense of ownership differs in 3 countries.

X

TM: Ownership and participation differs not only between countries but between groups and levels within a country

External com-munications

Evidence that stakeholders, practitioners and/or the general public understand project and are regularly updated on progress

Communications efforts are taking place but not yet evidence that message is successfully transmitted

Project existence is not known beyond implementation partners or misunderstand-ings concerning objectives and activities evident

X PM: Hace falta una mayor divulgación del proyecto en los diferentes niveles

Increased Project disemination needed at various levels

X

TM: Basic implementation challenges have kept project management from dedicating more time to visibility. Recent efforts include links to UNEPs ecosystem based adaptation initiative but cannot replace a systematic information strategy

Short term/long term balance

Project is addressing short term needs and achieving results with a long term perspective, particularly sustainability and replicability

Project is interested in the short term with little understanding of or interest in the long term

Longer term issues are deliberately ignored or neglected

X PM: X

TM: Solving short term project management issues is presently precluding a long term vision for environmental governance.

Science and technological issues

Project based on sound science and well established technologies

Project testing approaches, methods or technologies but based on sound analysis of options and risks

Many scientific and /or technological uncertainties

X PM: X

TM: While efforts are evident, a systematic approach has not been reported.

x PM: X

46


Project managementPolitical influences

Project decisions and choices are not particularly politically driven

Signs that some project decisions are politically motivated

Project is subject to a variety of political influences that may jeopardize project objectives

TM: The balance of decision making lies on the side of the national partners to the extent of precluding agencies ability to help overcome barriers.

Other, please specify. Add rows as necessary

PM:

TM:

Project Manager Rating

Notes Task Manager Rating

Risk Factor Indicator of Low Risk

Indicator of Medium Risk

Indicator of High Risk

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

EXTERNAL RISKProject context

Political stability

Political context is stable and safe

Political context is unstable but predictable and not a threat to project implementation

Very disruptive and volatile

X PM: La inestabilidad ha llevado al proyecto a importantes retrasos.Instability has lead Project to important delays.

X

TM: Agree. See also comments above.

Environmental conditions

Project area is not affected by severe weather events or major environmental stress factors

Project area is subject to more or less predictable disasters or changes

Project area has very harsh environmental conditions

X PM: Casi todos los años el Chaco enfrenta problemas de fuertes sequíasYearly drought problems in Chaco

X

TM:

47

document.docEXTERNAL RISK

Project contextSocial, cultural and economic factors

There are no evident social, cultural and/or economic issues that may affect project performance and results

Social or economic issues or changes pose challenges to project implementation but mitigation strategies have been developed

Project is highly sensitive to economic fluctuations, to social issues or cultural barriers

X PM: En cualquier intervención, es importante con una estrategia social que busque involucrar a las organizaciones locales.Strategy to seek involvement of local organizations is important for each intervention

X

TM: The influence of macroeconomic factors continues to be of eminent relevance, such as the price of commodities as a driver for land use decision-making. This continues to be a major risk of a magnitude that goes beyond project influence ability.

Capacity issues

Sound technical and managerial capacity of institutions and other project partners

Weaknesses exist but have been identified and actions is taken to build the necessary capacity

Capacity is very low at all levels and partners require constant support and technical assistance

X PM: X

TM:

Others, please specify

If there is a significant (over 50% of risk factors) discrepancy between Project Manager and Task Manager rating, an explanation by the Task Manager should be provided below

<50%

48

document.docTOP RISK MITIGATION PLAN

Rank – importance of riskRisk Statement – potential problem (condition and consequence)Action to take – action planned/taken to handle the riskWho – person(s) responsible for the actionDate – date by which action needs to be or was completed

Rank Risk Statement33 Action to Take Who DateCondition Consequence

Project overall risk rating (Low, Medium, Substantial or High) (Please include PIR risk ratings for all prior periods, add columns as necessary):

Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating since the previous reporting period

FY12 rating Substantial Several elements as discussed above need to show improvement to reduce the project’s risk rating to more manageable levels.

FY13 rating Substantial Despite management efforts risk level it has not been possible to reduce the risk level for this project. If a risk mitigation plan had been presented for a previous period or as a result of the Mid-Term Review/Evaluation please report on progress or results of its implementation

33Only for Substantial to High risk.49

document.doc4. RATING MONITORING AND EVALUATIONBased on the answers provided to the questions in 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 below, the UNEP Task Manager will provide ratings for the following aspects of project monitoring and evaluation:

(i) Overall quality of the Monitoring &Evaluation plan(ii) Performance in the implementation of the M&E plan

4.1. Does the project M&E plan contain the following: Baseline information for each outcome-level indicator Yes □X No □ SMART indicators to track project outcomes Yes □X No □ A clear distribution of responsibilities for monitoring project progress. Yes □X No □

4.2. Has the project budgeted for the following M&E activities: Mid-term review/evaluation Yes □X No □ Terminal evaluation Yes □X No □ Any costs associated with collecting and analysing indicators’

related information Yes □X No □

Please rate the quality of the project M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU):

4.3 Has the project: Utilized the indicators identified in the M&E plan to track progress

in meeting the project objectives; Yes □X No □ Fulfilled the specified reporting requirements (financial, including

on co-financing and auditing, and substantive reports) Yes □X No □ Completed any scheduled MTR or MTE before or at project

implementation mid-point; Yes □ No □X Applied adaptive management in response to M&E activities Yes □X No □ Implemented any existing risk mitigation plan (see previous section) Yes □ No □X

Please rate the performance in implementing the M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU):

4.4. Please describe activities for monitoring and evaluation carried out during the reporting period34

To include IA field visitsTanto el CR como los RNs del proyecto realizan periódicas visitas de campo. En Argentina se hace un cosntante seguimiento a los sitios piloto. Además de estas visitas, no se han realizado actividades específicas de monitoreo, pues la Línea Base ha sido revisada y actualizada (07/2013) y en agosto empezará una consultoria para la implementación del sistema de monitoreo del proyecto, siguiendo el calendario de actividades que se acordó en el taller de Asunción en marzo 2013 como herramienta de mitigación al retraso del proyecto e incentivo a la retomada de actividades por parte de Paraguay.

4.5. Provide information on the quality of baseline information and any effects (positive or negative) on the selection of indicators and the design of other project monitoring activities

34Do not include routine project reporting. Examples of M&E activities include stakeholder surveys, field surveys, steering committee meetings to assess project progress, peer review of documentation to ensure quality, etc.

50

document.doc

4.6. Provide comments on the usefulness and relevance of selected indicators and experiences in the application of the same.

4.7. Describe any challenges in obtaining data relevant to the selected indicators; has the project experienced problems to cover costs associated with the tracking of indicators?

4.8. Describe any changes in the indicators or in the project intervention logic, including an explanation of whether key assumptions35 are still validChanges in indicators are described in table below.

4.9. Describe how potential social or environmental negative effects are monitored

4.10. Please provide any other experiences or lessons relevant to the design and implementation of project monitoring and evaluation plans.

35 Assumptions refer to elements of the “theory of change” or “intervention logic” (i.e, the problem is a result of A, therefore, if we change B, this will lead to C) and not to pre-conditions for project implementation. It is a common mistake to include statements such as “political will” as an assumption. This is rather a necessary condition to implement the project.

51

document.doc

Adjustments to Project Strategy Please report any adjustments made to the project strategy, as reflected in the logical framework matrix, since the Project Document signatureHas the project made any changes to its strategy (i.e. logframe/results framework) since the Project Document was signed?If yes, were these changes reported in a previous APR/PIR?If no, complete the table below.

Change Made to: Yes/No Briefly Describe the Change and the Reason for that Change

Project Objective No

Project Outcomes No

Project Outputs/Activities Yes Regional: Change in indicator 2.3:

Origina l: By the end of the project, the number of producers and the area in which SFM and SLM practices are being applied reached a critical threshold which, in the absence of major institutional barriers, allows the further adoption of SFM and SLM practices to become self-sustaining (SFM and SLM practices adopted over 500,000 hectares in nine demonstration sites, thus reducing land degradation, conserving biodiversity and increasing carbon sequestration), (Improved income of 4,586 farmers and their families).

Revised : By the end of the project, the number of producers and the area in which SFM and SLM practices are being applied reached a critical threshold which, in the absence of major institutional barriers, allows the further adoption of SFM and SLM practices to become self-sustaining (SFM and SLM practices adopted over 300,000 hectares in nine demonstration sites, thus reducing land degradation, conserving biodiversity and increasing carbon sequestration), (Improved income of 4,586 farmers and their families).

Justification : Differences found in project documentation; proposed reduced targets in Bolivia and Paraguay. The indicator undergoes changes at the regional level, from 500,000 hectares to 300 000 hectares.

Approval : The change was proposed and approved during the Project´s Inception Workshop.

Argentina: Review of indicators 2.1.1 y 2.1.2 Original: Technical studies for Parque Provincial y Reserva Copo - Management plan and equipment to strengthen Parque

Provincial de Uso Multiple Copo. Revised : Technical studies for Parque Provincial y Reserva Copo - Management plan and equipment to strengthen Parque

Provincial de Uso Multiple Copo. Technical studies, management plan and strengthening of the Natural Area Bañados de Figueroa

Justification: Additional activities for Bañados de Figueroa as the originally proposed management plans and strengthening of Copo Provincial Park and reserve are being implemented as national counterpart within the framework of Law 26,331.

Approval : For approval at the project´s next Steering Committee Meeting

Bolivia : Change indicator R 2.3: Original : For Y5, SLM and SFM practices will have been implemented in an area of 200000 has Revised : SFM practices adopted over 50,000 hectares in four demonstration sites; demonstration effects in 75,000 has through

year 5 of the project until reaching 125,000 hectares. Justification : The adjustment is being proposed due to the following considerations: The financial resources for the implementation

52

document.docof SFM practices on demonstration sites are limited. Population density is low, particularly in rural areas, and scattered. Limited logistics (e.g. transportation) to support project implementation. Reduced time, particularly given the process approach required for developing a project for the implementation of integrated forestry management practices. Intensive Agricultural Use (IAU) is currently being practiced in an area of 295,000 has, with utilization of agricultural machinery, irrigation in some places, improved seeds, production inputs, capital investment and labor in annual crops and perennials. Under the approach of learning by seeing and doing, the adoption of SFM practices involves having already developed productive units with SFM , which currently in the case Chaco, are few and far the cases that could be used as demonstration sites . The project may not succeed in implementing and developing demonstrable practices at three to five years of project implementation. In order to seek improved project impacts, what can be proposed is to strengthen training activities and the exchange of experiences with production areas where SFM exist, so as to promote gradual adoption of SFM practices in the region.

Approval : For approval at the project´s next Steering Committee Meeting

Paraguay: Change indicator R 2.3. Original : Improved revenue of 800 farmers and their families and a potential of 2,000 additional, through demonstration effects for

Year 5 of the project (percentage increases in income to be estimated in Y1, after completing baseline studies) . Revised : Improved income of 100 producers and their families and a potential of 250 additional, through demonstration effects for

year 5 of the project . Justification : Proposed adjustment in Inception Workshop , Santa Cruz Approval : For approval at the project´s next Steering Committee Meeting

Change Indicator R.3.1 Original : By the end of the project an additional 2000 producers will have the potential of joining SFM/SLM Revised : By the end of the project an additional 250 producers will have the potential of joining SFM/SLM

Original : By the end of the project 250,000 additional acres have the potential to be incorporated under SFM/SLM Revised : By the end of the project 50,000 additional acres have the potential to be incorporated under SFM/SLM Justification : The Paraguayan Chaco has an area of approximately 246,925 km2 , with a population of 138,760 inhabitants

according to the 2002 National Census, so that population density is 0.5 inhabitants per km2. It follows that the population is widely dispersed in the territory. From this scenario, and considering the limited financial resources for the implementation of the demonstration projects, as well as the target population, requiring a close and direct follow-up to support project activities, it can be inferred that the indicators could be over ambitious. Thus, the number of producers involved and area to be benefited by the project has been reduced.

Approval: Amendments proposed by Bolivia and Paraguay on Inception Workshop. To be approved at the project´s next SCM.

5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS

5.1. Please summarize any experiences and/or lessons related to project design. Please select relevant areas from the list below: Conditions necessary to achieve global environmental benefits such as (i) institutional, social and financial sustainability; (ii) country ownership; and (iii)

stakeholder involvement, including gender issues. Institutional arrangements, including project governance; Engagement of the private sector; Capacity building; Scientific and technological issues; Interpretation and application of GEF guidelines; Factors that improve likelihood of outcome sustainability;

53

document.doc Factors that encourage replication, including outreach and communications strategies;

Financial management and co-financing.

5.2. Please highlight a few major achievements resulting so far from the project implementation, including but not limited to: Concrete results, both on-the-ground and normative Gender and indigenous peoples issues Private Sector Sustainability Innovation Upscaling

Partnerships Describe innovative aspects of the project in working with (word limit=200 words for each section):

Civil Society Organisations/NGOs Argentina:El proyecto comparte actividades relacionadas con la promoción de artesanías y huertas familiares con la Fundación Gran Chaco. La fundación es un interlocutor entre el proyecto y los actors locales. Acuerdo con la Unión de Pequeños Productores del Salado Norte para el desarrollo de actividades en el sitio piloto.Bolivia: Coordinación y acuerdos alcanzados con los comités locales de gestión de cuencas para la implementación de dos sitios piloto.Paraguay: Coordinación para el desarrollo de actividades comunes con la Fundación Desdelchaco.REGIONAL: El proyecto participó de reuniones y talleres con la organización REDES CHACO que aglutina a una red especialmente de ONGs y alguna universidad. Esta red está organizando el llamado Encuentro Mundial del Chaco que tendrá lugar en Bs As en septiembre próximo.Se sostuvieron algunas reuniones con el proyecto FFEM.La coordinación sostuvo diversas reuniones con universidades especialmente de Argentina y Bolivia con quienes se busca involucrar a estas instancias en algunas de las actividades que se llevan adelante. Producto de esto fue el convenio con la UNAF de Argentina.

Indigenous PeoplesPrivate SectorGEF Small Grants Programme La coordinación del proyecto sostuvo reuniones y participó de talleres

con el proyecto PES y el proyecto de Estudio de la Vulnerabilidad a los Impactos del CC.

Other Partners

Gender RelevanceHas a gender or social needs assessment been carried out?: If yes, please make available .

No

54

document.doc

Does this project specifically target women or girls as key stakeholders?

El diseño del proyecto, así como consta en el PRODOC, no tiene un enfoque de género que contemple actividades específicas en este sentido.

Please discuss any of the points above further or provide any other information on the project’s work on gender equality. Some points to consider: impact of project on daily workload of women, # of jobs created for women, impact of project on time spent by women in household activities, impact of project on primary school enrolment for girls/boys, increase in women’s income, etc. Be as specific as possible and provide real numbers (e.g. 100 women farmers participating in sustainable livelihoods programme).

Si bien el diseño de proyecto no contempla la inclusion de género, el Proyecto en su implementación está promoviendo y fortaleciendo la participación de las mujeres en las actividades diversas que ya vienen desarrollando (artesanía, ganado menor, apicultura) y otras que lleva adelante el proyecto como programas de capacitación, reuniones y talleres.

Grievances:

Did you address a grievance related to the environmental or social impacts of this project this reporting period? A grievance is defined as “an issue, concern, problem, or claim (perceived or actual) that an individual or community group wants the implementing agencies to address and resolve. Synonymous with complaint". If yes, please answer the following 5 additional questions:I. What environmental or social issue was the grievance related to?

II. How many grievances related to this project did you address?

III. What is the current status of this grievance?

IV. How would you rate the significance of the grievance?

a. Minor: the grievance had/has a low impact on the day-to-day implementation of the project.b. Significant: the grievance had/is having a significant impact on the day-to-day implementation of the project, but the project is still expected to achieve its objective.c. Serious: the grievance had/is having a serious impact on the day-to-day implementation of the project, and there is a risk (50% or higher) that the project may not be able to achieve its objective.

55

document.doc

V. Please describe the grievance – noting who was involved, what action was taken to resolve the grievance, how much time it took, and what you learned from managing the grievance process (maximum 500 words):

THESE WILL BE PROVIDED IN EXCEL SHEETS FOR Aggregation

IMPACT RESULTS - PROTECTED AREA PROJECTS Note: all provided information should be cumulative.

This sheet should only be completed by projects that primarily focus on PAs; secondary mainstreaming impacts can be entered in Table 13.2.5 at the bottom of this sheet – not in sheet Mainstream.Please complete the cells with white background colour only.

Table 13.2.1. Overview

Tables and rows will be added to sheet “Additional PAs(1)” for those PAs that do not fit in the space given in the tables below. If that additional space is unnecessary for the project, then this feature can be disabled. However, please explain why it is unnecessary.

Check this box to disable adding rows to sheet Additional

PAs(1)

Protected Areas Response Additional Country Additional Country Additional CountryAdditional Country

Total area (in hectares) of the country. In the case of regional and global projects, provide country name and total area in the columns “Additional Country” as necessary.

Total area (in hectares) covered by Protected Areas in the country

How many existing protected areas are being strengthened by the project?

Has the project established or is in the process of establishing new protected areas?

How many protected areas were legally established as a result of the project?Read the "Important Definitions" before completing.Note that sheet “Additional PAs(1)” will contain rows for PAs that don’t fit in 13.2.2(b), if there are more than 10 PAs in this category.

56

document.doc

How many protected areas are in the process of being legally established (gazetted) by the project? Read the "Important Definitions" before completing.Note that sheet “Additional PAs(1)” will contain rows for PAs that don’t fit in 13.2.2(c), if there are more than 10 PAs in this category.

Total number of PAs impacted by the project 0

Important Definitions - Protected Area ProjectsProtected Areas (PAs) can be listed in only one of these three categories... (a) Existing PA (being strengthened): a PA being impacted by the project that existed before the project started; includes existing PAs that are being or have been gazetted under new laws or under new levels of protection.(b) Gazetted/legally established PA: a new PA that did not exist before the project start that now exists as a result of the project.(c) PA in the process of being gazetted/legally established: a PA that did not exist before the project start that is now being gazetted as a result of the project.

Additionally, the project's impact on a PA can be either...●Direct: the project is undertaking site-based interventions in the PA; only PAs in which the METT is conducted can be considered directly impacted.●Indirect: the project is influencing the PA through broad interventions; this category includes PAs in which a few activities are undertaken, but these activities are not comprehensive and do not include the METT.

The number of projects that appear in the three following tables and in the sheet "Additional PAs(1)" must equal the total number of PAs impacted by the project, as listed in Table 13.2.1 above.

Table 13.2.2(a): Existing Protected Areas Being Strengthened – impacted in total

Name of Protected Area Area(Ha)

Global/Local Designation?

IUCN Management

Category (I through VI)

[15]

Directly or Indirectly

Impacted by the project? (see

definitions above)

Comments (if necessary)

Table 13.2.2(b): Newly Gazetted Protected Areas – impacted in total

Name of Protected Area

Area(Ha)

Global/Local

Designatio

IUCN Management

Category (I


Impacted by


57

document.docn? through VI)

[15]the project?

(see definitions

above)

Table 13.2.2(c): Protected Areas Being Newly Gazetted – impacted in total

Name of Protected Area

Area(Ha)

Global/Local

Designation?

IUCN Management

Category (I through VI)

[15]


Impacted by the project?

(see definitions

above)


Table 13.1.1. Project contribution to conservation of Global 200 Ecoregions (WWF)

List Global 200 ecoregion covered by the project Total area of the ecoregion (ha)

Area of the ecoregion covered by the project

(ha)

Protected

AreaProductive Landscape

Table 13.1.2. Project contribution to conservation of biodiversity hotspots (Conservation International) List CI hotspots covered by the project Total area of the CI Area of the ecoregion

58

document.doc

hotspot (ha)

covered by the project (ha)

Protected

AreaProductive Landscape

Table 13.1.3. Project contribution to conservation of globally threatened species

Level of Threat

(IUCN Red List Categories) [12]

Name of Globally Threatened Species in project, by % of total global population found in the project territory

List up to five species, one per row 1 - 25% 25 -50% 50 -75% 75 -100% If the project is directly addressing/working with any of the species listed above, then please describe that work here.

59

Documents

PIR 2013 · Web viewCon Bolivia y Argentina la comunicación es directamente con el PF. Debido a las múltiples obligaciones del PF de Bolivia, en ocasiones la comunicación se ve