· Web viewProject Document. 1. Identifiers. Project Number PAR/98/G31/33/A/1G/99. Name of...

United Nations Development Programme

Project of the Government of Paraguay

and the

Global Environmental Facility

Paraguay Wildlands Protection Initiative

1999- 2006

Project Document

1. Identifiers

Project Number PAR/98/G31/33/A/1G/99Name of Project: Paraguayan Wildlands Protection Initiative

[Iniciativa Paraguaya para la Protección de Areas Silvestres]

Duration: Seven YearsImplementing Agency: UNDPExecuting Agency: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) Requesting Country: ParaguayEligibility: Paraguay ratified the Convention on Biological

Diversity in 1993 and is eligible for UNDP technical assistance

GEF Focal Area: BiodiversityGEF Programming Framework: OP#3: Forest Ecosystems

2. Summary : The Paraguayan Wildlands Protection Initiative seeks to operationalise conservation management within four Protected Area sites. Each located in a different eco-region—namely the Interior Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado forest/ grasslands complex, the Chaco/Pantanal ecotone, and the Chaco savannah—the chosen sites contain a broadly representative sample of Paraguay’s rich biological diversity and are important wildlands. By arresting threats to native species and habitats, the project would safeguard sizeable global conservation values. Activities would strengthen a host of traditional Park management functions, including operational planning, enforcement, monitoring, and assessment functions. Training in conservation methods would be provided to Park’s staff, conservation values would be imparted to key decision-makers and local communities through an awareness campaign, and sustainable uses of biological diversity would be fostered. The project would also support conservation activities in buffer areas to protect critical habitats and maintain biological corridors with neighbouring Parks. An important project goal is to establish a modus operandi for managing National Parks that is suited to the Paraguayan context.

3. Costs and Financing (US$): GEF Full Project: 8,896,363

[of which administrative costs are 484,124] PDF B: 305,000

Subtotal: 9,201,363 Co-financing UNDP: 250,000 Govt of Paraguay: 600,000

CAF: 600,000 European Union: 855,000 USAID/TNC: 1,250,000

Sub total: 3,555,000Total Project Cost: 12,756,363

4. Associated Financing: Baseline financing provided by government, the IDB, the World Bank, European Union, GTZ, USAID, TNC, and several NGOs (costed at US$ 127,396,000)

5. Operational Focal Point Endorsement:Name: Guillermo Sosa Title: Technical

SecretaryOrganisation: Technical Secretariat for Planning Date: August 5,

1998

6. IA Contact: Lita Paparoni, Regional Co-ordinator, UNDP/RBLAC GEF Unit, Tel (212) 906 5468; Fax (212) 906 6998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................... 1

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVE.....................................................................................1ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT...................................................................................................1POLICY CONTEXT..................................................................................................................2CONSERVATION PRIORITIES...................................................................................................3INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND STAKEHOLDERS.......................................................................5GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.......................................................................................................5

PROBLEM TO BE ADDRESSED: THE PRESENT SITUATION .............................................................. 7

GENERAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT....................................................................................7POPULATION, LAND USE AND THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY........................................................8

Interior Atlantic Forest Ecoregion: San Rafael National Park...................................................................8Cerrado Ecoregion: Paso Bravo National Park.........................................................................................9Chaco/Pantanal Ecotone: Río Negro National Park..................................................................................9Chaco Savannah Ecoregion: Daniel Cáceres/ Defensores del Chaco National Parks...............................10

BASELINE...........................................................................................................................11PROJECT STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................... 15

Output 1: A Participatory management framework is developed, piloted and effective and Conservation Management Plans and regulations are framed and operational..............................................................15Output 2: Operations of target Protected Areas are built and enhanced...................................................18Output 3: Core institutional capacities of DPNVS/MAG, and community-based groups in the project areas are strengthened............................................................................................................................ 20Output 4: Demonstrations on sustainable use of wild resources completed and results disseminated......21Output 5: Conservation values are imparted through awareness creation and advocacy..........................24Output 6: Conservation planning and management mechanisms established to integrate conservation and development activities in the environs of the Parks................................................................................25

END OF PROJECT SITUATION................................................................................................28PROJECT BENEFICIARIES......................................................................................................38LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX............................................................................................29SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT RESULTS.................................................................................38ELIGIBILITY UNDER CBD.....................................................................................................38ELIGIBILITY FOR GEF FINANCING........................................................................................39COST-EFFECTIVENESS.........................................................................................................39

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................ 39

PROJECT EXECUTION...........................................................................................................39IMPLEMENTING AGENT........................................................................................................40PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE..........................................................................................41FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS..........................................................................42PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT............................................................................................43SUB CONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS....................................................................................43

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MODALITIES....................................................................................44PROJECT RISKS...................................................................................................................49

MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................. 53

MONITORING & EVALUATION..............................................................................................53LESSONS LEARNED.............................................................................................................54

PRIOR OBLIGATIONS AND PREREQUISITES ...................................................................................... 55

LEGAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................... 56

FUNDING ..................................................................................................................................................... 56

INCREMENTAL COSTS..........................................................................................................57OUTPUT BUDGET.................................................................................................................57

INPUTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 57

ANNEX I: BUDGET ..................................................................................................................................... 59

ANNEX II: WORK PLAN ........................................................................................................................... 63

ANNEX III: SCHEDULE OF PROJECT REVIEWS AND EXTERNAL EVALUATIONS ..................... 68

ANNEX IV: INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 69

ANNEX V: DESCRIPTIONS OF SITE BIOLOGY .................................................................................... 77

ANNEX VI:ROOT CAUSES ANNEX ......................................................................................................... 86

ANNEX VII: DUTY STATEMENTS—STAFF ........................................................................................... 91

ANNEX VIII: EQUIPMENT LIST .............................................................................................................. 98

ANNEX IX: DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR SUB-CONTRACTS .......................................... 100

ANNEX X: LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 105

Response to Technical Comments by GEF SEC/ Council Members

GEF Secretariat (Bilateral Teleconference)

Comment ResponseNeed to expand discussion on project risks

The proposal contains a detailed summary of risks and proposed abatement measures [see paragraph 86 (a)– (g)]

Provide assurances that there would be no involuntary settlement of local communities

Apart from San Rafael NP, none of the sites have permanent residents. San Rafael NP has a small population of Amerindians (estimated at 120-150 at any one time) residing within park boundaries. UNDP has been assured that there would be no involuntary settlement. This is a prerequisite for project funding [see paragraph 92 (e)]

Hunting/harvesting of natural resources should be strictly controlled, with baseline studies and on-going monitoring

The demonstrations would adopt an adaptive approach to harvest management, building on sound scientific principles and on-going biological/socio-economic monitoring exercises and instituting necessary controls to ensure sustainability. This is reflected in the text [see paragraph 47 (a)-(d)]

Indigenous peoples issues, particularly those relating to resource access should be addressed

This concern is addressed under activities proposed under Outputs 1 and 4 (see paragraphs 44 (c),(h),(i) and 47 (e). Related risks are discussed in paragraph 86 (c)

Provide assurances as to the sustainability of capacity built through the project

The Government of Paraguay routinely handles much larger projects than this one, and capacity constraints have been taken into account in design (for instance in determining the number of sites for intervention). An iterative approach is being taken, boosting capabilities in line with absorptive capacities of stakeholders. The STAP reviewer commented that prospects for long-term sustainability are high. See paragraph 52 for further details.

Estonia, Finland & Sweden

Comment ResponseNeed to revisit and strengthen the participatory approach to conservation management.

In consultation with stakeholders, the participatory management approach has been substantively strengthened (as reflected throughout the document). Details of the approach are provided in the section: Public Participation Modalities [paragraphs 70-85], under the section: Project Strategy, [paragraphs 42 – 49], and in the logical framework matrix. A number of risks to effective operationalisation of participation have been identified and appropriate risk abatement measures have been designed [see paragraph 86 (a)-(c)]

Medicinal plant management should be built on a solid understanding of the socio-economic determinants of over-exploitation.

Activities under Output 4 have been adapted to accommodate this need [see paragraph 47 (c)- (d)] and inputs have been adjusted accordingly]; the assessment of socio-economic determinants would be performed with local collectors.

Germany

Comment ResponseNeed to co-operate closely with state educational authorities to mesh conservation education into formal education in schools.

The project would work with educational authorities to develop curricula, teaching materials and aids, and train local school teachers [see paragraph 48 (b)]. The conservation education programme will initially be orchestrated on a pilot basis at the project sites, and, if successful, authorities would be encouraged to expand the programme to other areas. Activities would be sub-contracted to a technically competent private firm with experience in environmental education (refer to Annex IX, Terms of Reference for Sub Contracts).

Is there a special relationship between the four Protected Areas and the CITES Convention?

Is it reasonable and responsible to propose Appendix 2 species (CITES) for Sports hunting?

There is as such, no special relationship between the four Protected Areas and CITES although the project would maintain close linkages with the DPNVS/CITES unit to ensure that all activities are fully consistent with rules and regulations agreed under the Convention. The feasibility of the demonstration hinges on securing an interface between supply (i.e. the rarity of a species) and demand (traditionally hunted species). For severely threatened species, listed under Appendix 1, or species threatened with extinction in Paraguay, harvests would jeopardise survival of the species, and would be banned. But managed harvests would be allowed for species that are not threatened but whose trade is controlled (Appendix 2), recognising that there is a socio-cultural demand for hunts of such species. The objective is not to encourage such hunting but rather, to ensure it occurs on a sustainable basis, within ecological carrying capacities and without threatening population survival. The choice of species would be based on current harvests, population status, and inter-specific impact, and all hunting demonstrations would be based on sound data and subject to regular independent scientific auditing.

The medicinal plants demonstration should be more demand driven, focusing on the most used plants. Possibilities for increasing the harvest of medicinal plants should be investigated along with opportunities for creating additional/ alternative income.

The demonstrations would be both supply and demand driven, focusing on the most used threatened plants [see paragraph 47 (c) & (d)]. The project would leverage research inputs from academic institutions to assess whether harvests can be enhanced on a sustainable basis through manipulation of micro-habitats in situ. Finally, support would be provided to collectors to a) identify value added opportunities and 2) access financial capital. Activities would be linked to the integrated conservation and development approach under Output 6, which in part aim at mobilising baseline investments for productive purposes, thus creating additional income.

USA

Comment ResponseAcquisition of property should be a prerequisite to funding.

The status of landownership at the four project sites is articulated in paragraph 86 (d). The five target sites are wholly or mostly State owned, San Rafael NP being the exception to this. Under Paraguayan Law, as a legally gazetted National Park, San Rafael NP has effectively been alienated from private ownership. The government has committed a total of US$ 14 million for compensation purposes at San Rafael as part of baseline appropriations.

Extensive oversight is required by UNDP.

The financial management arrangements provide for extensive oversight by UNDP-Paraguay and independent audits conducted annually to assess the efficacy of financial management (see paragraphs 66-69 for a details).

Netherlands

Comment ResponseNeed to refer to NBSAP in proposal.

The links between this project and the UNDP- GEF supported Paraguay NBSAP are outlined in paragraph 8.

Need to strengthen participatory management;

Participation is a challenge which requires additional training of staff.

The participation of indigenous people and small farmers should be closely monitored.

The arrangements for public participation have been strengthened (see paragraphs 70-85 42 – 49 and 86 (a)- (c) and the logical framework. The project strategy fully recognises the challenge of effecting active participation, beyond mere public consultation, and substantial formal and informal training would be supplied to parks staff and select stakeholders to operationalise the approach. Capacity building would include, inter alia, training in conflict resolution, participatory learning and action tools, public relations and communications, and would also engender learning through debate. Intervention strategies, particularly under Outputs 4 and 6, would be geared towards addressing the needs of different direct stakeholders, fully recognising that indigenous groups and smallholders have different needs and perspectives to medium and large-holders. Social impact assessment would be undertaken on a regular basis to monitor differential social impacts—enabling management to be adapted as necessary to strengthen performance and mitigate adverse social impact [see paragraph 45 (c)].

Weak governance poses a risk to conservation.

This has been recognised as a risk and dealt with accordingly [see paragraph 86 (e) for details]. The participatory approach aims in part at raising standards of accountability for management, with independent social impact monitoring providing a basis for assessing performance. NGO representation on the Project Steering Committee and in the implementation of the advocacy component, coupled with UNDP oversight and independent evaluations should enable vigilance to be maintained and corrective action taken as necessary.

Need to develop integrated land management strategies based on integrated conservation and development approaches.

Output 6 has been strengthened to clarify objectives and outline measures for integrating conservation and development in the San Rafael biological corridor and ensure conservation objectives are integrated into regional development planning at all sites (see paragraph 49/ log frame). Because there is already a sizeable baseline of natural resource management activities, additional development support would not be channelled through the project. Rather, the emphasis is on modifying the baseline to ensure benefits flow to buffer communities.

Important areas in Paraguay like the Gran Chaco, the Rio Negro and the Chovoreca are not referred to in the initiative.

The project brief used the term Chaco when referring to the gran Chaco. The latter term, which is in more common usage, is used in the draft project document. Río Negro National Park is one of five project sites selected from the 39 sites listed in SINASIP on the basis of their conservation values. The project includes two sites in the Chaco savannas eco-region, where the Cerro Chovoreca site is located. Paraguay is a high biodiversity country and a single project cannot accord protection to all sites of global

significance. The sites selected include the top conservation priorities, as determined by a number of criteria (listed in paragraph 9). The STAP review has pointed out that the basis for site selection is scientifically and technically sound.

What is the role of the Technical Planning Secretariat?

The Technical Planning Secretariat does not participate in project execution. Its principle function is to ensure that projects conform to national development policies. The Secretariat will be represented at a high level in the Project Steering Committee (see paragraph 63) and in the Working Group that will be created to oversee integration of conservation and development objectives in the San Rafael biological corridor (paragraph 49 (I). The Secretariat would provide inputs regarding lessons learned from other projects, backstop monitoring and work to incorporate best practices and lessons learned under the project into national policies and conservation initiatives.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Alter Vida Ecodevelopment Studies and Training Centrea.m.s.l. above mean sea levelAPR Annual Project ReviewBGR Federal Geosciences and Natural Resources Institute,

GermanyCAF Andean Development CorporationCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCECTEC Peasant Study Centre for Training and TechnologyCITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered SpeciesDDNP Daniel Cáceres/ Defensores del Chaco National ParksDesdelchaco Sustainable Development Foundation for the Paraguayan ChacoDOA/MAG Directorate for Environmental ManagementDPNVS/MAG Parks and Wildlife DirectorateEBA Endemic Bird AreaENAPRENA Strategy for the Protection of Natural ResourcesEU European UnionFAO United Nations Food and Agricultural OrganisationIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentFMB Moisés Bertoni Foundation for the Conservation of NatureGoP Government of ParaguayGTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische ZusammenarbeitIAF Interior Atlantic ForestIBR National Institute for Public LandsIDB Inter-American Development BankINDE Paraguayan Indigenous Peoples AssociationITAIPU Paraguay-Brazil Authority for Itaipú Hydro Project IUCN World Conservation UnionMAB Man and the Biosphere Programme/UNESCOMAG Ministry of Agriculture and LivestockMERCOSUR Southern Economic MarketNP National ParkPA Protected AreaPBNP Paso Bravo National ParkPSC Project Steering CommitteePROCOSARA Association for San Rafael MountainsPTU Project Technical UnitRNNP Río Negro National ParkSRNP San Rafael National ParkSFN/MAG National Forest ServiceSINASIP National System of Protected Areas SSERNMA/MAG Secretariat for Natural Resources and the EnvironmentTNC The Nature ConservancyUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

OrganisationUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

Project Document

PROJECT CONTEXT

Global Environmental Objective

1. Paraguay has an especially rich biological heritage. Until recently, little was known about the country’s biodiversity and it was assumed to be biologically depauperate. Ongoing field research has proven otherwise. The country’s conservation programme is embryonic, only recently having gathered momentum. Nevertheless, an important window of opportunity exists to address biodiversity management needs and thus secure global conservation benefits. National commitment to biodiversity conservation is growing, the country’s wildlands, for the most part, remain in relatively pristine condition, and potential still exists to protect large, contiguous blocks of land. Conservation strategies hinge on the establishment of Protected Areas and a Master Plan for a System of Protected Areas has been framed. The next steps involve creation of new set-asides and strengthening of management capacities. The challenge of establishing new Protected Areas is compounded by the fact that much land is privately owned. The government is creating Protected Areas on public lands and, under a wider land use rationalisation programme, is purchasing private lands where necessary to safeguard critical habitats. New policies and regulations are in place to backstop biodiversity conservation efforts, and, inter alia, circumscribe resource uses in Protected Areas to conservation-compatible activities. GEF moneys would be drawn down to demonstrate a workable and replicable Protected Areas management paradigm, geared to the needs of different eco-regions.

2. The Chaco, Chaco/Pantanal, Cerrado and Interior Atlantic Forest eco-regions of Paraguay are important repositories of globally threatened species. The significance of these areas has been highlighted by recent biological field surveys, which show them to be a centres of floristic diversity within the La Plata River Basin and storehouses of globally threatened fauna. But this cornucopia is increasingly coming under threat. Thirty-three species of mammals and 86 of birds are classed as either threatened or near threatened, and a large, though unknown number of plant species are threatened, particularly in the Interior Atlantic Forest. If left unchecked, pressures will result in a loss of ecological integrity and species, causing the global community to forfeit conservation benefits. In the long run, it would be more cost-effective to take remedial action at this juncture rather than delay intervention until ecosystems have suffered extensive damage. This need provides an entry point for project activities.

Environmental Context

3. Divided on an East/West axis by the Paraguay River and on a North/South axis by the Tropic of Capricorn, Paraguay occupies an area of 406,752 sq. kms. The Occidental region or gran Chaco lies to the West of the River, and the Orient to the East, with an area of 246,925 and 158,827 sq.

1


kms. respectively. The country includes four globally and regionally significant eco-regions, namely the dry Chaco savannah, and Pantanal1 in the Occidental region, and the Cerrado and Interior Atlantic Forest (IAF) in the Orient (Dinerstein et al. 1995). These eco-regions are all ranked as top conservation priorities (ibid.). The vegetation in these areas includes xeric communities, mixed savannahs, tropical moist forests, shrublands, and seasonally flooded grasslands (Zardini, 1993). The Interior Atlantic Forest comprises Tropical Evergreen Broadleaf Forest on sandy soils, with bamboo thickets and isolated grassland patches. The Paraguayan Cerrado is a forest/ grasslands mosaic on poor soils, with stunted woodlands, gallery forests, shrubs, palms, and grasslands. The Chaco savannah consists mainly of dry woodlands, thorn forests, and scrubs on fine Andean fluvial deposits, with desert annuals blanketing sand dune formations in the north-west following rain. In the north-east Chaco a transition occurs between dry woodland communities and the permanently and seasonally flooded savannahs of the Pantanal, which support palm, herbaceous, and aquatic communities.

4. Lying at the heart of the floristically diverse La Plata River Basin, Paraguay is a centre of distribution for flora. The inventory consists of up to 13,000 species of vascular plants within 180 families and 1,103 genera (Zardini, 1993), including 760-plus species of trees and shrubs. Many species are endemic to Paraguay, or else are classed as near-endemic, being locally distributed elsewhere in the River Basin. The high level of floristic diversity is a product of spatial variances in levels of precipitation, substrate conditions, and geographical factors. The Orient is especially rich in flora with as many as 10,000 species, although the gran chaco is also floristically diverse, harbouring ~ 5,000 mostly different species (Zardini, 1998, pers comm.2).

5. The floristic diversity is paralleled by the country’s great faunal richness, with an inventory that includes an estimated 167 species of mammals3, 672–700 of birds, 46 of amphibians, 100 of reptiles, and possibly as many as 100,000 of invertebrates. The afore-mentioned eco-regions contain a wide assemblage of restricted range, threatened, and near threatened species, each harbouring a different species complement. Threatened or near-threatened mammals include the Marsh Deer, Chaco Peccary, Giant Armadillo, Short-tailed Opossum, Giant Otter, Bush Dog, Maned Wolf, and Oncilla. Of the avifauna, 60 are migratory species that arrive during the Austral summer, using the Pantanal and Interior Atlantic Forest as staging and stopover sites. The birdlist includes a large number of

1 Paraguay contains a unique eco-tone between the Pantanal and Chaco savannah, hereafter termed the Chaco/Pantanal.

2 Elsa Zardini, Associate Curator, Missouri Botanical Garden, and director of the Flora del Paraguay project.

3 The Chaco savannah is particularly important for the conservation of large and medium sized mammals, which exist in high densities. The inventory includes a number of species normally associated with tropical forests, making this eco-region unique (Redford 1990).

2

Project Document

Atlantic Forest, Chaco, and Cerrado endemics. 86 species of birds are listed as threatened or near-threatened, including the Vinaceous Amazon, Hyacinth Macaw, Helmeted Woodpecker, White-winged Nightjar, Rufous-faced Crake, and Russet-winged Spadebill. The inventory is continually being updated to reflect new records, an indication of Paraguay’s ornithological significance.

Policy Context

6. Paraguay’s Constitution (1967) provides a mandate for judicious stewardship of the natural environment. Conservation policies centre on the establishment of a bio-geographically-representative system of Protected Areas. In 1992, the government, with assistance from the FAO, undertook an assessment of conservation needs, identifying management constraints and articulating major policy objectives. The Master Plan for the National System of Protected Areas (SINASIP) was prepared the following year. The Plan identifies priority areas for conservation and designates management categories for Protected Areas. In 1995, following wide-ranging consultations with both public and private stakeholders, the Government endorsed the National Strategy for the Protection of Natural Resources (ENAPRENA) in a bid to integrate environmental management into cross-sectoral development policies, strategies and activities. Formulation of ENAPRENA has led to the enactment of a raft of progressive new legislation covering Protected Areas management, forestry, fisheries, and the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts. Law number 352/1994: Protected Natural Areas and Law number 716/96: Ecological Crimes, provide a legal framework for Protected Areas, including a mechanism for imposing sanctions against actions that degrade the integrity of National Parks. By law, once sites have been legally gazetted as National Parks constituent resources cannot be allocated to contra-conservation uses.

7. Over the medium to longer term, the government aims to establish two Biosphere Reserves, one in the Interior Atlantic Forest and the other in the gran Chaco. Anchored by National Parks (core wildlands), these would be configured to include buffer zones and transition areas subject to sustainable use management, with the goal of enhancing conservation prospects at a wider landscape level. Paraguay ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1993, and also is party to the Western Hemisphere, CITES, and RAMSAR Conventions.

8. The GEF has approved funding of US$ 136,935 to facilitate preparation of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention of Biological Diversity. Monies will be drawn down to undertake an assessment of the information base on Paraguay’s biodiversity, engender broad-based stakeholder participation in strategic planning, develop priorities for conservation action, raise public awareness of Paraguay’s commitments under the CBD, and prepare a National Report for submission to the CBD-COP. The Plan would reflect the priorities and strategies articulated in the SINASIP Master Plan

3


for Protected Areas, and would complement the Wildlands Protection Initiative by addressing a number of unmet conservation planning needs, including inter alia, the strengthening of biodiversity inventory systems, national level co-ordination, property rights legislation and legal aspects governing wildlife trade. The two initiatives, which will be implemented by the Division of National Parks and Wildlife within the Ministry of Agriculture, are highly synergistic. The Wildlands Initiative will build on relevant recommendations in the NBSAP, and project staff will be consulted in the planning exercise.

Conservation Priorities

9. The SINASIP Master Plan proposes that a total of 39 Protected Areas be established country-wide, covering an area of some 41,000 square kilometres, or just over 10 % of Paraguayan territory4. 22 Protected Areas have heretofore been established, with a total area of 15,000 square kilometres. Many of these sites lack adequate endowments of staff, equipment, and infrastructure. Recognising that it is simply not realistic to concurrently strengthen/ establish all 39 sites given resource constraints, the government undertook a priority setting exercise as part of Block B activity implementation. The objective was two-fold, firstly to elicit the highest priorities for management intervention amongst existing sites, and secondly, to set priorities for operationalising new Protected Areas. Criteria used included [1] the need to protect sites that are species-rich, including endemic, restricted range, and globally threatened species, [2] the need to ensure adequate bio-geographical representation [3] the imperative of protecting large, contiguous habitat blocks, [4] the likelihood of successfully abating threats to biodiversity, and [5] the quality of existing and proposed baseline interventions at sites. Given these parameters, the following sites emerged as the country’s top management priorities:

i. San Rafael NP in the Interior Atlantic Forest. This site, gazetted in 1992, is located in south-eastern Paraguay, and covers an area of 730 square kilometres. Located mainly in Itapúa Province, with the northern extremity lying in Caazapá Department, this park comprises the largest remaining block of Interior Atlantic Forest in Paraguay. Despite the fact that the Park likely constitutes Paraguay’s most important forest reserve, containing a representative sample of the eco-region’s diverse flora and fauna (Madroño et al. 1997, Lowen et al. 1996), it lacks field management, thus exposing it to anthropogenic pressures.

ii. Paso Bravo NP in the Cerrado (1,030 square kilometres). This is a new

4 Including 16 sites in the IAF, 10 sites in the Chaco savannah, 1 site in the Chaco/Pantanal and 2 sites in the Cerrado. 12 of the 39 sites in SINASIP have scenic or recreational attributes rather than high biological values. Moreover, not all of the 39 sites are necessarily large enough to safeguard ecological processes in the long-term (24 sites have an area of less than 500 square kilometres, and 14 of less than 100 square kilometres).

4

Project Document

Park, formally gazetted in 1998 following the priority setting exercise. The site is currently in a pristine position, and harbours a diverse flora and fauna, with many Cerrado endemics. It constitutes one of the largest Protected Areas within the eco-region at a global level. The Park is located in Concepción Province, just East of the Paraguay River, and south of the Río Apa (one of the principal tributaries of the Paraguay River).

iii. Daniel Cáceres and Defensores del Chaco NP’s in the gran Chaco (13,440 square kilometres). Daniel Cáceres was created to protect a mix of dry woodlands, scrubs, and ephemerophytes, not found elsewhere. The site abuts the Defensores del Chaco NP, Paraguay’s first Park and another top conservation priority in need of management support. Together, the two sites will conserve a representative sample of the dry Chaco landscape, including a transition from arid to more humid areas. They are important for the protection of large mammals, such as Chaco Peccaries, Brazilian Tapirs, and Jaguars (the latter two species exist at higher densities than is the norm in the neo-tropics). Because the two Parks would be jointly managed, they are treated as one site. The Parks lie within Boquerón and Alto Paraguay Provinces.

iv. Río Negro NP in the Chaco/ Pantanal ecotone (3,180 square kilometres). This site is in the process of being legally gazetted. It has been declared a RAMSAR site, and is globally unique in that it will conserve a transition between Chacoan ecosystems and the Pantanal. A staging area for migrating birds during the boreal winter, Río Negro is also important for the conservation of threatened mammals, including the Maned Wolf and Marsh Deer. Created to protect the globally unique transition between the Chaco and Pantanal eco-regions, this Park lies in the North-eastern tip of the country in Alto Paraguay province (the province occupies an area of approximately 84,349 square kilometres).

Institutional Context and Stakeholders

Government Agencies

10. The country is divided into 17 Departments, currently under central government jurisdiction. New government policies aim at decentralising powers to the Departments, which, if executed, will increase their administrative role in conservation activities.

(a) The Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock (MAG) executes government policies in the agriculture and livestock sectors. Its functions— specified in Law No. 81 of 1992— are broadly defined, and include a mandate for environmental management and conservation of biological diversity. In terms of its organisational structure, MAG operates through three Sub-secretariats: Natural Resources and the Environment (SSERNMA), Agriculture, and Livestock & Fisheries.

Sub-secretariat for Natural Resources and the Environment (SSERNMA):

5


Established in 1989. It encompasses the forestry service, DPNVS/MAG, and the Environmental Management Directorate. SSERNMA is responsible for developing, implementing and administrating plans, programmes and projects as they relate to renewable natural resources and land use management.

- The National Forestry Service - Established in 1973, controls and oversees management of forestry resources. It issues permits for timber harvesting, marketing, distribution and export. The Service is responsible for implementing the Reforestation Law, and administering incentives and sanctions provided for under the legislation. Under Paraguayan Law, the Service is not responsible for forest management within PAs, but controls licensing for timber harvesting in buffer areas.

- Directorate for Environmental Management – Established in 1989, its objectives are to design and supervise plans, programmes and projects for environmental management.

- Directorate for National Parks and Wildlife – Established in 1987, the Directorate is responsible for establishing and managing Protected Areas and overseeing the hunting, breeding, and trade in wildlife products. Administration of the System of Protected Areas (SINASIP) is regulated by Law No. 352, 1994, which circumscribes land use activities on both public and private lands. Within DPNVS/MAG, the Conservation Data Centre (established with support from TNC) is responsible for managing biological data. The National Museum, also within DPNVS/MAG, is responsible for documenting the country’s biological diversity and maintaining national specimen collections.

Sub-secretariat for Agriculture/MAG: Established in 1989. It is responsible for the implementation and administration of agricultural sector policies. Policy co-ordination with other Sub-secretariat’s within the Ministry occurs through the Agricultural Co-ordination Council; there are five Divisions: Agricultural Research, Seeds, Extension, Agrarian Education, and Sanitation.

Sub-secretariat for Livestock & Fisheries/MAG – Established in 1989. It develops and implements policies and strategies relating to the livestock and fisheries sectors. There are three divisions, namely, Animal Research and Production, Food Control and Standards for Animal Products, and Animal Husbandry. Internal Policy co-ordination within MAG occurs through the Livestock and Fisheries Co-ordination Council.

(b)Paraguayan Indigenous Peoples Institute (INDE): Created in 1981 under the umbrella of the National Defence Minister, the Institute is responsible for implementing and upholding Government policies for indigenous peoples. Its functions include the provision of legal and economic assistance to indigenous communities, execution of periodic censuses, and co-ordination of social and economic interventions to improve the livelihoods of indigenous groups.

6

Project Document

(c) Lands Institute (IBR): Established as an autonomous agency in 1963, the Institute is responsible for executing the Government’s policies on land distribution and agrarian reform. It owns Public lands on behalf of the State, and is responsible for the auction of these properties. The IBR is a member of the Advisory Council of INDE, and is responsible for acquiring land for indigenous peoples.

(d)Department Authorities: These are subsidiary to national government, and are responsible for implementation of approved Government policies, under the guidance of central line ministries. Provincial authorities work through local or Municipal governments, which are responsible for the planning and execution of cross-sectoral interventions.

Non Government Agencies

11. A number of not-for-profit NGOs and private associations are active in the conservation arena, and several work on sustainable development activities that have a conservation bearing. The following organisations are most prominent.

(a) Moisés Bertoni Foundation (FMB): The largest Paraguayan conservation NGO, FMB aims at creating and supporting management of a network of private reserves. Established in 1988, it complements the work of DPNVS/MAG. In 1991 it created the Mbaracayú Natural Forest Reserve, designating the upper Jejuí River watershed as a buffer. The Reserve’s Governing Council includes UNDP, the Government, FMB, The Nature Conservancy, and representatives of the Aché indigenous group. The Nature Conservancy has supported FMB since its establishment, Mbaracayú Reserve being included in its Parks in Peril Programme.

(b)Desdelchaco: the Sustainable Development Foundation for the Paraguayan Chaco. This is a recently established NGO, mandated with promoting sustainable development in the Chaco. Desdelchaco will participate in the TNC/USAID funded initiative to strengthen management of the Defensores del Chaco PA.

(c) Alter Vida: This NGO (established in 1982) promotes community-based natural resource management in the Paraguayan Orient. Activities are organised into 3 programmes, namely: advocating government policy reform, influencing public opinion, and environmental research, training and communications. It runs a radio program as part of its environmental advocacy activities. Through an agreement signed with DPNVS, Alter Vida is implementing sustainable development activities in the buffer zone of Paso Bravo National Park.

(d)CECTEC: The Eco-development Studies and Training Centre, works to foster sustainable agriculture by up-skilling high school students from peasant families in the Eastern region (35-40 students are trained each year). It emphasises the use of native plant and tree species in farming

7


systems as well as the cultivation of indigenous medicinal plants.

(e) The Nature Conservancy has been working in Paraguay for nearly two decades, supporting the work of FMB and DesdelChaco (including fund raising and capacity building activities). TNC has also supported establishment of the CDC within DPNVS/MAG, and has sponsored training activities.

(f) ECOVIDA: Established in 1992 to provide agricultural extension services in the buffer zone of San Rafael National Park, this NGO works through intermediary farmers’ committees.

(g)The Association for San Rafael Mountains (PROCOSARA) was created in 1998 by a group of strong conservation advocates, with the aim of supporting conservation in San Rafael National Park. Another NGO – with links to the Association—has been formed. Guyra Paraguay focuses on bird conservation in San Rafael— with formal linkages with the ICPB.

(h)Paraguay Rural Association: This well established group works as a lobby and advocacy outfit— promoting the interests of the livestock industry. A number of regional chapters of the Association have been established in both eastern and western Paraguay. An environmental unit has been created to provide members with information on forest and water management issues.

(i) Two large Producer Associations exist in the buffer to San Rafael, providing a number of support services to members (marketing, distribution, storage, input supply etc.).

PROBLEM TO BE ADDRESSED: THE PRESENT SITUATION

General Socio-economic Context

12. Paraguay has a total population of 5.1 million inhabitants, with a demographic rate of growth of 2.8% per annum. The population, for the most part, is of immigrant stock, with pure indigenous groups accounting for a mere 2.1% of the total. Some 97% of the populace inhabit the eastern region where a combination of rich soils, topography, and high rainfall has made conditions suitable for mechanised agriculture. Farm holdings include a mix of smallholder, medium, and large-sized properties, and soy bean, cotton, sugar cane, tobacco, cassava, corn, rice, and beans are grown. The principal source of livelihood in the gran Chaco is provided by extensive cattle production on medium-large sized ranches (usually between 500 and 10,000 cattle on 2,000 to 50,000 hectares of land, World Bank 1994). The country had a gross domestic product of US$ 9.9 billion in 1997 (EIU, 1998), giving a per capita income of US$ 1,940. The renewable resource sectors account for over 26% of GDP, and dominate merchandise exports.

Population, Land Use and Threats to Biodiversity

8

Project Document

13. The section below summarises information on population, land use and threats to biodiversity in the four ecoregions, and, more specifically, at the four sites. [An assessment of the root causes of these threats is presented in Annex VI].

Interior Atlantic Forest Ecoregion: San Rafael National Park

14. The Interior Atlantic Forest eco-region is the most threatened in Paraguay, facing a motley of pressures ranging from agricultural production, logging, extraction of minor forest products, including medicinal plants, and hunting. The population of Itapúa Province presently stands at 376,000 (9.1 % of the total for Paraguay), giving a density per square kilometre of 22.7. Some 4,000 people live in the area immediately surrounding the Park. Farms include a mix of smallholder plots and large and medium-sized landholdings. Soya production predominates, with some grains and food crops also being cultivated. The eco-region faces a large in migration of Brazilian farmers, cultivating mainly medium-sized plots. Land prices are relatively high, but the soil and climatic conditions are ideal for agriculture, fuelling the process of land cover conversion.

15. Some 85% of the Paraguayan Interior Atlantic Forest has already been cleared, leaving small pockets of forest in mainly hilly areas. This situation accentuates the conservation value of San Rafael Park. The Park faces pressures from encroachment. Subsistence hunting is a growing problem, particularly of small mammals and birds, commercial hunting for the trade in wildlife (particularly of Parrots) is widespread, and the harvest of rare flora, including orchids, medicinal and ornamental plants is also damaging. Illegal logging is also a problem, and needs to be urgently curtailed. Some 480 Mbya Amerindians live in the environs of the Park, including 120-150 within Park boundaries. This community hunts within the Park for subsistence and harvests forest products, including medicinal plants and firewood. By themselves, pressures from the community are minimal, but they contribute to the conjunction effect of threats. A final problem is that there is an almost total lack of integration of conservation into agricultural activities in areas buffering the Park. A corridor between the Park and Caaguazú Ecological Reserve in the north-west needs to be maintained to foreclose genetic insularisation5.

16. In common with the other project sites, management at San Rafael National Park is limited. A holistic set of interventions are urgently required to stem pressures. Opportunities exist to stem the process of colonisation with prompt action and the engagement of communities, particularly 5 The Reserve, located 15 kms to the north-west of San Rafael NP was

established in 1976 and covers an area of 160 sq. kms. with mature secondary forest predominating. The two Protected Areas are presently connected by a forest corridor on provate land, but the corridor area has no formal conservation status and is vulnerable.

9


Amerindian groups in the planning and execution of conservation measures. The lack of field staff at the site means that policing is perfunctory; the placement of staff, construction of infrastructure, and provision of equipment constitute urgent needs.

Cerrado Ecoregion: Paso Bravo National Park

17. There has been very limited attention paid in Paraguay and neighbouring Brazil, to the conservation of the Cerrado ecosystems (see Collar et al. 1992). The natural cerrados of Southern Brazil, Paraguay and Northern Argentina rank amongst the 7 most critical conservation priorities in the neotropics (Kelsey, 1991). Whilst the Cerrado eco-region in the area surrounding Paso Bravo NP remains relatively intact, in neighbouring Brazil less than 5% of the biome remained intact by 1988 (Cavalcanti, 1988). A large number of species endemic to this region have been extirpated in large parts of their former ranges (Collar et al. 1992). Much of the disturbance has occurred within the past thirty years, with land being converted to cattle ranches and permanent agriculture (mainly soy bean cultivation). Few Protected Areas exist in the region (less than 1.5% of the Brazilian Cerrado has been accorded protection.) Unfortunately, data on the extent of Cerrado destruction are not available for Paraguay, but the ecosystem, particularly in its southern reaches, faces similar threats to those prevailing in Brazil. The Paso Bravo area comprises one of the largest intact samples of Cerrado globally, underscoring its significance.

18. At an eco-regional level, the establishment of large ranches has increased competition between wildlife and cattle. It has also tended to result in the introduction of exotic grasses as improved fodder, at the expense of native species. In addition, charcoal production in Brazil poses a direct threat to ecosystem integrity, resulting in the clearance of large swathes of land (this situation may come to prevail in Paraguay). There is a general paucity of information on the biodiversity of the region, and the impacts of anthropogenic activities on wildlife have been poorly chronicled, complicating the design and execution of management measures.

19. Concepción Province has a total population of 166,946, with an area of 18,051 square kilometres and a population density of 9.24 individuals per square kilometre. 70% of the population is located in the southern portion of the Province. The nearest township to the Park, San Carlos, has a population of just 2,000 people. In the longer term, anthropogenic pressures will increase as the region to the East of the Park is settled. There is a need to secure Park boundaries and institute basic conservation measures to ensure the ecological integrity of the Park does not suffer. Limited hunting currently occurs, mainly of Caimans for commercial purposes. A small Protected Area (San Luis NP) has been established south-west of the Park, and spatial planning and management efforts need to be geared towards establishing a biological corridor between the two reserves.

10

Project Document

Chaco/Pantanal Ecotone: Río Negro National Park

20. Alto Paraguay province supports a population of 11,816, equating to a density per square kilometre of only 0.14. Anthropogenic activities are mainly concentrated in the East Central section of the province, along the Paraguay River, surrounding the township of Fuerte Olimpo (some 100 kilometres south of the Park). Populations of the indigenous Chamacoco people inhabit the township of Bahía Negra (total population of 315), located just south of the Park. Limited road infrastructure currently exists, and access to the region is mainly by boat along the Paraguay River, or by air. There is an influx of Brazilian settlers into the region, working in ranches or large estancias under contract.

21. This eco-region receives annual rainfall of some 1,400 millimetres per year, making it more productive than the dry Chaco for agriculture and livestock ranching. As the case with the Dry Chaco and Cerrado eco-regions in Paraguay, threats to biodiversity have historically been low. However, anthropogenic pressures in this region are changing more rapidly than in the other two eco-regions, with the development of cattle ranching and cassava farms. This development is occurring in an ad hoc manner, with limited regard to conservation values. Park operations are needed to foreclose land use conversion within remaining wilderness areas.

22. Subsistence hunting is a potential problem, though evidence exists that commercial hunting is also occurring (particularly of Caimans). In addition, hunting of Jaguars and Pumas is widespread, a situation that if allowed to prevail, would result in the longer-term in the localised extirpation of these species. Ranch owners exercise only limited control over hunting on their lands, and are also culpable. There is a lack of enforcement of conservation regulations, presently owing to the fact that DPNVS/MAG lacks a presence in the region.

Chaco Savannah Ecoregion: Daniel Cáceres/ Defensores del Chaco National Parks

23. This Protected Area complex lies in the sparsely settled Paraguayan frontier region, and is spatially separated from most current development activities. The current threats to biological diversity are of a low order of magnitude. Boquerón and Alto Paraguay Provinces collectively cover an area of 91,669 and 84,349 square kilometres respectively but support only a tiny fraction of Paraguay’s total population. Population density is very low in the vicinity of the Parks, populations being concentrated in the south and central sections of the Chaco, 150-180 kilometres south of the southern boundary of the site.

24. The site lies within the centre of distribution of the Ayoreo indigenous peoples (some 2,000 of whom reside in Paraguay). There are presently no indigenous communities settled in the Parks. However, a small, transient

11


population of Ayoreo work as farm hands on cattle ranches in buffer areas, and use wild resources for consumptive purposes. Larger indigenous communities (Ayoreo and Angaite peoples) reside in the township of Santa Domingo, some 120 kilometres from the site—obtaining income by working as farm labour. There is also an uncontacted group of forest Ayoreos known as the Totobiogosode group (people of the Peccary), thought to comprise of some 35 people that migrate into the area from Bolivia (TNC, 1997).

25. The PA complex lies in a low rainfall area, and is highly vulnerable to disturbance. Indications are that threats are likely to escalate over the longer-term, as natural systems in settled areas are degraded, causing the ecological frontier to shift. An opportunity exists to bring the area under active conservation management before damage is inflicted, protecting a representative sample of the unique ecosystems of the dry Chaco. Operationalisation of management in Dániel Cáceres and strengthening of management in Defensores del Chaco would create a unique Protected Areas complex, covering an ecological transect from the very dry Chaco to more humid areas—the only one of its kind globally.

26. At the present time, some hunting for subsistence purposes occurs within the Parks. Though little data exists regarding the impacts of such hunting, the limited empirical information that does exist suggests that harvests occur within the carrying capacity of most species. But infrastructural development could change the status quo. In addition, several large cattle ranches have been established immediately south of the site. Though the arid conditions imply that the area is of marginal value for livestock ranching, park establishment is needed to foreclose further allocation of wildlands to ranching. Baseline interventions aim at improving livelihoods in the region. These need to be accompanied by measures to protect important habitats and migration routes on private lands.

27. The lack of infrastructure in the region has heretofore limited access to the Parks. But this situation is set to change. The Government plans to improve existing roads in the Province, including paving of the Pan American highway, which passes south of the Parks. Plans are presently afoot to establish an Inter-oceanic Highway, which would cut across the Chaco from West to East, running north of the site. Traffic along these roads would likely consist mainly of large cargo trucks, with limited passenger vehicles. While neither road will cut through the Parks, they are likely to make the area more accessible for hunting, and possibly, ranching (subject to availability of subterranean water). On the plus side, access for non-consumptive uses of biodiversity, such as eco-tourism and scientific research would also improve.

Baseline

28. The baseline for the project is described below for the ‘bundles’ of activities required in order to establish and effectively manage Protected Areas.

12

Project Document

Participatory Planning:

29. Management and Operational Plans are lacking in most Parks, including the 4 priority sites6. These are needed to provide a blueprint for the biodiversity management process, and to ensure an optimal allocation of financial, human, and other resources. In addition, while legislation governing PA management exists, this has yet to be translated into regulations circumscribing use at the site level. Despite the fact that the legislation allows PA’s to be zoned for multiple uses, this has not happened, leading to confusion amongst managers and stakeholders as regards management objectives. A further dilemma is that local communities have traditionally been alienated from the conservation process, rarely having been consulted by Protected Area planners. DPNVS/MAG recognises that it will be necessary to involve the public in planning endeavours –to give them a greater stake in conservation—but lacks the wherewithal and experience to apply participatory planning methods. The traditional approach to management has placed decision-making almost solely in the hands of Park Directors, and multi-stakeholder Parks Management Boards have yet to be constituted (at any site).

Protected Area Operations:

30. Protected Area operations tend to be focused on a subset of established sites. Other sites suffer from shortages of staffing and a scarcity of basic equipment and infrastructure, and, for the most part, have yet to be physically demarcated. In general, this is the situation that prevails at each of the priority sites. However, in San Rafael, PA boundaries have been demarcated, and a World Bank financed Natural Resources Management Project would supply infrastructure and some equipment in the baseline scenario. Defensores del Chaco NP has some infrastructure and equipment, but the endowment is inadequate. Daniel Cáceres, Río Negro, and Paso Bravo National Parks have yet to be physically demarcated, and lack infrastructure and equipment. Capacity to perform traditional management functions, such as data gathering, surveillance, and enforcement, is weak, and needs strengthening. This task is hampered by weak linkages between Park’s authorities and local police and magistrates responsible for enforcing environmental legislation. Daniel Cáceres, Río Negro, and Paso Bravo Parks are located in remote border regions but there is a lack of congruence between management in Paraguay and that occurring in neighbouring countries. Policy makers in Paraguay and neighbouring countries have advocated co-operation in order to enhance long-term prospects for conservation7, but this has yet to be effected at an operational level.

6 A Management Plan was prepared by DPNVS for Defensores del Chaco NP in 1988, but needs to be updated.

7 This would provide synergies in planning and management, and galvanise a co-ordinated response to hunting and other threats.

13


31. Biological monitoring efforts are clearly inadequate, and are constrained by a lack of comprehensive biological data. Only the Mbaracayú NR has been intensively surveyed. Ad hoc survey work for some taxonomic groups has occurred in San Rafael (birds, plants), Daniel Cáceres/ Defensores del Chaco (large fauna, plants), Paso Bravo (parrots, plants), and Río Negro (birds). This work needs to be expanded to provide a more comprehensive biological data base, that could be used for management purposes. DPNVS/MAG contains a Conservation Data Centre (CDC) that is technically responsible for co-ordinating biological inventory work; in practice, the Centre has little capacity to perform this function.

Training:

32. A widespread problem afflicting the Parks system as a whole is that personnel lack experience and know-how in innovative approaches to conservation and the multiple disciplines with which contemporary conservation managers must be familiar. Although DPNVS/MAG does conduct training courses, the quality and quantity of such training is inadequate. Likewise, although NGOs such as FMB and Alter Vida are supporting some training activities, they are unable to meet the needs of the expanded Protected Areas system.

Sustainable Use:

33. If conservation is to compete with other land uses in the long- term, then the relative values of components of biological diversity will need to be enhanced. Opportunities for stimulating non-consumptive uses of wildlife, such as through promotion of nature tourism, have yet to be realised in the priority sites. There is, however, potential to develop various sustainable use alternatives at the sites. At this stage, these opportunities are not being realised owing to a number of barriers. Generic barriers include the lack of sensitisation amongst local landholders neighbouring the Park’s and sources of development capital regarding investment opportunities in sustainable use. This tends to foreclose investment in eco-enterprises engaging in sustainable use activities. A further problem is that there is an absence of financial mechanisms to channel benefits back into management, meaning that the full costs and benefits of management are not being internalised. This has obvious, negative, implications for sustainability.

34. The domestic market for recreational tourism is large, with Paraguayan’s making heavy use of Parks, although demand is presently concentrated within a few small sites with natural attributes but relatively little biodiversity. The challenge is to catalyse demand for the recreational use of high priority sites, such as San Rafael National Park. Barriers to development include a lack of information and public awareness about the Park, an absence of interpretation facilities, trails, and other basic on-site infrastructure, a lack of trained guides, and inadequate visitor management capacities.

14

Project Document

35. There is a strong tradition of sports hunting in Paraguay, particularly in the gran Chaco. This activity is poorly regulated, and, potentially, has a contra-conservation impact. Nevertheless, carefully managed sports hunting of common species (in areas designated for the purpose) could provide an important sustainable use opportunity and conservation incentive. This is particularly relevant in the buffer areas to the Chaco parks, where wildlife disperses across neighbouring private ranches. Sports’ hunting currently occurs in these areas, but it is poorly controlled, and accords little financial benefit to landowners. Barriers to development include a dearth of data on hunting levels and population trends for target species, a lack of understanding of the determinants of market demand, and an absence of adaptive management skills. Institutional capacities to manage use are also weak and need strengthening.

36. The harvest of medicinal plants for the production of folk medicines constitutes a threat to several species in the Atlantic Forest, including within San Rafael. The emphasis so far has been on ex situ cultivation, with trials having been conducted for some 300 species. But there is a paucity of information regarding management requirements for medicinal plants in a natural environment—a potent barrier to advancing sustainable use objectives. If the problem is to be comprehensively addressed, site based trials will be required for different species in order to determine responses to various intensities of harvest, and to develop and operationalise Management Plans to regulate collection.

37. While traditional uses of biological resources (subsistence hunting and harvesting of minor forest produce) by Amerindian communities are allowed in designated use areas within Protected Areas under Paraguayan law, there is presently a lack of information on the intensity of use and effectiveness of management methods, and understanding of the broader impacts on ecological processes. The populations of Amerindian communities residing within or using wild resources within the four parks are small, and existing evidence points to limited impact. However, the situation needs to be monitored and active management measures instituted where problems occur, building as far as possible on indigenous methods. Adaptive management of traditional uses of biodiversity has yet to be piloted in the Paraguayan context, and is hampered by a lack of information and weak interface between resource management agencies and indigenous groups. In the longer term, while out-migration of Amerindian people seeking employment outside of forest areas may serve to deflate some demographic pressures, an accompanying loss of indigenous knowledge of resource management may have a detrimental effect. There is an urgent need to chronicle and adapt traditional methods to suit new socio-economic, institutional and ecological realities, as well as to guard against commercialisation of customary use.

Conservation Awareness:

15


38. Public awareness of conservation values is limited, and the nation’s conservation movement is embryonic. Media coverage of conservation issues is scanty, although this situation is changing. DPNVS/MAG has launched a number of national awareness programmes. But on the whole, awareness of Paraguay’s conservation values and the relevance of conservation to national development objectives and priorities is inadequate. FMB has sponsored some conservation awareness efforts in the vicinity of Mbaracayú NR. But it is unlikely that substantive and well-targeted awareness drives would occur in the environs of the four sites in a baseline scenario. Whilst legislation pertaining to Protected Areas and natural resource management has been strengthened, understanding of the letter of the law amongst most stakeholders, including authorities responsible for law enforcement, remains poor.

Management of Buffer Areas:

39. There is a long-term danger that Protected Areas will be insularised as landscapes are modified. This in turn would imperil biodiversity by arresting the transfer of genetic material between wildlands. The government recognises that a landscape approach to conservation will be required in order to foreclose this outcome. A host of renewable resource sector programmes have been launched in the eco-regions, including the Natural Resources Management-project in Alto Paraná and Northern Itapúa, the Rural Community Investments-Pilot Project, and a programme to promote Sustainable Development of the Paraguayan Chaco. These initiatives are justified in Paraguay’s own sustainable development interests, but if carefully orchestrated, may potentially contribute towards the realisation of global environmental objectives.

40. In the Interior Atlantic Forest and Cerrado, baseline initiatives aim at promoting sustainable agricultural intensification by encouraging poly-culture, crop rotation, the use of high yielding varieties, and other practices. This is being effected through marketing support programmes, strengthening of agricultural service networks, farming systems research, and widening of credit access. Given that agricultural extensification has played a significant role in engendering habitat conversion in the Orient, these initiatives are important from a biodiversity management perspective. But further interventions are required to facilitate and co-ordinate efforts between landowners to conserve biodiversity.

41. In the Chaco and Chaco/Pantanal, the challenge is to guard against excessive intensification of livestock husbandry practices, modification of native vegetation communities, and excessive abstraction of water supplies. Prime habitats for wildlife need to be identified and protected in buffers, and incentives found to encourage biodiversity conservation on private lands. Baseline initiatives aim at improving the productivity of livestock production in an ecologically benign manner, but need to be dovetailed with

16

Project Document

conservation efforts. Again, efforts need to be co-ordinated between landowners to protect critical habitats and migration routes that cut across the boundaries of private landholdings.

PROJECT STRATEGY

42. Establishment of the Daniel Cáceres, Río Negro, and Paso Bravo National Parks has provided a legal basis for precluding conversion to agriculture or livestock ranches. But interventions are needed to address hunting pressures as well as to prevent use of woodlands for charcoal production, the threat of which is gradually increasing. There is a need to create working buffers and multiple-use zones in all the aforementioned National Parks. One of the main aims of the project is to furnish an effective model for managing Protected Areas, regearing the traditional parks management framework by invoking, for the first time, the active involvement of direct stakeholders. The project strategy is founded on an ecosystem approach that addresses threats in a comprehensive manner. In addition to operationalising management in the Protected Areas, the project would support conservation planning and management efforts in Park buffers, to ensure complementarity in the management of the parks and their surrounding ecological landscapes. Activities would be implemented over 7 years, providing sufficient time to build capacities and ensure sustainability of management following project closure. Activities have been framed around 6 outputs, summarised below:i. Establishing a participatory planning system for Protected Area management;ii. Strengthening Protected Area operations in the four target sites;iii. Training conservation workers in biodiversity management methods;iv. Overcoming barriers to sustainable uses of components of biodiversity;v. Imparting awareness to major stakeholders; andvi. Managing critical habitats and corridors in Park buffers.

43. Co-financing for the project has been leveraged from the Government of Paraguay, USAID/ TNC, CAF, and the European Union. The Paraguayan Government would absorb the recurrent costs of Park operations over the project life. USAID/TNC would assume responsibilities for Park strengthening activities in Defensores del Chaco National Park, thus contributing to management of the Daniel Cáceres/ Defensores del Chaco PA complex. The GEF would fund activities relating to the operational establishment of Daniel Cáceres with co-financing from CAF for Park infrastructure development. Finally, the European Union would provide co-financing for sustainable use demonstration and conservation awareness activities.

44. Output 1: A Participatory management framework is developed, piloted and effective and Conservation Management Plans and regulations are framed and operational.

17


1.1 Mobilise local communities neighbouring the Parks as “partners in conservation”

a. A framework for participatory planning and management would be developed and applied to facilitate broad based stakeholder involvement in decision-making and activity implementation. An iterative and organic approach to management is proposed, enabling interventions to be adapted as necessary based on socio-political responses. The first step will entail finalisation of a strategy for public participation in consultation with community based groups, taking on board the lessons learned from similar initiatives elsewhere in the region. An accompanying code of practice will provide a modus operandi for translating the strategy into practice. The strategy would be field tested and revised as necessary during the course of implementation.

b. In order to support social organisation, a cadre of social organisers would be recruited to continue dialogue with community members with a view to further mapping the social and ecological landscape at the sites and uncovering local needs and perspectives in the natural resource management arena. Participatory learning and action tools would be applied to perform appraisals for planning purposes. The results of appraisals would be regularly assessed to ensure quality control, and technical assistance provided as required to improve the efficacy of social engagement work. A series of stakeholder workshops would be convened to enable discussion between the various sets of direct stakeholders regarding conservation objectives, strategies and benefit sharing arrangements. Community motivators, with good standing in their communities and an active interest in conservation activities would be identified and mobilised to serve as conservation advocates/informants.

c. The project, working through qualified intermediary NGOs, would also provide Amerindian groups in the project areas with advocacy support in order to level dis-equilibria in their social relations with other groups. Such support is of the essence in order to enable indigenous communities to participate as equal stakeholders with other groups in the planning and management process. The nature of services would be determined following additional interface with local communities.

1.2 Convene Multi-stakeholder Park’s Management Boards

d. Multi-stakeholder Parks Management Boards would be convened at each site, and would assume oversight responsibilities for planning and operational management. Procedures for constituting the Boards and accompanying Terms of Reference and Work Plans would be developed and agreed upon by direct stakeholder groups at the first stakeholder workshop. These would determine the periodicity of meetings, rules and procedures for electing members to the Boards and for ensuring representation by all critical stakeholding constituencies. Membership would include Parks

18

Project Document

authorities, local/regional government personnel, and representatives of landowners and indigenous groups or intermediary community based or non government organisations elected to represent them. All Board members would be sensitised at an early stage to the project’s multifarious objectives and strategies, and particularly to the code of practice for participatory management. The performance of the Boards would be routinely monitored and corrective measures taken to improve their efficacy as decision-making bodies.

1.3 Formulate 5 Year Management Plans for each Protected Area Complex using participatory methods

e. Extensive preparations have been made to facilitate stakeholder involvement during the design phase. Stakeholder involvement in planning operations aims at ensuring that they have a better understanding of conservation needs and recognition of their responsibilities and roles. Planning efforts would provide a framework for the conservation process in each of the four sites. Five Year Management Plans would be prepared for each site8 (updated in the case of Defensores del Chaco) and Operational Plans developed to guide annual work programming. Planning capacities would be enhanced enabling DPNVS/MAG to prepare a second five year Management Plan in year 7, and institutionalise operational planning as a core Protected Area management function. An operational plan for years 1 and 2 would be prepared at the commencement of implementation, guiding project delivery during the management planning process. Technical assistance would be supplied as needed to ensure biological/ecological considerations are adequately addressed, and to develop a robust adaptive management framework.

f. Terms of Reference and work schedules for planning activities would be framed and discussed with communities. Multi-stakeholder Planning Committees would be established under the direction of the Parks Boards to assess information, recommend actions, and report to the Boards. Information from participatory appraisals would be collated and assessed in order to confirm threats to biodiversity identified during project development, and further information collection would be initiated to fill data gaps and enable management efforts to be fine-tuned.

g. A major focus of planning efforts would be to clarify ancestral usufruct rights and management needs/ concerns of Amerindian groups that depend on wild resources in the Parks for traditional uses, and frame appropriate management objectives, strategies and activities to provide durable conservation incentives and ensure use occurs on a sustainable footing. A second major focus would be to develop social fencing strategies, involving 8 This activity would be the focus of implementation during year 1-2 of the

project, providing a framework for management in later years. Such a time period is considered necessary in order to fully engage local stakeholders in planning efforts.

19


Park neighbours in measures to control access to the Parks and inform authorities of instances of malfeasance. A third focus of interventions will be to clarify Park boundaries with all concerned stakeholders, and come to an agreement on multiple use zoning needs (strict protection, recreation, scientific research, traditional uses and other purposes as provided for under existing legislation). Management concepts, zoning plans and other associated products would be circulated to technical reviewers and community leaders for comment prior to being finalised.

1.4 Develop legal/enforcement frameworks for the Parks

h. Existing policies and legislation would be reviewed with a view towards strengthening sanctions against illegal activities in the Protected Areas. Regulations would be tailored to meeting specific management requirements for each site, clarified with communities, and endorsed by the respective Parks Management Boards. New site-specific regulations would be ratified as subsidiary legislation under Paraguayan Law.

i. A strategy for intelligence gathering on illegal uses of wild resources and access to the Parks would also be conceived, based as much as possible on development of local informant networks. Project activities would also formalise usufruct rights for indigenous communities in designated use zones within Parks and buffers, with clear guidelines and procedures for planning, implementing and monitoring adaptive management measures. Finally, legal services would be supplied to DPNVS to ensure congruence between existing legislation and sustainable use management needs, particularly with regard to sports hunting and wild plant harvests.

1.5 Catalyse long-term political support for the National Parks

j. Policy endorsements for management concepts and zoning plans would be obtained from the Minister of Agriculture, and Management Plans submitted to Cabinet for approval. Such endorsement will serve as a basis for integrating conservation and development policies and strategies in the project areas (output 6), and thus mitigating against potential externalities from poorly planned development. Finally, critical policy makers would be regularly appraised of project activities, lessons learned and the opportunities for and constraints facing conservation.

45. Output 2: Operations of target Protected Areas are built and enhanced.

2.1 Finalise demarcation of PAs boundaries and zones

a. External Park boundaries and internal zones would be demarcated and mapped. Concrete boundary posts would be placed in sensitive areas likely to be subject to disturbance.

20

Project Document

2.2 Build and maintain critical infrastructure in the National Parks2.3 Supply equipment, and ensure adherence to maintenance schedules

b. The project would satisfy the minimum infrastructure/amenity and equipment needs of the sites9. This includes Park offices, ranger posts, meteorological apparatus, vehicles, office equipment, communications equipment, field and rescue equipment, and monitoring tools. Activities would develop technical specifications and designs for infrastructure and trails, determine the spatial siting of infrastructure, perform environmental impact assessments, and engender construction using ecologically benign methods. Follow on activities would seek to develop maintenance capacities at each of the sites. Infrastructure would not be provided in San Rafael National park, where it is being supplied as part of the baseline. Infrastructure delivery would be funded by CAF in Daniel Cáceres and by USAID/TNC in Defensores del Chaco.

2.4 Undertake Social Impact Assessments to monitor social impacts and the effectiveness of participatory management frameworks

c. In line with the adaptive management strategy, social impact assessments would be undertaken to gauge stakeholder response and report on social dynamics, including changing stakeholder group composition, and assess the quality of public participation in conservation management. Activities would define sampling methods and tools, design mechanisms for involving communities in monitoring, and operationalise monitoring. Outputs would be fed into the annual operational planning process and would abet strategic decision making, ensuring project strategies are adapted to enhance impact.

2.5 Establish and execute a biological impact monitoring system in the target sites

d. The project would finance biological inventories in the project sites to document species and gather data on population trends (for the purposes of management). Biological monitoring capacities would be enhanced, chronicling management impacts on habitats and species, and providing an early warning of threats. This work would focus on establishing population trends for indicator species as a cost efficient means of verifying natural system integrity. Activities would include preparation of baseline ecosystem maps based on an interpretation of satellite imagery and aerial photographs, development of effective sampling methodologies, rapid assessments, and facilitation of scientific audits of results. The outputs of survey work will be used to adapt management interventions to enhance their efficacy.

9 Lists of non-expendable equipment and infrastructure to be funded by the GEF are provided in Annexes VIII and IX.

21


2.6 Strengthen Basic Conservation Functions through informal capacity building exercises.

e. Activities would seek to strengthen the quality of Park management by enhancing controls, improving discipline in ranger cadres, and strengthening policing activities, administration, reporting and other basic conservation functions. Technical assistance would be provided, as needed, to strengthen functions, taking a “learning by doing” and debate approach. The quality of functions would be assessed and corrective action taken to boost performance.

f. The project would absorb some of the incremental costs of staffing during the first four years of implementation, providing government salaries and entitlements to new field personnel (USAID/TNC would absorb these costs in Defensores del Chaco). This support would be cost shared with government and would be provided on the understanding that Government absorb these costs during the life of the project, beginning in the fourth year of implementation.

2.7 Strengthen interface between parks authorities and local institutions

g. Linkages would be established and strengthened between DPNVS/MAG and law enforcement authorities, with regular interface fostered between the different institutions to ensure follow through in prosecutions against malfeasance. Likewise, networking capacities with local institutions serving as intermediaries for direct stakeholder groups (i.e. non-government organisations) would be strengthened through informal training. Such networking would be monitored and backstopped by the Parks Boards.

2.8 Ensure effective functioning of participatory management structures

h. Support would be provided to ensure the smooth functioning of the Parks Management Boards and other participatory management structures established under output 1, by convening multi-stakeholder forums to debate key management issues and activities, undertaking conflict resolution exercises where necessary, facilitating information sharing between different actors and providing other ancillary support as and when needed. The functioning of Management Boards would be monitored by the Project Steering Committee.

46. Output 3: Core institutional capacities of DPNVS/MAG, and community-based groups in the project areas are strengthened.

3.1 Train PAs staff in control, management, monitoring, conflict resolution, visitor relations, and interpretation skills

22

Project Document

a. Activities would strengthen the operational capacity of DPNVS/MAG and local NGOs working in the project areas through the provision of formal training to ranger cadres and other PA staff. Training programs would be designed in an iterative manner, based on the absorptive capacities of different clients. 5 two week modules would be developed and supplied through a demand-driven approach, likely covering such disciplines/skills as public policy, law, conflict resolution, and public relations. A training needs assessment would be undertaken prior to the development of training materials. Existing sources of training materials would be identified, and materials assessed against needs. Additional materials would be developed, as necessary, to fill gaps. The approach will embody a mix of formal in-service instruction, with accompanying field demonstrations and study tours arranged for participants to witness innovative management operations at other Protected Areas in Latin America.

3.2 Provide short-term scholarships to parks staff for courses overseas

b. The project would sponsor 10 short-term scholarships for exceptional staff at training institutes overseas. Participation in the scheme would be restricted to protected areas personnel placed at one of the four project sites who have received exceptional performance ratings in the execution of conservation functions and attendance at in-service training. Courses could cover a range of disciplines, from basic Protected Areas conservation to training in sustainable use management disciplines, including sports hunting and non-timber forest product management.

3.3 Address conservation training needs expressed by community motivators and indigenous groups engaged directly in the execution of Park management interventions

c. The project would also provide targeted training to members of community-based groups in conservation related disciplines. The emphasis will be on seeking local solutions to conservation management problems and empowering communities to manage uses of wild resources within the framework of agreed Management Plans. The scope of training would again be determined through a demand-driven approach articulated in a training needs assessment. Training modules and materials would be developed following the assessment. Training would be provided in an informal workshop setting, enabling participants to learn through debate. The duration/phasing of modules would account for the time budgets of beneficiaries.

3.4 Conduct training for customs officers to abet identification of traded specimens and improve enforcement

d. Customs officials would be sensitised to Paraguayan/ international Laws governing the trade in threatened species in a bid to improve

23


surveillance of and deter cross-border wildlife trafficking. These activities would directly contribute towards the fulfilment of the objectives of the CITES Convention, and would be undertaken with the assistance of the CITES unit within DPNVS. A workshop would be organised to discuss pertinent issues and encourage action.

47. Output 4: Demonstrations on sustainable use of wild resources completed and results disseminated

a. The project would finance activities aimed at understanding and removing barriers to the development of ecologically and economically sustainable nature tourism, controlled sports hunting and medicinal plant industries in designated use areas. One objective is to uncover and internalise the full costs and benefits of these activities, and to catalyse support for and long-term financing of biodiversity management. To encourage development of these uses, local entrepreneurs would be invited to join study tours to successful eco-enterprises overseas—sensitising them to new investment opportunities. In addition, the project would seek to facilitate ‘deal flows’ by informing sources of private capital of promising investments, and matching investment vehicles with business ventures. Prior to promotion of use, the status of target populations and ecosystems would be elicited, sustainable harvest limits determined, independent scientific council sought, management plans prepared, and institutional arrangements to regulate use strengthened. The sustainable use demonstrations will be based on good science and current best practice, learning from lessons generated by other similar schemes10.

4.1 Operationalise demonstrations of sustainable uses pertaining to controlled sports hunting

b. The objective of the demonstration is to engender a paradigm shift from unsustainable to sustainable and carefully controlled hunting practices as part of an integrated conservation management paradigm. Activities would focus on designated areas within the buffer areas to the Chaco Parks. Although sports hunting is controversial within some sections of the conservation community, it is a relevant option to be tested in the Paraguayan context, given cultural affinities to hunting. The objective is not to promote hunting per se but rather to demonstrate ways and means of bringing sports hunting under management control, and to link it more explicitly to conservation measures. The focus will be on commoner species, either not listed in the CITES register or listed under Appendix 2, and not regarded as endangered in the Paraguayan context. Endangered species, or those listed in Appendix 1 of CITES will be strictly protected, although the project would further elicit the threats posed by uncontrolled hunting and

10 Design takes into account the recommendations made at the STAP Expert Group Workshop on Sustainable Use, held in the Genting Highlands, Malaysia, in November 1997.

24

Project Document

strengthen controls as appropriate11. Sports hunting would only be permitted on private lands neighbouring the Parks, and not within the boundaries of the Protected Areas proper. Activities would be sponsored in association with the Paraguayan Sports Hunting Association so as to promote linkages with the industry and promote replication of the demonstration. In particular, the following sub-activities would be undertaken:

- establish the status of target populations through scientific survey work;

- assess the socio-economic and institutional determinants of controlled sports hunting;

- identify sustainable harvest limits (trophy quotas/ harvest limits) and management requirements (no take areas, closed seasons etc);

- establish institutional arrangements, through the Park Management Boards, for involving landholders in the management of the resources;

- promote information exchange amongst management practitioners;- ensure that part of the income received from controlled hunting is

reinvested in conservation; and- monitor the impacts of the programme (ecological, biological, social

and economic).

4.2 Demonstrate effective measures to remove barriers to sustainable use management of threatened medicinal plants

c. The project would also undertake a demonstration of medicinal plant management in the environs of San Rafael National Park. Site based trials would be undertaken for 10 species to divine response rates to different harvest intensities and identify whether and how harvest productivity might be enhanced (the selection of species for demonstration purposes would be based both on levels of threat and local use, thus taking supply and demand considerations into account). This work would establish the biological and socio-economic parameters for sustainable harvests as a basis for removing barriers to sustainable use. ‘No take” areas would be established as control plots, and to safeguard against extirpation. A second control would be established to demonstrate the impacts of unregulated harvests (as would occur in a business as usual situation). Data would be used to develop a Management Plan to regulate the harvest and sale of the species. The demonstration would also provide data for the management of less threatened species. Responsibilities for implementing the Plan and monitoring use would be shared between DPNVS/MAG and resource managers from local communities.

d. In particular, the following activities would be supported:

11 The selection of species would be subject to judicious independent scientific scrutiny, and made following field work to determine population status.

25


- establish the status of threatened species, collect information on harvest methods, identify the most used plants, and select species as targets for sustainable use demonstration;

- working with collectors and traders, assess the social and economic determinants of demand likely to influence sustainable use;

- establish institutional arrangements, through the Park Management Boards, for involving collectors in management (self regulation of harvests, monitoring impact and reporting);

- identify sustainable harvest limits and management requirements (no take areas, closed seasons etc);

- Assess ways and means of enhancing harvest productivity through the manipulation of micro-environments (in ways that do not impose significant ecological risks) 12;

- identify opportunities for adding value to the industry, as a conservation incentive, and promote “deal flows”, by sensitising entrepreneurs and sources of financial capital to investment opportunities;

- ensure that part of the income received from use of the resource is reinvested in management; the project recognises that to ensure long-term sustainability, the full costs and benefits of sustainable use must be internalised in management;

- monitor the impacts of the programme (ecological, biological, social and economic) and promote replication of best practices for other species.

4.3 Support barrier removal activities to increase the sustainability of traditional uses of forest resources by local Amerindian groups

e. The needs and perspectives of Amerindian groups in the conservation management arena will be explored as part of Output 1, and traditional use zones would be defined taking both community and ecological needs into account. Usufruct rights would be formalised under output 2, providing a greater sense of surety to indigenous communities regarding access rights for traditional uses of forest resources. Activities under this component would seek to remove barriers to operationalisation of adaptive management of traditional uses by working with communities to understand harvest trends and impacts, enhance knowledge of the costs and benefits of traditional harvest methods, identify ways and means of strengthening management by integrating traditional and scientific management models, monitor outcomes, and institute corrective measures where necessary.

4.4 Demonstrate ways and means of overcoming barriers to developing and managing nature tourism

12 The project would support the participation of self-funded graduate students in targeted research on in situ medicinal plant propogation by providing facilities and operational support (but not direct financing).

26

Project Document

f. In order to remove barriers to nature tourism in San Rafael, the project would help advertise and promote the park, develop visitor management capacities, develop a code of conduct for visitors, design interpretation facilities and materials, and monitor the impacts of visitation. Basic infrastructure for visitors will be developed under Output 2, including a visitors centre, camp site, and self-guided trails. The project would provide training to rangers in public relations, search and rescue, impact monitoring, and other visitor management functions. In addition, training would be provided to local Amerindian communities to act as guides, enhancing their ability to communicate knowledge on the Park’s ecosystem to visitors. Such training would build skills based on a demand based approach, focusing on client perceived needs determined through social outreach activities. In addition, the project would sensitise local entrepreneurs to investment opportunities in eco-tourism by organising study tours to eco-tourist sites, providing deal flow services, and engaging in advocacy activities. The results of the demonstration would be carefully documented and shared with other conservation programmes in the region to promote replication of emergent best practices.

g. More specifically, the project would:

- develop a Code of Conduct for tourists within Park and interpretation material to advertise the code to visitors for placement in the visitor centre and along trails;

- design interpretation material on the Park’s ecology, including on charismatic species and inter-specific relationships;

- train local guides and park authorities in visitor management techniques;

- impart know-how to local guides in public relations techniques and communications skills;

- identify and apply appropriate fee schedules for visitation to the Park ensuring that income is channelled back into management of the Park;

- promote “deal flows”, by sensitising entrepreneurs and sources of financial capital to investment opportunities;

- organise study tours to sensitise prospective entrepreneurs to eco-tourism development opportunities;

- monitor the impacts of the eco-tourism (ecological, biological, social and economic).

48. Output 5: Conservation values are imparted through awareness creation and advocacy

5.1 Design and implement an advocacy and media outreach programme for biodiversity conservation

a. The project strategy recognises that stable conservation in the target sites is predicated on the establishment of an active conservation

27


constituency. A carefully crafted awareness campaign would be executed, using the mass media to impart conservation values. Extensive use will be made of radio and local newspapers in order to reach communities in project areas. Interpretation materials on Paraguay’s biodiversity and conservation programmes (with a focus on the four project sites) would be prepared for dissemination to media, and would be regularly updated during the life of the project. In addition, a project newsletter would be developed as an additional means of communicating information to stakeholders. Material would be designed based on a continuous and two way flow of information on pertinent conservation issues with local communities. Scoping exercises would be undertaken prior to inception of this component and during implementation to determine the type of awareness activities needed in each region. The exercise would build on the results of on-going social outreach activities undertaken as part of Output 1, enabling messages to be adapted based on outcomes.

5.2 Formalise and strengthen schools/youth outreach initiative

b. A special effort will be made to reach youth groups and involve them in conservation activities. A teacher-training component is included to inform local schoolteachers of conservation issues and encourage them to apply this knowledge in their teaching assignments. Activities would enable a scoping exercise to be undertaken with State educational authorities to identify avenues for integrating conservation education into curricula used by local schools in the project areas. The results of this exercise would provide a basis for designing educational materials on conservation related themes, as they relate to each eco-region, and developing appropriate teaching aids for use by school teachers. Teachers would be trained in conservation education techniques, sensitised to key conservation issues, and encouraged to organise field trips to the Parks in conjunction with Parks authorities to impart a better understanding of conservation benefits. The delivery of education would be monitored and additional training and resources provided/ developed as appropriate to strengthen the programme as it matures.

49. Output 6: Conservation planning and management mechanisms established to integrate conservation and development activities in the environs of the Parks.

a. Paso Bravo, Río Negro and Daniel Cáceres / Defensores del Chaco are all of sufficient size to protect ecological processes in the longer term, and thus the minimum survival needs of wide ranging fauna. However, the long term ecological integrity of San Rafael National Park and survival of large fauna is contingent on the management of biological corridors with other Protected Areas and neighbouring forest patches. Activities under this component would seek to establish strategic corridors in San Rafael, while working at all sites to ensure that conservation objectives are fully integrated into regional development planning processes.

28

Project Document

b. In San Rafael, a biological corridor would be created with Caaguazú Ecological Reserve to the north-west. Activities would promote the protection of hedgerows, uncultivated strips, and woodlots of native species between fields and along ridges and ravines, plus conservation of forest patches. In the long-term, such management would enable the continued transfer of bio-genetic material between populations of forest species resident in San Rafael and Caaguazú PA, increasing the likelihood of their long-term survival. The thrust of efforts would be to develop methodologies for planning in a way that combines biological, social and economic considerations, engender co-operation amongst landholders to manage the corridor, and develop enabling incentives and policies that integrate conservation and development activities. Interventions would contribute towards the Government of Paraguay’s long term objective of establishing a Biosphere Reserve in the Interior Atlantic Forest.

c. The focus of activities at the other sites would be to ensure that policies and strategies for conservation and development are integrated. Activities would define minimum standards and mitigation measures to be addressed as part of Environmental Impact Assessment for infrastructure and development programmes, geared towards safeguarding the long-term ecological integrity of the Sites. These standards would be incorporated into the four Park Management Plans prior to their submission to Cabinet for final review and endorsement.

6.1 Define and map a viable biological corridor between San Rafael NP and Caaguazú Ecological Reserve and establish a collaborative framework for management

d. Management would be operationalised through an organic and highly participatory process, co-ordinated by the Park Management Board. The first step would involve mapping of remaining primary and secondary forest between the Protected Areas. Tasks would involve interpretation of aerial photographs and satellite imagery, and analysis of data provided by biological inventory teams. This would be followed by further ground truthing exercises to corroborate the ecological status of habitats and justify their conservation significance. Ecological maps would be prepared showing the location and status of sensitive areas, enabling planners to explore options for corridor development. The maps would be used to prioritise areas for intervention and identify all landholders to be involved in corridor planning. Corridor design would be determined by landholder receptivity to collaborative management, and thus by social feasibility in addition to ecological/biological criteria. However, planning exercises would seek to ensure spatial contiguity in operations.

e. The assent of concerned landholders would be obtained prior to inception of ground-truthing exercises. Activities would impart information to landholders on the need to establish the corridor and of the various

29


options available. In addition, landholder specific needs would be elicited with a view to designing policies and incentives to encourage collaboration in corridor management. The opportunity costs of collaboration are likely to be small on large landholdings and relatively greater on smaller plots. The type of incentives required will thus vary based on the size of the plot and nature/intensity of current land use. These factors will be taken into account in negotiating management compacts with landholders in the corridor.

6.2 Define win-win strategies for integrating sustainable agricultural and biodiversity conservation activities in the corridor.

f. Activities would define win-win solutions that protect biodiversity and that are economically attractive. Given the sizeable baseline in natural resource management activities focusing on the agricultural and forestry sectors, no new funding is needed to facilitate eco-development. Instead, the approach will mobilise baseline programmes and resources in order to fulfil landholder specific needs, and thus better channel the benefits of farming intensification. The following types of activities are indicative of the types of support available:

- extension support to encourage sustainable agricultural intensification through practice of soil conservation, polyculture, crop rotation, and use of high yielding varieties;

- information dissemination on the results of farming systems research (for instance into integrated pest management schemes), and expert advice on how best practices can be adapted to suit local agro-ecological specificities;

- marketing support, with technical assistance to improve quality control and value added;

- land titling for smallholders (i.e. formally recognising de facto status), enabling smallholders to use land as collateral to access credit for sustainable agricultural intensification;

- technical advice on social forestry to promote indigenous tree plantations in designated areas.

g. The project would work with individual landholders to define the types of land use interventions needed to reduce habitat clearance pressures by enabling economically efficient and ecologically sustainable means of agricultural intensification. A data base would be established to record landholder-specific needs and appropriate incentives to be used for policy operations.

h. On-going consultation process would also define the respective responsibilities of landholders, MAG, the IBR, Departments and programmes in integrating conservation and development objectives. The next step would involve development of a Conservation Management Plan for the biological corridor, clearly defining conservation needs. The Plans would include

30

Project Document

detailed maps, a clear description of opportunities and constraints for eco-development in target landholdings, a clear description of incentives, details of institutional and individual landholder responsibilities, and milestones and indicators for monitoring conservation outcomes.

6.3 Operationalise integrated conservation and development strategies in the corridor

i. A high level Working Group would be established within MAG to discuss policy options and leverage targeted incentives. Membership of the Working Group would include high-level representatives from the Technical Planning Secretariat, DPNVS, The Sub-secretariat for Agriculture-MAG, The National Forest Service, Departmental Authorities, task managers from baseline development initiatives, local Producer Associations, and community representatives elected by the Park Management Boards. The Project Steering Committee will review operations of the Working Group and provide necessary advocacy support to ensure its smooth functioning. The Terms of Reference for the Working Group will be concretised based on consultations undertaken during the process of activity implementation, but would include:

- assessment of recommendations that emerge through the planning process;

- shaping policies and legislation to engender and backstop management;

- taking steps to correct contra-conservation incentives inherent in current policies (such as policies that classify forest land on large properties as unproductive, or that promote agricultural and livestock production over wildlife management on private land holdings);

- programming baseline development programmes to ensure a strategic fit with conservation; and

- assuming accountability for the delivery of government commitments to landholders agreed in the Action Plans.

j. Baseline interventions would be mobilised, policies leveraged and incentives targeted as specified in the Management Plan for the corridor. Farm and livestock extension workers in south-east Caazapá department would receive training in conservation methods, and would provide a long-term vehicle for supplying landholders with technical assistance. Routine monitoring would be undertaken to gauge progress in implementation and inform policy-making. The project would maintain open communications with all landholders and take steps to resolve conflicts, co-ordinate efforts between different institutions and address management concerns. Lessons learned during the process of implementation would be documented to inform decision making in other areas and to promote best practices in landscape conservation. 6.4 Ensure integration of conservation objectives into regional

31


development planning processes

h. The project would integrate the specific conservation objectives and measures promoted into Park Management Plans within regional development processes. Paraguayan law requires that Environmental Impact Assessments be prepared for all major developments or developments in sensitive areas, and development banks and other sources of development capital also routinely require environmental assessments prior to approving finance. The afore-mentioned developments, by law, must include measures to mitigate impact. However, efforts are needed to define minimum standards for development from a biodiversity conservation perspective, and to apply standards as decision making tools. Activities to be spearheaded include:

- determination of the types/ location of development ventures and infrastructural development likely to be detrimental to the integrity of the Parks;

- identifying safe minimum standards governing the nature and location of developments to mitigate biological impacts;

- incorporating the standards into Management Plans, and obtaining necessary policy sanction;

- supplying data on conservation benefits to planners and key decision makers;

- sensitising economic planners to conservation objectives and values, and clarifying management needs;

- working with the Planning Secretariat and Departments to ensure that conservation objectives are integrated into decision making relating to the Parks;

- informing key decision makers of problem areas and advocating reform;

End of Project Situation

50. The four priority sites would be well protected, with threats to biological diversity mitigated or reduced to manageable levels. Broad based political support for the parks will have been mobilised following an extensive awareness and advocacy campaign. SINASIP will have been strengthened, and a viable and replicable model for Parks management would be available. Functional Management and Operational Plans will have been prepared and will be guiding field operations, field staff will have been recruited, equipment delivered, and infrastructure constructed, such that the Parks are attaining their designated management objectives. Conservation workers at the sites will have been trained in a variety of conservation related disciplines and would be employing acquired skills in discharging duties. There will be wide stakeholder participation in the management of the Protected Areas, and local entrepreneurs will be investing in sustainable use ventures, following barrier removal. Knowledge of the biodiversity of the four eco-regions will have been enhanced, with inventories conducted for

32

Project Document

different taxa, and the population status and trends of threatened species verified. Additionally, project impacts will have been recorded, lessons learned documented, and monitoring and evaluation institutionalised as part and parcel of management.

33


Logical Framework Matrix

Intervention Logic Indicators of Performance Means of Verification Risks and Assumptions

Development Objective: Paraguay's rich storehouse of Biological diversity is conserved

At least 2 other Paraguayan PAs are being managed following the participatory model developed under the project

Planning Documents Paraguayan society is receptive to

conservation ideals and goals Populations of endangered species are

able to recover from past & present pressures

Other Ministries and development stakeholders are willing to co-operate in advancing conservation objectives

Project Purpose: The integrity of 4 globally important Protected Areas is assured and conservation capacity enhanced

SRNP, PBNP, RNNP & DDNP are registered in internationally recognised PA lists

Habitat conversion pressures within the four sites will have decreased

Improvement in number and distribution of threatened species within the PAs

IUCN/WCMC PA Registers

Threats analysis, Satellite imagery

Indicator Species monitoring in years 1 (baseline), 4,5 and 7

Regional and local governments are committed to long-term conservation objectives

Local stakeholders are willing to adapt resource use practices in order to facilitate biodiversity conservation

Output 1: A Participatory management framework is developed, piloted and effective and Conservation Management Plans and regulations are framed and operational

An operational plan for year 1 activities has been prepared within the first month of implementation

By the end of year 2, an integrated 5 year Management Plan exists for each of the four sites

Annual Operational Plans will be prepared by park managers in each PA from year 2 onwards

By the end of year 1 local Parks management Boards are agreed and functioning Being adapted if necessary, they function through out the project life

By the end of year 3, all necessary legislative and regulative provisions to ensure the stability of the core areas

Planning document

Master Plan documents/ Project records

Operational planning documents in each PA

Project documentation/ Committee statutes/ Register of minutes

Gazette/ Park statutes

Master Plan documents/ Project records

Stakeholders are willing to participate and Parks authorities are receptive to participatory decision-making

Financial requirements of the Conservation System are assured and the project does not deleverage the baseline of conservation

34

Project Document

Intervention Logic Indicators of Performance Means of Verification Risks and Assumptionshave been made

At the end of year 5, a second five year management plan would have been prepared by DPNVS/MAG for each site

By the end of year 7, a negotiated and approved "transition plan" assures full operation of 4 area complexes after the end of the project

Social impact assessments will indicate positive change in the perceptions of different community groups on the quality of interface with local parks authorities

Approved planning document/ National budget/ Operational Plans of PAs

Structured attitudinal surveys in years 1,4 & 7 (Output 2)

Output 2: Operations of target Protected Areas are built and enhanced

By year 3 boundaries of all PAs have been legally recognised and demarcated

By year 5 infrastructure has been developed in all PAs (see register) and equipment supplied

Conservation compacts have been established with groups/organisations of at least 85% of indigenous and small farmer communities within the core PAs and immediate land radius

No of successful prosecutions for malfeasance has increased Yr 3 (15%), yr 5 (30%) yr 7 (50%)

PA statutes/ Gazette/ Field observation

Park inventories/ Mid term project progress report/ Field observations

Project records/ Community contracts/Committee statutes/ Register of minutes/ Analysis of committee deliberations over time

Magistrate records

Government absorbs additional operational costs arising from the project

Government willing to enforce conservation regulations

Stakeholders’ consensus can be obtained and maintained

Output 3:Core institutional capacities of DPNVS/MAG, and community-based groups in the project areas are strengthened

A broad training programme is established during the 3rd year and continually implemented through the project, addressing a) 100% of the staff and management committee members and b) community conservation motivators

Training Programme document/ Lists of participants/ training manuals and materials

Trainees receptive to new conservation approaches and willing to apply new skills

Output 4 Demonstrations on

Visitation will be showing a steady upward trend, with evidence of sound

Park visitor records; visitor comments; ground truthing/

Authorities, especially those of Agriculture, support the dissemination

35


Intervention Logic Indicators of Performance Means of Verification Risks and Assumptionssustainable use of wild resources completed and results disseminated

visitor management (lack of litter, graffiti, and other visible damage) and involvement of local communities in nature tourism activities

4 controlled sports hunting concessions would have been established in designated buffers by the end of year 5; biological surveys in succeeding years show stable populations of target species

Management plan for medicinal plant harvesting in designated areas of SRNP prepared and operationalised by the end of year 6

The economic gross return of the new alternative uses exceeds US$ 300,000 by year 7

By year 6, traditional use practices of Amerindian groups will be congruent with objectives of sustainable use Management Plan

Resource management plan

Biological inventory and monitoring records; Resource management plan

Resource Management Plan; Biological surveys and monitoring records

Economic analysis

Biological monitoring using indicators established in Management plan

of project results The international community is willing

to support sustainable use activities and market opportunities can be developed

Local Communities are receptive to sustain-able use opportunities and demonstrations are socially viable

Output 5 Conservation values are imparted through awareness creation and advocacy

Community understanding of management approaches will have shown steady improvement

Necessary project decisions are being taken quickly and with positive results

By year 3, a stamp series with conservation related motives is in circulation

By year 5 at least 10 schools in the project areas are participating in the outreach programme (teacher training, regular visits, environmental education focusing on biodiversity, etc )

Structured opinion surveys in years 1,4 & 7 (Output 2)

Project records/ Mid term and final evaluation

First day covers

Project records/ School curricula

The public is responsive to conservation outreach and willing to change behaviour

The mass media is willing to disseminate conservation information

Education authorities and teachers are willing to co-operate on conservation issues

Output 6:Conservation planning and management

Biological corridor established in San Rafael NP by the end of year 6 of the

Project records/ legal gazettes/ minutes of

Stakeholders in economic sectors willing to integrate conservation

36

Project Document

Intervention Logic Indicators of Performance Means of Verification Risks and Assumptionsmechanisms established to integrate conservation and development activities in critical habitats outside of the Parks

project, with approved Management Plan

Habitat in corridor remains in good condition

Policies and strategies in place for integrating conservation objectives into baseline programmes and rural development planning

planning forums

Records of biological monitoring

Planning records, Activity work plans for baseline initiatives; budget papers

objectives into cross-sectoral activities

Political will to operationalise biosphere concepts and enforce regulations is high at national and provincial levels

Activities Responsibility 13

1 1 Mobilise local communities neighbouring the Parks as “partners in conservation” 1.1.1 Based on prior stakeholder consultations and current best practice, finalise a strategy and code of

practice for participatory conservation planning and management operations 1.1.2 Convene open public forums to debate and obtain agreement on the ground rules for participatory

management/planning 1.1.3 Adapt public participation strategy and code of practice based on social response to field operations 1.1.4 Hire and train (12) social organisers in participatory learning and action (PLA) tools 1.1.5 Spearhead social outreach operations to strengthen the interface between parks authorities and

local communities 1.1.6 Perform participatory appraisals (PLA) to map social resources and further gauge community

needs/perspectives with regard to conservation 1.1.7 Provide indigenous groups with advocacy support to empower them to participate in planned

conservation interventions 1.1.8 Identify community motivators to serve as conservation advocates within local communities 1.1.9 Provide technical assistance to strengthen the quality of participatory planning and management

operations

1 2 Convene Multi-stakeholder Park’s Management Boards1.2.1 Define transparent procedures for electing community representatives to Parks Boards in

consultation with communities 1.2.2 Prepare Terms of Reference and Work Plans for the Boards, appoint chairpersons, and determine

periodicity of meetings 1.2.3 Sensitise all Board members to conservation needs and challenges, and to project objectives and

management strategies 1.2.4 Review functioning of the Boards, including the effectiveness of participation, and adjust Board

structures as necessary 1.2.5 Establish Planning Sub-committees to prepare Management Plans, and appoint multi-stakeholder

representatives

1 3 Formulate 5 Year Management Plans for each Protected Area Complex using

DPNVS/PTU in consultation with NGOs and UNDPParks Boards, Landholders Park Boards, DPNVS/PTU DPNVS/PTU (Planning TA)DPNVS/PTU, Landholders Project Staff, Landholders

Sub Contract (NGO)Parks BoardsDPNVS/PTU

DPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTU, Parks BoardsDPNVS/PTUPSCParks Boards

DPNVS/PTU, UNDPParks Boards, DPNVS/PTU

DPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTU, LandholdersDPNVS/PTU, LandholdersDPNVS/PTU

Parks Boards, Landholders

37


Activities Responsibility

participatory methods 1.3.1 Prepare operational plans to guide conservation operations until the first 5 year Management Plans

are approved 1.3.2 Formulate Terms of Reference and Work schedules for planning activities in consultation with direct

stakeholders and convene multi-stakeholder Planning Committees to oversee planning efforts 1.3.3 Provide technical assistance to strengthen the quality of planning and develop an adaptive

management framework 1.3.4 Corroborate information collected during the project formulation process on threats to biodiversity

and their root causes 1.3.5 Collect additional information, as necessary, to frame management strategies and operational

measures 1.3.6 Work with indigenous groups to clarify customary rights, and determine management parameters for

traditional uses of biodiversity 1.3.7 Elaborate measures for improving management control over the Protected Areas using “social

fencing” strategies 1.3.8 Clarify Park boundaries and zoning requirements with communities 1.3.9 Develop draft concepts, strategies, zoning plans, and participatory management guidelines for

circulation to communities and technical evaluators 1.3.10 Convene second community forum to clarify concepts and strategies 1.3.11 Finalise first 5 year Management Plan, incorporating comments made by local community reviewers

and the scientific community 1.3.12 Prepare corresponding Annual Operational Plans, providing a work plan for activities to

operationalise the Management Plans 1.3.13 Finalise second 5 year Management Plan drawing on the lessons learned during the first (5 yr)

Planning period

1 4 Develop legal/enforcement frameworks for the Parks1.4.1 Supply legal advice to parks authorities to develop rules and regulations geared to the agreed

management framework 1.4.2 Work with local communities to devise mutually acceptable traditional sanctions to facilitate self-

regulation 1.4.3 Develop strategies for collecting intelligence, with the support of communities, on illegal activity in

the Parks 1.4.4 Formalise usufruct rights for indigenous communities, with appropriate accountability devices to abet

sound management 1.4.5 Customise wildlife management policies to ensure congruence with sustainable use management

needs

1 5 Catalyse long-term political support for the National Parks1.5.1 Obtain necessary endorsements from the Minister for Agriculture and Livestock 1.5.2 Submit plans and regulations to Cabinet for ratification, and secure additional legal safeguards to

protect site integrity 1.5.3 Work with Departmental authorities to integrate Management Plans into regional development plans,

DPNVS/PTU, Parks BoardsDPNVS/PTU

Parks BoardsParks Boards, DPNVS

DPNVS

Parks Boards, DPNVS

DPNVS/PTUParks Boards, DPNVS/PTUParks Boards DPNVS/PTUDPNVS

MAGMAGMAG, DPNVS/PTU

MAG, DPNVS/PTU

38

Project Document


including works programmes 1.5.4 Support advocacy efforts to sensitise politicians and civil servants in key ministries to the global and

national significance of the sites

2 1 Finalise demarcation of PAs boundaries and zones2.1.1 Undertake survey work, as necessary, to set the boundaries between the various zones and map

external Park frontiers 2.1.2 Place permanent concrete markers in prominent and/or ecologically sensitive locations to physically

delimit critical boundaries

2 2 Build and maintain critical infrastructure in the National Parks2.2.1 Develop technical specifications and designs for Parks headquarters, visitor centres, ranger posts and

other fixed physical infrastructure 2.2.2 Prepare specifications for trails, and design signage and interpretation materials 2.2.3 Determine the location of all fixed physical infrastructure and trails and obtain agreement by

respective Parks Management Boards 2.2.4 Undertake environmental impact assessments and incorporate technical recommendations into

infrastructural design features 2.2.5 Construct infrastructure and trails, with strict observance of planning codes 2.2.6 Operationalise annual work programme for infrastructural maintenance, and, if necessary, take steps

to strengthen operational delivery

2 3 Supply equipment, and ensure adherence to maintenance schedules 2.3.1 Organise procurement and delivery of all equipment and supplies 2.3.2 Develop maintenance schedule, monitor observance of the schedule, and build operational

maintenance capacities at the site level

2 4 Undertake Social Impact Assessments to monitor social impacts and the effectiveness of participatory management frameworks

2.4.1 Develop sampling tools, and determine the periodicity of social impact monitoring in each of the sites

2.4.2 Design mechanisms to systematically involve local community representatives in social assessments 2.4.3 Monitor social impacts and processes likely to have a bearing on conservation outcomes,

differentiating between stakeholder groups 2.4.4 Monitor the effectiveness of stakeholder participation measures instituted in each of the Parks 2.4.5 Assess gender specific impacts of conservation measures 2.4.6 Feed into the adaptive management framework by recommending strategic adjustments to activities

so as to enhance their efficacy 2.4.7 Contribute towards the documentation of best practices in engendering public participation and

social impact mitigation strategies

2 5 Establish and execute a biological impact monitoring system in the target sites2.5.1 Interpret existing satellite imagery and aerial photographs and develop baseline ecosystems maps

DPNVSDPNVS

DPNVS/PTU

DPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTU

DPNVSWorks sub contractorDPNVS/PTU

DPNVS/PTU, UNDPDPNVS/PTU

Monitoring Sub-contract (NGO)Sub-contract, DPNVS/PTUSub-contract

PSC, Sub-contract Sub-contractSub-contract

Sub-contract

Monitoring Sub-contract (NGO)Sub-contract

Sub-contract

39



2.5.2 Develop sampling tools, select site specific indicators, identify keystones for monitoring, and determine the periodicity of assessment

2.5.3 Undertake rapid biological assessments to provide benchmark data for future impact monitoring 2.5.4 Perform additional sampling, as necessary, to determine biological responses to management

intervention 2.5.5 Arrange scientific audit of results 2.5.6 Feed into the adaptive management framework by recommending refinements to impact-mitigation

strategies 2.5.7 Mobilise grants from research agencies to address priority long-term conservation research needs

2 6 Strengthen Basic Conservation Functions through informal capacity building exercises 2.6.1 Elaborate strategic frameworks for policing and enforcement of PA regulations, building on the”

social fencing” strategy 2.6.2 Develop intelligence networks involving local informants to keep track of illegal activity in the Parks 2.6.3 Supply technical assistance to build basic enforcement / outreach capacities amongst Parks staff 2.6.4 Monitor the efficacy of enforcement measures, application of social sanctions against malfeasance,

and status of prosecutions referred to local courts, and take steps, as appropriate, to enhance performance

2 7 Strengthen interface between parks authorities and local institutions2.7.1 Develop institutional networking capacities of parks authorities through informal training 2.7.2 Ensure regular liaison between parks authorities and local police, magistrates, and, where

applicable, senior armed forces personnel 2.7.3 Strengthen co-ordination with producer associations and farmer co-operatives representing local

livelihood interests 2.7.4 Strengthen co-ordination between Parks authorities and local government representatives

2 8 Ensure effective functioning of Parks Management Boards2.8.1 Monitor functioning of Management Boards and take steps to improve performance

2.8.2 Build operational capacity to convene Board meetings, record and disseminate Minutes, and ensure follow through on directives

Sub-contractDPNVS/PTUSub-contractDPNVS/PTU

DPNVS/PTUDPNVS, LandholdersDPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTU, Monitoring Sub-contractor, MAG

DPNVS/PTUParks Boards, DPNVS/PTU

Parks Boards, DPNVS/PTUMAG

Monitoring Sub-contractor, PSC, DPNVS/PTU, UNDP

DPNVS/PTU

3 1 Train PAs staff in control, management, monitoring, conflict resolution, visitor relations, and interpretation skills

3.1.1 Undertake Training Needs Assessments to elicit training needs for different staff and different sites 3.1.2 Identify existing educational materials on conservation methods, that may be procured for in-service

training 3.1.3 Develop training modules and new materials, as necessary, to meet the demands of clients 3.1.4 Execute an iterative in-service training programme, as far as possible imparting new skills through

active field demonstration 3.1.5 Evaluate feedback, monitor the application of new skills, and adjust the content/target of training

programmes as appropriate

Training Sub-contract, DPNVS/PTUTraining Sub-contractTraining Sub-contractTraining Sub-contractTraining Sub-contract, DPNVS/PTU, UNDP

DPNVS/PTU, UNDP

40

Project Document


3 2 Provide short-term scholarships to parks staff for courses overseas3.2.1 Identify suitable and cost-effective training courses for Parks staff within the region 3.2.2 Sponsor motivated and talented candidates for training courses 3.2.3 Monitor application of results, and refine training programme as appropriate

3 3 Address conservation training needs expressed by community motivators and indigenous groups engaged directly in the execution of Park management interventions

3.3.1 Undertake a Training Needs Assessment to gauge the training needs of community motivators and indigenous group members

3.3.2 Develop training modules/ materials to improve the ability of the target group to assist in the delivery of basic conservation functions

3.3.3 Impart training know-how to participants, to enable them to impart knowledge to other community members

3.3.4 Evaluate feedback, monitor the application of new skills, and adjust the content/target of training programmes as considered appropriate

3 4 Conduct training for customs officers to abet identification of traded specimens and improve enforcement

3.4.1 Organise workshops to sensitise customs agents to CITES rules and Paraguayan legislation on the export of threatened flora and fauna

3.4.2 Monitor results, and organise follow on-workshops as necessary

UNDPDPNVS/PTU, UNDP

Training Sub-contract, DPNVS/PTU

Training Sub-contract

Training Sub-contractTraining Sub-contract,

DPNVS/PTU

DPNVS, Customs Authorities

DPNVS

4 .1 Operationalise demonstrations of sustainable use measures pertaining to controlled sports hunting (Chaco PAs)4.1.1 Identify field sites (on private lands outside the parks)for demonstrating application of sustainable

use measures, including control plots4.1.2 Collect quantitative data, as necessary, on harvests and hunting practices in the demonstration

areas 4.1.3 Collect information on the population status of target species 4.1.4 Assess the determinants of demand for sports hunting and the socio-economic and institutional

constraints to sustainable usage 4.1.5 Strengthen linkages with the Paraguayan Sports Hunting Association to catalyse industry

involvement in management schemes 4.1.6 In consultation with collaborating resource managers, and based on biological and socio-economic

information, devise management guidelines/ rules to regulate hunting activity (location, quantity and season of harvest)

4.1.7 Devise quantitative and easily verifiable monitoring indicators to assess biological responses to management

4.1.8 Develop capacities amongst 1) landowners and 2) DPNVS to monitor impacts and adapt management programmes

4.1.9 Sensitise collaborating landowners to controlled sports hunting management schemes by organising

Parks Boards, Landholders

Landholders, DPNVS/PTUMonitoring Sub-contractDPNVS/PTU

DPNVS

DPNVS/PTU, landholdersParks BoardsDPNVS/PTU, landholdersDPNVS/PTU, Parks BoardsDPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTU, Monitoring Sub-contract

41



overseas study tours 4.1.10 Document lessons learned and best practices, and work with baseline development activities to

promote their broader application

4 2 Demonstrate effective measures to remove barriers to sustainable use threatened medicinal plants in San Rafael NP

4.2.1 Identify ten species for management demonstration, based on 1) local demand and 2) conservation status

4.2.2 In consultation with resource harvesters, identify field sites for testing management, including control plots

4.2.3 Collect information on harvest methods and the population status of target species in the demonstration/ control plots

4.2.4 Assess the determinants of demand for target species and financial barriers to sustainable use 4.2.5 Identify potential for adding value to productive uses of medicinal plants to increase the share of

benefit captured at the local level 4.2.6 Support nursery based trials to assess the feasibility of increasing productivity through

manipulation of micro-environments 4.2.7 Provide technical assistance to local collectors to enable a joint determination to be made of

acceptable management measures 4.2.8 Develop a Management Plan to regulate the harvest and sale of target species, with management

responsibilities shared with collectors 4.2.9 Monitor results, and recommend/ implement adjustments to agreed management regimes 4.2.10 Build linkages with natural resource development activities to ensure wider application of best

management practices

4 3 Support barrier removal activities to increase the sustainability of subsistence uses of forest resources by Amerindian groups (all sites)

4.3.1 Appraise the benefits and costs for biodiversity of customary uses of wild resources (all sites) 4.3.2 Building on indigenous knowledge and scientific information, formulate and obtain community

agreement on measures to control, monitor and report on wild harvests 4.3.3 Monitor application of management methods, and supply technical assistance and training to

enhance performance

4 4 Demonstrate ways and means of overcoming barriers to developing and managing nature tourism in San Rafael NP4.4.1 In consultation with communities, identify sites where eco-tourism will provide socially,

economically and ecologically viable 4.4.2 Design interpretation materials for visitor centres and self-guided trails describing area ecology 4.4.3 Develop and advertise a code of conduct for visitors 4.4.4 Strengthen visitor management capacities through field demonstration 4.4.5 Sensitise prospective local entrepreneurs and sources of capital to potential investment

opportunities by 1) organising study tours and 2) creating linkages with tour operators, and 3) supplying deal flow identification services on an as needed basis

Parks BoardDPNVS/PTU, Plant CollectorsDPNVS/PTU, Plant CollectorsDPNVS/PTU, Plant CollectorsDPNVS/PTUUniversities, DPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTUParks Boards, DPNVS/PTU, Plant CollectorsParks Boards, DPNVS/PTU, Plant CollectorsPSC, MAGDPNVS/PTU, Community Leaders

Monitoring Sub-contract, DPNVS/PTUMonitoring Sub-contract, DPNVS/PTU Community LeadersMonitoring Sub-contract

Parks Board, DPNVS/PTU

DPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTU

Training sub-contractor, DPNVS/PTU, Parks Boards

42

Project Document


4.4.6 Develop promotional material on the site, including web based information, inputs into popular guide books, and other material

4.4.7 Train local guides in visitor management and guiding skills 4.4.8 Monitor impacts, and take corrective steps as necessary to enhance the quality of tourism

management

5 1 Design and implement an advocacy and media outreach programme for biodiversity conservation

5.1.1 Undertake a scoping exercise in participation with Park’s Boards to determine and agree on site specific advocacy needs

5.1.2 Perform a participatory scoping exercise involving radio producers and journalists to define media information needs

5.1.3 Design advocacy materials, field test them, and revise content based on stakeholder response 5.1.4 Develop updated fact sheets on conservation activities in the sites to distribute to media 5.1.5 Monitor outcomes, and revise strategies and materials accordingly 5.1.6 Facilitate participation of professional staff in radio talk shows and media sponsored events 5.1.7 Facilitate the active participation of parks authorities in local community events, including

agricultural shows and rodeos

5 2 Formalise and strengthen schools/youth outreach initiative 5.2.1 Work with local educational authorities to identify opportunities for integrating conservation

education into curricula 5.2.2 Develop resource materials and teaching aids to use in local schools 5.2.3 Train teachers in conservation education techniques, to facilitate classroom discussion on

conservation issues 5.2.4 Monitor outcomes, and provide additional training as necessary 5.2.5 Develop a tight interface between local schools and parks authorities, with the participation of

DPNVS in “youth events”

Awareness Subcontractor, Parks Boards,Sub-contractor, DPNVSSub-contractorSub-contractorParks Boards, Sub-contractor, DPNVSMAG

Education authorities, DPNVS/PTUEducation authorities, Sub-contractor, Sub-contractorParks boards, Sub-contractorDPNVS

6 1 Define and map a viable biological corridor between San Rafael NP and neighbouring Caaguazú PA and establish a collaborative framework for management

6.1.1 Assess aerial imagery to define key habitats to be conserved in order to create a biological corridor 6.1.2 With the prior assent of local landholders, conduct field surveys to “ground-truth” habitat

significance 6.1.3 Expand baseline ecological/ landholding and use maps of the Park to encompass the corridor 6.1.4 Impart information to landholders on the need to create the corridor , discuss options for

collaborative management and chronicle landholder specific management needs

6 2 Define win-win strategies for integrating sustainable agricultural and biodiversity conservation activities in the corridor

6.2.1 Provide technical assistance to landholders to define strategies and methods for integrating sustainable agricultural with biodiversity conservation objectives

DPNVS/PTU, Monitoring Sub-contractDPNVS/PTU, Monitoring Sub-contractDPNVS/PTUParks Boards, Awareness Sub-contract, DPNVS/PTU

43



6.2.2 Obtain agreement from concerned landholders regarding the establishment of the corridor 6.2.3 Develop and agree on a spatial framework for conservation that co-ordinates management actions

across landholdings 6.2.4 Identify necessary policies, incentives, and development assistance programmes needed to fulfil

agreed management strategies 6.2.5 Define the respective roles and responsibilities of different actors in supporting implementation of

the strategies 6.2.6 Frame targeted Management Plan for integrated conservation/ agricultural development work in the

corridor

6 3 Operationalise integrated conservation and development strategies in the corridor6.3.1 Establish high level Working Group to capacitate policy development and develop an incentive

framework 6.3.2 Leverage programmatic interventions from baseline initiatives to address management needs in

transition areas 6.3.3 Supply legal support to draft enabling policies, including those relating to management incentives 6.3.4 Train farm/livestock extension workers in integrated conservation and development methods 6.3.5 Monitor outcomes, and take corrective measures to enhance the efficacy of interventions 6.3.6 Document and disseminate lessons learned

6 4 Ensure integration of conservation objectives into regional development planning processes (all sites)6.4.1 Determine the type/ location of developments likely to erode integrity of the sites 6.4.2 Design safe minimum standards for development activity 6.4.3 Incorporate standards into Park Management Plans 6.4.4 Draft enabling policies and regulations to formalise the standards for environmental impact

assessment purposes, and obtain necessary clearances 6.4.5 Ensure integration of conservation objectives into regional development plans

DPNVS/PTU

Park Boards, DPNVS/ PTU, landholdersPark Boards, DPNVS/ PTU, landholdersLandholders, MAG, DPNVS/PTULandholders, Park BoardsPark Boards, DPNVS/ PTU, landholders

MAGMAG, DPNVS/PTULegal/Policy Sub contract, DPNVS/PTUMAG, DPNVS/PTUPSC, MAG, UNDPDPNVS/PTU

DPNVS/PTU, Monitoring Sub contractDPNVS/PTUDPNVS/PTU, MAGMAG, Legal/Policy Sub contract,

MAG, DPNVS/PTU

44

Project Document

Sustainability of Project Results

Project Beneficiaries

51. As a public good, Paraguay’s biodiversity accords a range of benefits at both the global and national levels— according direct, indirect use, option, and existence values. The global community will benefit from the protection of important wilderness areas, ecosystems, species, and races that would otherwise be extinguished, and which are fast being extirpated elsewhere in the La Plata River Basin. The protection of keystone species, such as large predators, will in turn serve to safeguard long term ecological processes and inter-specific linkages.

52. At the national and local levels, the project would ensure that the option to use components of biological diversity for consumptive and productive purposes is maintained. Direct beneficiaries include government personnel and staff from local NGOs working in the project sites who would benefit from additional training and exposure to innovative conservation approaches. Local communities will benefit from the maintenance of direct and indirect ecosystem services that contribute to the quality of life. The direct engagement of local communities, particularly indigenous groups, in the pursuit of conservation will provide them with a greater stake in the allocation and judicious management of wild resources. In the longer-term, communities would benefit from the development of eco tourism, and from a shift from unsustainable to sustainable use paradigms for sports hunting and medicinal plant harvests.

53. The institutional and financial sustainability of project interventions has been catered for in design. The former will be ensured through capacity building of DPNVS/MAG and by strengthening capacities of partner NGO’s and local communities to engage in conservation activities. Over the longer-term, new conservation partnerships between government authorities, NGO’s, the private sector and local communities shall increase conservation awareness, and serve to assemble a domestic conservation constituency— so vital to sustainability. The cluster of co-operating agencies and groups involved in the project are ready to work together to co-finance, and backstop training, capacity building, research and monitoring. The recurrent costs associated with managing the four Protected Areas are estimated at US$ 300,000 per year at current prices. The Government has agreed to gradually absorb these costs into the regular Parks budget, commencing in year 4. These fundamentals auger well for long-term project sustainability, a point highlighted in the STAP review of the project.

Eligibility under CBD

54. The project meets the objectives and principles articulated in the CBD in several ways. By integrating conservation objectives into cross-sectoral plans and programmes at a local and regional level, the project would fulfil the requirements of Article 6 of the CBD, General Measures for Conservation and

45


Sustainable Use. Article 8, In Situ Conservation, would be fulfilled by operationalising management in the four Protected Areas. Other activities would identify and monitor the status of components of biodiversity (Article 7, Identification and Monitoring); build the management capacity of resource managers by providing training (Article 12); impart conservation awareness to stakeholders (Article 13); facilitate information exchange (Article 17), and develop a framework for sustainable use management (Article 10).

Eligibility for GEF Financing

55. As a recipient of UNDP technical assistance, Paraguay meets the eligibility criteria set out under paragraph 9 (b) of the GEF Instrument. The project is eligible for GEF assistance under Operational Programme number 3: Forest Ecosystems, meeting the eligibility criteria by: [1] generating substantial global conservation benefits, [2] being nested firmly within the national biodiversity conservation strategy, [3] financing the agreed incremental costs of measures to secure global benefits, [4] providing for institutional and financial sustainability, [5] following guidance regarding public participation, and [6] including a strong monitoring and evaluation component, that will document and widely disseminate lessons learned during implementation. The project document addresses technical issues raised by GEF Council Members following the Council meeting convened in Washington D.C. in October 1998.

Cost-effectiveness

56. The future costs of repairing Paraguay’s natural landscapes are likely to be prohibitive. Much of the disturbance will be irreversible— particularly in the context of the Interior Atlantic Forest. In the other eco-regions, the situation is less acute, but again, if pressures are allowed to prevail, the corollary will be a loss of biodiversity and impairment of ecological functions. A precautionary approach to conservation is cost-effective when weighed against the magnitude of future costs. The paradigm will spread responsibilities for addressing conservation needs amongst a range of actors, including regional and development agencies. In addition, the participatory approach will engender greater stakeholder “ownership” of conservation efforts, improving the chances that stable conservation outcomes will be secured. Relative to the traditional “command and control” model, this paradigm is likely to prove highly cost-effective by reducing the long-run costs of surveillance and policing functions. Project financing is modest relative to the potential benefits that will accrue from implementation.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

57. Execution and implementation modalities have been modelled based on the lessons learned from implementing development assistance projects in Paraguay, and have been carefully designed to build absorptive capacity and to provide maximum transparency and financial accountability. The efficacy of the

46

Project Document

arrangements, and, in particular, of mechanisms to engender public participation, will be reviewed during Independent Mid Term Evaluations scheduled for years 3 and 5. These evaluations will enable executing and implementing arrangements to be fine-tuned if necessary to improve delivery and maximise cost effectiveness.

Project Execution

58. The Project would be executed by the Government of Paraguay (GOP), with execution responsibilities vested with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. The Project’s Implementing Agency will be the National Parks and Wildlife Directorate of the Sub-secretariat for natural resources and the Environment (DPNVS/SSERNMA). Execution modalities would be governed by UNDP’s procedures and rules for nationally executed projects, and UNDP would be jointly accountable for the management of project resources. The Director of DPNVS will serve as the National Project Director (NPD), and will be accountable for the mobilisation of inputs and achievement of outputs. The NPD would be entrusted with the following responsibilities:

- certifying all expenditures in line with the approved input budget and activity work plans;

- monitoring and reporting to the Subsecretariat of Natural Resources and Environment (SSERNMA), MAG and UNDP-Paraguay on the delivery of approved outputs and technical quality of project interventions;

- assuming responsibility for co-ordinating conservation/ development activities at the project sites with other government line agencies, donors, the Departments of Itapúa, Caazapá, Concepción, Boquerón and Alto Paraguay, and non-government actors;

- endorsing all Terms of Reference and selection criteria for personnel and approving selection;

- approving Terms of Reference for sub-contractors and technical specifications for infrastructure and participating in the vendor selection process (competitive bidding); and

- purchasing equipment/ supplies costing less than US$ 10,000, following UNDP rules.

59. A National Project Co-ordinator will be appointed within SSERNMA as the focal point responsible for ensuring accountability, convening Project Steering Committee meetings, overseeing progress in implementation, co-ordinating actions with other line agencies, and reporting.

60. UNDP-Paraguay will be the depository of project funds, and will disburse monies upon the request of the NPD for purposes stipulated in the Project Document and according to UNDP rules and procedures. In particular, UNDP would be responsible for the following tasks:

- accounting and funds management, according to the approved budget and annual work plan;

47


- approving all payments, either directly to vendors, or on a quarterly basis to DPNVS following authorisation by DPNVS (the Financial Management Arrangements are described below);

- recruiting long/ short-term national and international experts and consultants for project work;

- entering into and managing sub-contracts (for payments of >US$ 10,000) with technically qualified vendors for the delivery of inputs listed under budget line 20;

- procuring all equipment/ supplies for items costing > US$ 10,000 through competitive process; and

- reporting to the GEF on the implementation status of the project at the annual Project Implementation Review (PIR).

Implementing Agent

61. A Project Technical Unit (PTU) would be established within DPNVS to supervise and co-ordinate activity implementation and operations. The PTU would be staffed by a Chief Technical Adviser, Administrator and Administrative Assistant, the Terms of Reference for whom are provided in Annex VII. These staff will be trained by UNDP programme and operations personnel at the Country Office in UNDP Project Execution/ Implementation procedures. The PTU/DPNVS would be responsible for operational management of the project and administering assigned inputs. In particular, the PTU/DPNVS would be jointly responsible to the executing agency and UNDP-Paraguay for:

- micro-planning, scheduling and organisation of activities and tasks;- finalising Terms of Reference for all staff, based on the duty statements

contained in Annex VII.- supervising personnel and staff outputs based on the Terms of Reference

and approved Work Plans;- finalising Terms of Reference for subcontractors, developing technical

specifications for infrastructure and assisting UNDP to develop tender documents;

- assisting UNDP to evaluate bids for sub-contracts;- managing and providing administrative backstopping to vendors

recruited under sub-contract;- preparing quarterly and annual operational work plans for submission to

SSERNMA/ UNDP; - preparing Annual Progress Reports (APR’s) and other reports to monitor

progress in implementation; - preparing quarterly financial statements, and maintaining internal

financial records;- managing non-expendable equipment;

48

Project Document

- disseminating information on project activities, and compiling information on best practices;

- networking with concerned stakeholders in the conservation arena to advance project goals; and

- liasing closely with TNC, CAF and the European Union to ensure joint programming of all co-financed activities; regular bilateral meetings will be scheduled with task managers from these agencies to monitor realisation of joint programming objectives.

62. Non government organisations/private firms will be invited to implement components of the project relating to public awareness and conservation education, provision of advocacy support to indigenous groups, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of impacts. UNDP-Paraguay will publicly invite NGOs/firms interested in implementing these components to register in a roster to be created under the project. NGOs/firms will be registered according to criteria such as previous field experience and technical capacity, availability of personnel and equipment. In all cases, selection of NGOs/firms will be based on competitive processes, following UNDP’s procedures and rules for National execution. The PTU/DPNVS will prepare Terms of Reference clearly specifying functions, responsibilities, deliverables, measures for ensuring financial accountability and reporting requirements. Implementation responsibilities would be determined on the basis of comparative advantage (technical capacity, performance, experience and cost-effectiveness). A selection committee comprised of PTU/DPNVS and UNDP-Paraguay staff will be responsible for evaluating proposals. The evaluation process will be reviewed by UNDP-Paraguay’s Local Contracts Committee and by UNDP-HQs Contracts Committee, where applicable.

Project Steering Committee

63. A Project Steering Committee would be established to provide a participatory forum for project oversight, promote cross-sectoral integration of policies and programmes, and co-ordinate wider conservation advocacy activities. The Steering Committee will assist the executing agency to facilitate inter-agency co-ordination of conservation/ development activities and work to integrate the lessons learned from implementation of the project into other conservation programmes. The Committee will be chaired by the Vice Minister of Natural resources and the Environment and comprise representatives of the Technical Planning Secretariat, UNDP/Paraguay, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Governors from Itapuá, Caazapá, Concepción, Alto Paraguay and Boquerón Departments, the Paraguayan Indigenous Association, and NGO representatives from the Moisés Bertoni Foundation (FMB), Desdelchaco, Alter Vida (NGO alternate) and Hombre y Nateraleza (NGO alternate). The National Project Director, with the support of the CTA, will serve as Secretary to the Committee. Donor agencies providing co-financing to the project (USAID, the European Union, and CAF) and others will be invited to attend the PSC meetings.

49


64. The PSC will perform the following functions:- reviewing the Annual Project Report (APR), Terminal Report, Independent

Evaluations and lessons learned documentation; - evaluating project outcomes and feedback into strategic planning;- ensuring implementation of recommendations made by Independent

Evaluation Teams; - evaluating the efficacy of efforts to jointly programme project activities

with baseline initiatives;- provide policy guidance to government based on lessons learned under

the project;- ensure linkages with the Paraguayan NBSAP; and- support ad hoc advocacy efforts as needed from time to time to advance

project objectives.

65. SSERNMA will provide a Secretariat for the Project Steering Committee, organising meetings and reporting to the Office of the Minister (MAG) on major policy and institutional issues. A schedule of PSC meetings is provided in Annex III. Meetings would be held twice a year in the first two years and annually thereafter, with an additional, extraordinary meeting convened in year 5 following the second Independent Evaluation of the Project. The precise date and location of the meetings would be determined by the National Project Co-ordinator. Additional meetings may be convened during the project life if considered necessary by the Chair

Financial Management Arrangements

66. UNDP-Paraguay’s Finance Section will establish and maintain accounts for the project budget. Two payment modalities will be adopted, differentiated by input and budget line as indicated in the schedule below. UNDP-Paraguay would be responsible for making direct payments to personnel and vendors under certain budget lines. For other inputs, payments would be made to DPNVS on a quarterly basis, based on the disbursement schedule contained in the budget. [DPNVS-MAG will open a dedicated account as a repository for the purpose]. The Project administrator will be required to prepare a quarterly financial statement, which will be reviewed and approved by UNDP’s Finance Section prior to the release of further disbursements. The CTA would be responsible for monitoring the commitment of funds under individual budget lines until the relevant disbursements have been made, and the amounts recorded in the project account.

Table 1: Disbursement Arrangements

50

Project Document

Budget Line and Input DescriptionsPayment Modality

Direct Payment by UNDP

Quarterly Disbursements to DPNVS/MAG

11 International Experts X13 Administrative Support Personel X14 UN Volunteers X15 Duty Travel X16 Mission Costs X17 National Professional Personnel X20 Subcontracts < US$10.000 X20 Subcontracts > US$10.000 X30 Training (local) X30 Training (international) X34 Workshops X40 Equipment < US$10.000 X40 Equipment > US$10.000 X50 Miscellaneous Expenses X

67. UNDP will arrange for a mandatory annual financial audit of the project by a private accounting firm for the purposes of assessing the efficacy of financial accounting and monitoring and equipment control systems. More specifically, the audit will confirm that:

- financial disbursements are being made in accordance with agreed project activities and input budgets, and are supported by adequate documentation;

- quarterly financial reports are accurately presented;- appropriate management structures, internal controls and record-

keeping systems are being maintained; and- procurement, control and disposal requirements for non-expendable

equipment are being met.

Procurement of Equipment

68. UNDP-Paraguay will be responsible for local and international procurement of non-expendable equipment (costing more than US$ 10,000) following established rules and procedures. The PTU/DPNVS will prepare specifications for all project equipment and supplies, and will establish and maintain a property ledger for all non-expendable equipment purchased with project funds. Procurement decisions will be made according to a transparent and competitive bidding process that clearly establishes financial accountability.

Sub Contracting Arrangements

69. UNDP-Paraguay will be responsible for local and international procurement of non-expendable equipment (costing more than US$ 10,000).

51


The PTU/DPNVS will be responsible for preparing detailed Terms of Reference for subcontracted activities under the project, including functions, responsibilities, deliverables, measures for ensuring financial accountability and reporting requirements. In all cases, subcontracting will follow competitive processes, as established by UNDP rules and procedures. A selection committee comprised of PTU/DPNVS and UNDP-Paraguay staff will be in charge of evaluating proposals based on their technical and financial quality. The evaluation process will be reviewed by UNDP-Paraguay´s Local Contracts Committee (for contracts between US$30,000 and US$100,000) and UNDP-HQ´s Contracts Committee (for contracts above US$100, 000).

Public Participation Modalities

70. There have been few instances of effective public participation in conservation and development initiatives within Paraguay, bar a number of small NGO sponsored programmes. The project would break new ground in establishing and implementing public participation arrangements, geared to the social, economic and institutional specificities of rural Paraguay. The approach discards an inflexible “blueprint” approach to participation in favour of an organic collaborative management process that will be fine-tuned as part of implementation. Key objectives are to develop capacities amongst different groups to facilitate participation, level dis-equilibriums in social relations to ensure all concerned stakeholders participate on an equal footing, and build the basis of trust between groups (and particularly, a strengthened interface between communities and protected area managers). These objectives, that aim at ensuring broad based ownership of conservation measures, will take time to effect—one reason that a 7 year time table for project activities has been selected. The process has a number of elements relating to management/operational planning, activity implementation, and monitoring and evaluation, that are discussed below.

71. Efforts have been made to identify and involve all major stakeholders in the process of framing this proposal. Stakeholders include national and regional government authorities, local community leaders, indigenous groups, landowners, and representatives from community-based and non-government organisations. These may be sub-divided further into “direct” or primary stakeholders, likely to benefit directly from or be affected by Protected Area management, and “indirect” or secondary stakeholders, with an interest in the project’s conservation outcomes or who are in some way linked with the primary stakeholder groups. The former group includes government agencies with direct responsibility for the management of Protected Areas and buffer zones under Paraguayan law, and, in particular, for developing and executing conservation policies, and co-ordinating development activities. It also includes local communities, including indigenous groups, residing within the project areas. The latter category includes national and international NGO’s, other government line agencies with policy objectives that complement conservation/ sustainable use, and industry associations representing private sector concerns.

52

Project Document

Table 3: List of Direct and Indirect StakeholdersNational Park Primary Stakeholders Secondary StakeholdersSan Rafael NP

buffer area

- DPNVS/MAG- CRAE

- Mbya communities- Private landholders

- Largeholders (farms)- Smallholders (farms)- Departments of Itapuá,

and Caazapá

- Guyra Paraguay - PROCOSARA- Alter Vida- CECTEC- ECOVIDA- Paraguayan Indigenous

Association

- National Forestry Service

Paso Bravo

buffer area

- DPNVS/MAG

- Largeholders (ranches)- Department of

Concepción

- Alter Vida- Pastoral Social

Río Negro

buffer area

- DPNVS/MAG

- Largeholders (ranches and cassava)

- Smallholders (farms)- Chamacoco communities- Department of Alto

Paraguay

- Hombre y Naturaleza

- Alto Paraguay Indigenous Peoples Coordination Committee

- Bahia Negra Military Unit

Daniel Cáceres / Defensores del Chaco

buffer area

- DPNVS/MAG- Ayoreo communities

(hunter/gatherers)

- Largeholders (ranches)- Ayoreo communities

(ranch labourers)- Departments of Alto

Paraguay and Boquerón

- Desdelchaco /The Nature Conservancy

- Boquerón Indigenous Peoples Coordination Committee

- Alto Paraguay Indigenous Peoples Coordination Committee

- Angaite communities (reside 120 kms from Parks)

All Sites - Directorate for Environmental Management

- Paraguayan Indigenous Peoples Institute (INDI)

- Paraguay Rural Association

- Technical Planning Secretariat

53


72. It is particularly critical for the long term success of the project that all direct stakeholders actively collaborate in planning and implementing conservation measures in the National Parks, including the definition of zoning needs, access rights, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms. As much as possible, efforts would be made to involve local communities in policing. A “social fencing” strategy would be developed whereby community informants would work with parks’ authorities to collect information on and stem illegal activity. The development of such intelligence gathering systems involving local communities is a key goal of Output 2. Primary stakeholders would also be involved in framing the awareness component, in implementing the sustainable use demonstrations, and in monitoring.

73. Secondary stakeholders may play key roles as intermediaries—reaching out to primary stakeholders. NGO’s, for example, have a comparative advantage in advocacy work, monitoring, social engagement and conflict resolution, and could provide linkages between different direct stakeholding groups.

74. A number of public consultations were organised during project development, providing a means for both direct and indirect stakeholders to guide development of the conservation strategy. These meetings were arranged in concert with a media campaign (targeting local newspapers and radio) aimed at clarifying the objectives and activities of the project to the public. Project design builds on the feedback provided during formulation. However, this consultation process, by itself, will not overcome barriers to effective stakeholder participation during implementation, and a number of checks and balances have been developed. The approach is not prescriptive and inflexible, but rather aims at adaptive management, enabling new strategies to be developed to suit evolving social and ecological circumstances. (a) At a macro level, NGO representatives from Moisés Bertoni Foundation,

Alter Vida, Fundación DesdelChaco and Hombre y Naturaleza will sit on the Project Steering Committee to provide technical inputs into and guide the participatory management process. Such representatives could play a valuable role in checking impulses to manage from the top down, and ensuring accountability for the quality of stakeholder participation.

(b)Progress in attaining participatory management objectives will be assessed in Annual Progress Reports, and UNDP would report to the GEF on lessons learned in this regard during the annual Project Implementation Review (PIR) conducted with the GEF Secretariat.

(c) Training needs for community actors will also be identified at an early stage, with appropriate training modules and materials designed to suit local needs and circumstances.

(d)The participation issue will be a focal area of review during scheduled Independent Evaluations of the project. The Evaluation teams will

54

Project Document

include a sociologist familiar with participatory methods and their application in the conservation management process. The teams would meet with representatives from local communities to gauge progress and verify information presented in annual and quarterly progress reports and technical papers.

(e) UNDP would play an active role in promoting participation, by sharing lessons learned material on this theme developed by other UNDP and GEF sponsored projects, advocating application of best practice, and, where necessary, contributing to dispute mediation.

(f) Social Impact Assessments (SIA) would be undertaken as part and parcel of broader monitoring effects under the adaptive management approach. This would enable feedback into management regarding social responses and relations. SIAs would also provide a means for tracking changes in primary stakeholder composition, enabling project strategies to be adapted as necessary to address different stakeholder needs and interests.

(g)Primary stakeholders would work together to set ground rules for participation, geared to site specific needs, within the first six months of project implementation. These guidelines would be memorialised within the management planning process, and in Protected Area operations. Their efficacy would be monitored as part of SIA’s, and the guidelines themselves will be revised by stakeholders as the conservation process matures.

(h)Procedures for participatory monitoring and evaluation will be established jointly with primary stakeholders, describing the process, methods and periodicity of monitoring activities (which will cover operational as well as impact monitoring aspects).

(i) The project strategy recognises that different stakeholders have different needs, perspectives and capacities, and that approaches to participation need to be differentiated by group.

75. DPNVS/MAG is a critical stakeholder, responsible for developing public conservation programmes and setting policies and entrusted by legislation with the management of the conservation estate. Staff members, including senior and middle management as well as Parks Directors need to be convinced of the utility of participatory management approaches through demonstration. An iterative approach is needed, to build public outreach capacities, conflict resolution skills, strengthen the basis of trust with park neighbours, and engage in advocacy. The project would provide technical assistance to facilitate the approach, sustain dialogue with actors, including at high levels, and build alliances with key decision makers. Study tours would be organised to other conservation initiatives in the region that have adopted participatory approaches to enable decision makers to witness progress first hand. Parks staff at each of the sites would be trained in public relations skills to strengthen their ability to work collaboratively with other stakeholders.

55


76. The respective roles and responsibilities of SSERNMA/MAG and Provincial and Municipal authorities as regards the management of resources outside of National Parks and their immediate buffers has yet to be fully clarified by government policy. The Government is committed to a process of administrative decentralisation, which would provide these institutions with a greater stake in the conservation arena. For this reason, and also because they are responsible for a number of important baseline initiatives, the Departmental authorities are listed as primary conservation stakeholders. The project would strengthen mechanisms for inter-agency collaboration, promoting dialogue and joint activity programming.

77. The bulk of land in buffer areas comprises of large and medium sized holdings. Owners of such properties generally face lower opportunity costs when engaging in conservation work (landscaping to maintain biological corridors, or protecting critical habitats) than do smallholders. In addition, these stakeholders generally have access to financial capital, and have business management skills. This places them in a good position to develop conservation compatible enterprises such as eco-tourism outfits, if proven viable through the sustainable use demonstrations. Such stakeholders are also likely to benefit from and appreciate amenity values supplied by the National Parks. [In San Rafael National Park, several large holders have been active in advocating and lobbying for conservation action at the site].

78. This group as a whole tends to be politically well connected. While this may be an advantage, there may be instances where patron-client relations may be brought to bear against conservation management interests. Vigilance to this possibility if of the essence. The solution lies in making broad based and durable compacts with both primary and secondary stakeholders and thus constructing a conservation constituency to serve as a counterbalance. In addition, media outreach could play an important role in raising awareness of such dilemmas.

79. Smallholder properties account for a relatively small proportion of buffer lands in the sites. However, this situation may change gradually over time. Smallholders, in general, face higher opportunity costs than large holders in maintaining wildlife on their properties. Historically, this group has lacked access to extension services and other agricultural inputs. Lacking access to micro-credit, smallholders’ ability to benefit from new technologies and innovations has been constrained. Many smallholders are recent settlers in Paraguay, often immigrants from Brazil, and their social networks are often less strong then those created by the more established groups. This may complicate the task of social mobilisation for conservation purposes.

80. The project strategy recognises the challenges of catalysing behaviour change amongst smallholders and peasant farmers. Interventions under output 6 aimed at creating a biological corridor in San Rafael NP would identify properties where intervention is critical. Specific stakeholder needs

56

Project Document

(inputs, services and technology) in order to effect resource-use changes will be uncovered through dialogue and technical investigation, thus providing a basis for targeting baseline interventions to ensure congruence with conservation. The project would then link up with baseline programmes to facilitate sustainable agricultural intensification on smallholder properties. Inter alia, baseline activities could include dissemination of the results of farming systems research (into sustainable agricultural production systems), strengthening of farm extension support and input access and boosting access to micro-credit.

81. Indigenous groups within the project areas are critical stakeholders, given that they often depend on wild resources for subsistence, their ancestral patterns of resource use, and their knowledge of area ecology. Different groups are found in each of the sites, with the exception of Paso Bravo National Park, where there are no Amerindian communities. The project strategy aims at fully involving these groups in the implementation of project activities, including enforcement, monitoring, guiding and other conservation functions. But the task of engagement is complicated by a number of factors. Historically, indigenous groups have been marginalised, and their social relations with other primary stakeholders are often weakly developed or founded on exploitative or patron-client relationships. The groups are often poor, and have lacked an active voice in policy development and the execution of development strategies and programmes. The opportunity costs of strict preservation that bans access for subsistence uses may be unacceptably high, and preservation has the potential to impose severe welfare impacts.

82. The project strategy recognises these fundamentals, and measures to address them have been internalised in design. Given low populations sizes and densities, the biological impacts of the subsistence activities of Amerindian groups do not presently threaten wildlife populations in the target sites. Usufruct rights in designated use areas would be clarified and formalised during the process of management planning, and in consultation with representatives of Amerindian groups, providing access to wild resources for customary/ subsistence purposes. Technical assistance would be provided through the project to define the acceptable parameters of sustainable use, to develop management guidelines and measures to ensure application. The communities themselves would be encouraged to develop social sanctions against malfeasance by members (i.e. non customary uses of resources). Initial consultations have indicated that the formalisation of usufruct rights and participation in management decisions that have a bearing on groups’ subsistence oriented livelihoods will serve as important conservation incentives, providing a stimulus for indigenous communities to work with parks authorities to control access by outsiders (social fencing). However, the strategy needs to be carefully monitored, and will need to be adapted during the process of implementation.

83. In order to empower communities to participate in conservation efforts, the project, working through a qualified non government organisation would

57


seek to raise consciousness of conservation needs, mobilise community leaders, and enhance their capacity to negotiate with parks authorities and other key stakeholders. The sub contracted NGO partner would also act to mediate social conflicts between indigenous groups and other stakeholders. One objective is to address the dis-equilibrium in power between these groups and other stakeholders. [Without such arrangements, it is unlikely that they can participate as equal partners with other stakeholders.]

84. Participation aims at finessing consensus between different actors about why behavioural change is needed, and how it can be orchestrated, to enhance the prospects for sustainability. A participatory learning and action approach will be undertaken, whereby stakeholders undergo social learning through dialogue, exposure to innovative new ideas, and doing. In addition, capacity building activities would build conflict management and dispute mediation skills (focusing on Parks Board Members, community leaders and Parks directors and other personnel).

Project Risks

85. Activities have been designed to mitigate risk, which are outweighed by the potential direct and indirect benefits of the project. Receptivity towards conservation amongst policy-makers and agents of civil society has increased substantially over the past decade, improving the climate for action. The strategy has been carefully negotiated with stakeholders and is nationally driven, providing greater surety that project objectives will be achieved. The analysis below describes the most prominent risks, assesses the probability of their occurrence, and outlines potential corrective measures. Additional assumptions are listed in the log frame. Each of these issues was carefully weighed in project design and judged not to comprise an insurmountable barrier to realisation of the project’s global environmental objective.

(a) Description of Risk : Inability/unwillingness on the part of government agencies to adopt participatory management measures in place of traditional, top down conservation strategies, resulting in a lack of perceived ownership on the part of local communities over conservation interventions.

Estimated Probability: Medium; Paraguay’s conservation programme is in its infancy, making it possible to mould conservation approaches and methods without facing undue institutional rigidities. Senior and middle management within DPNVS/MAG have shown considerable interest in effecting a participatory management model on a pilot basis under the project. However, the modus operandi of public participation in biodiversity conservation is poorly understood in the Paraguayan context, and decision makers may not be fully cognisant of the implications of embracing a truly participatory paradigm. Power and responsibility will need to be shared between government managers and local community representatives if an active, rather than passive participation regime is to be effected. Considerable training will be needed to build broad-based capacity in participatory learning and action skills, public relations skills, and other skills to facilitate public participation. Successful

58

Project Document

participation will hinge on the extent to which community interests and needs are accommodated in the conservation equation.

Abatement Measures: Design training programme to build participatory management skills, and gear training modules to addressing the skills development needs of Park authorities, including middle and senior managers, as well as representatives of local communities. Develop management plans, awareness initiatives, monitoring programmes and sustainable use support activities using participatory learning and action tools, so as to gear interventions to addressing community perceptions and needs.

(b)Description of Risk : Consensus raising on conservation issues amongst stakeholders, particularly parks authorities and local communities is hampered by inter and intra group conflict.

Estimated Probability: Low, but could change over time, particularly in San Rafael National Park. The population densities in the project areas are low, and the number of stakeholders much lower than the norm for conservation projects elsewhere in Latin America. This has positive (operational) implications for the task of stakeholder consensus building. While stakeholder composition obviously varies from site to site, on the whole the four Parks are ringed by large farms and cattle ranches, the owners of which tend to be well organised through Producer Associations. However, the number of smallholders may grow with time if land is subdivided into smaller plots. Any such change would alter socio-economic dynamics (the cost benefit calculus for land management differs greatly between large and small land owners), and complicate participatory decision making. In addition, smallholders tend to be less organised, increasing the transaction costs of consultation and consensus building.

Abatement Measures: Monitor implementation in the field, and be vigilant to conflicts between stakeholders, particularly parks authorities and local communities, and large landowners, smallholders and Amerindian groups. Provide technical assistance to mediate conflicts and build conflict resolution capacities taking a learning by doing approach. Undertake stakeholder assessments as part of on-going monitoring measures, being particularly vigilant to changing group composition, and adapt management measures as necessary.

(c) Description of Risk : The relative disenfranchisement of Amerindian groups and their often weak social relations with other communities may combine to exclude them from conservation efforts. Despite the small populations of Amerindian groups in vicinity of the project sites, their status as forest edge communities, dependence on forest-based subsistence, and indigenous knowledge of area ecology make them some of the more critical stakeholders.

Estimated Probability: Medium; The capacity of indigenous groups to participate in project activities will be conditioned by the level of internal social organisation, and participation will need to be carefully finessed through a targeted approach that strengthens internal institutional capacities within

59


groups for conservation. Effective engagement cannot be effected without formal recognition of ancestral rights and the extension of usufruct rights as part of the management regime.

Abatement Measures:: Commission a qualified and independent NGO to spearhead conservation advocacy amongst Amerindian groups and strengthen institutional capacities and leadership. Target communities through outreach activities to ensure their full engagement in planning, activity implementation, and monitoring initiatives. Formalise usufruct rights for communities and development safeguards to ensure ecological sustainability.

(d)Description of Risk : Land tenure insecurity may erode the efficacy of Park conservation.

Estimated Probability: Low in Paso Bravo, Daniel Cáceres, Defensores del Chaco, and Río Negro National Parks; Low- Medium in San Rafael National Park; The four sites are top national conservation priorities (listed as such in the SINASIP Master Plan), and the government is fully committed to ensuring their long-term protection. SINASIP was created under law 352: Wild Protected Areas, legislated by the Paraguayan National Congress in 1994, which constitutes the legal framework for the conservation of Protected Areas on lands under the public and private domain.

Paraguay is currently undergoing a process of land use rationalisation and agrarian reform. As part of this process, the government is alienating lands from private landowners to create the Protected Areas System. [Paraguayan Law allows land to be alienated from private owners where justified in the public interest, including in order to establish National Parks.] Once an area has been legally designated as a National Park, the following steps are taken: The IBR verifies if private lands within the National Park are being

utilised for the purposes stipulated in the original sale; if not, the original acquisition is deemed not to have effect, and lands are

register ed as publicly owned; if lands are being used as intended, due compensation is paid to

landowners for foregone access (at rates determined by the IBR); Patrimony over public lands in the National Park is transferred to

DPNVS/MAG.

Law 352 sets the general norms for the establishment and management of SINASIP. Once gazetted by Executive Decree as a National Park, private lands cannot be allocated to uses that run contra to conservation objectives, regardless of whether compensation for foregone access has been paid. Actions that alter the ecology balance of such lands are considered crimes, and are subject to prosecution under article 58 of the Law. Additional legal protection (enforcement mechanisms) against malfeasance is provided by law 718/96: Ecological Crimes. Under these laws, National Parks, regardless of the status of land ownership, may only be used for scientific,

60

Project Document

cultural, and recreational purposes. The legal framework thus provides security that conservation interests will prevail on private lands while compensation packages are being negotiated and executed.

It is critical, for these laws to take effect, and thus to remove tenure related risks, for each of the four sites to be legally gazetted as National Parks. In this regard, it should be noted that San Rafael and Paso Bravo National Parks have already been gazetted, under Executive Decrees 13.680/92 and 20.712/98 respectively (subsidiary legislation to Law 352). Daniel Cáceres and Río Negro National Parks are in the final stages of legal formalisation, a process triggered by Block B activities.

Over 80% of the total land areas of Daniel Cáceres and Río Negro National Parks are under public ownership, and the remaining land holdings will be purchased by IBR. Defensores del Chaco and Paso Bravo National Parks are entirely located on public lands. San Rafael National Park, on the other hand is located mostly on private property. The Park is subject to the uses and conditions established under Law 352 and in its corresponding decree. The government is formally purchasing lands within the Park, as compensation to owners for foregone access.

Abatement Measures: Formal gazettal of Daniel Cáceres and Río Negro as National Parks is a prerequisite for assistance and will occur prior to the commencement of implementation at these sites. The area already lying in the public domain at these sites (5,100 and 2,544 square kilometres respectively) is sufficiently large to safeguard ecological processes in the long term. At San Rafael, the government has commenced the process of compensation and is expected to complete this exercise by the end of 2003. A significant number of private landowners at San Rafael are members of POCOSARA – the Association for the San Rafael Mountains – and have expressed strong support for the establishment of the Park. Several of these landowners are contemplating the possibility of donating as much as 300 square kilometres (roughly 41% of the Park total area) to the Park, a donation which if realised, could considerably hasten the estimated 2003 target for securing all designated park boundaries. The World Bank is meeting the costs of developing fixed infrastructure (park headquarters, ranger posts etc.) at the site as part of a baseline loan, and the Paraguay Wildlands Initiative will only invest in trails and interpretation facilities planned under the ecotourism demonstration. An agreed pre-requisite for this project is that any infrastructural facilities funded by its resources are built on public lands (see section: Prior Obligations and Prerequisites below). In sum, it is clear that the Park constitutes one of the highest priorities for conservation in the Neotropics and the global benefits of intervention greatly outweigh any potential land-tenure related risks, all of which in this case are considered minimal.

61


(e) Description of Risk : Weak governance may result in an ability to apply national strategies, legislation and regulations, resulting in weak enforcement of conservation measures and a lack of co-operation between Ministries (particularly in the integration of conservation and development). Estimated Probability: Medium; institutional capacities are weak in the conservation arena, a factor that, in part, provides an entry point for this project. A mitigating factor is that the vast majority of baseline development activities in the natural resource sectors are executed by the Ministry of Agriculture, thus limiting the number of players for co-ordination purposes. Experience at Defensores del Chaco National Park has shown that effective management compacts can be forged between parks authorities, communities and local communities14. The key is to build the basis of trust between the various groups, and to sensitise and train law enforcement authorities, including police and magistrates in legal aspects of conservation.

Abatement Measures: Focus capacity building efforts at law enforcement units in addition to parks authorities. Track the status of enforcement, and address gaps through advocacy. The seven year time horizon was selected in part to provide sufficient time to build capacity and thus ensure institutional sustainability beyond project closure. Provide capacity backstopping to the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure effective joint programming of baseline natural resource sector programmes. Convene regular joint planning and monitoring forums with task managers of baseline initiatives to track progress. Review outcomes during scheduled Independent Evaluations of the Project and recommend adjustments to strategies if necessary.

(f) Description of Risk : Reluctance on the part of local communities to embrace sustainable use paradigms.

Estimated Probability: Low; but the risk could be heightened if sustainable use interventions were to be orchestrated without reference to community needs. Sustainable use activities have been defined based on conservation need, a preliminary assessment of viability, and stakeholder interest. Stakeholder consultations organised during project formulation have indicated a receptivity to new management models. However, the economic and ecological viability of sustainable uses need to be proven to communities and resource managers through demonstration, and a number of barriers to sustainable use need to be overcome. Sustainable use support activities under the project have been designed with these needs in mind.

Abatement Measures: Undertake a comparative assessment of the cost-benefits of different sustainable use options as part of the demonstration. Ensure activities are geared towards addressing community needs, and that management recommendations recognise and address constraints posed by

14 Strong communications have led to an open attitude amongst communities towards conservation, and a willingness to collaborate with authorities, including in alerting rangers to the presence of hunters. Collaboration between Parks authorities and police has also been good, although there is room for improvement (TNC, 1998).

62

Project Document

absorptive capacity, and time and financial budgets. Organise study tours to sensitise community leaders and entrepreneurs to innovative sustainable use ventures overseas to further catalyse local interest and encourage private investment in Paraguay.

(g) Description of Risk: Delays in the administration of funds flows, processing of contacts and procurement.

Estimated Probability: Low, owing to corrective measures.

Abatement Measures: Advanced planning can reduce these risks. A project administrator and administrative assistant will assist the CTA. Administrative staff will be trained at project inception by UNDP-Paraguay operations and financial personnel. UNDP-Paraguay will administer project accounts and provide other assistance as necessary to facilitate administration.

MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LESSONS LEARNED

Monitoring & Evaluation

86. Detailed biological surveys will be conducted during year 1 of the project to provide a baseline for future impact monitoring. Additional field surveys will be sponsored during the life of the project to ascertain population trends for keystone species and assess habitat quality. Social Impact Assessments would also chronicle the social and economic impacts of interventions and appraise social relations between different stakeholders. Results would be presented to the PA Management Committees and Project Steering Committee to inform decision-making— to ensure that management decisions take due cognisance of trends. A series of case studies would be developed to document the findings of the monitoring exercises. The PTU will be responsible for developing analytical and sampling tools for monitoring.

87. Field units will be required to report on implementation progress to the Project Technical Unit on a quarterly basis. The PTU would compile this information into a quarterly progress report for submission to the executing agency and UNDP. These reports would document actual project progress against each quarter's work plan and budget, identify any problems encountered, explain any variances from the work plan and budget, and present plans and recommendations for the next quarter’s work. More detailed Annual Progress Reports (APR’s)15 would be submitted to the executing agency and UNDP prior to each meeting of the PSC, providing a more in-depth summary of progress, implementation ratings, and analysis of successes and areas where corrective action is needed. A time schedule for preparation of the APR’s is provided in Annex III of the project document16. A 15 In lieu of the fourth quarterly report. 16 The reports will be consistent with monitoring guidelines established by

UNDP and described in the Results-Oriented Monitoring and Evaluation Handbook for Programme Managers.

63


Terminal Report documenting experiences and lessons derived from the project will be developed at the end of year 7.

88. Three independent external evaluations are scheduled, one at the end of year two, one in year 5 and a final performance audit prior to project closure at the end of year 7. These evaluations will provide an independent perspective of project performance, comparing implementation progress and outcomes against the predetermined success indicators set out in the log frame. [The Terms of Reference for the Evaluations would be prepared by UNDP in consultation with the PSC.] Finally, UNDP will report on project performance and lessons learned to the Global Environment Facility at the annual Project Implementation Review using established formats.

Lessons Learned

89. The lessons learned during implementation would be documented and disseminated to decision-makers. The PTU would maintain open lines of communication with other GEF projects in neighbouring countries, and thus benefit from wider implementation experiences. The lessons learned from other similar initiatives in Latin America have been accommodated in design. These point to the need to base management measures on good science—linked to ongoing biological monitoring, ensure wide and active stakeholder participation, develop participatory appraisal and conflict resolution skills, leverage strong policy commitments at an early stage, and focus on building basic conservation functions, such as surveillance, enforcement, and awareness raising. Key lessons that have been absorbed into project design are summarised in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Lessons Learned & Design Elements

Lesson Learned Design Element

1. Partnerships with local communities need to be forged based on an understanding of their needs and perspectives regarding wild resource management, rather than based on a pre-set “blueprint” approach (GEF Lessons Notes, 1998) .

- Ensure awareness messages address community perspectives, and that incentives are developed and activities targeted to meet community needs.

- Recognise mobility and time budget constraints to participation and take this into account in micro-planning.

- Involve primary stakeholders as much as possible in the design of monitoring and training programmes.

2. Social impacts are difficult to predict from first principles given high degrees of social contingency, and Social Impact Assessment is best undertaken as part an parcel of an adaptive and proactive approach to

- Internalise Social Impact Assessment into monitoring and evaluation programmes (output 2), and ensure feedback into project management decisions.

- Develop conflict resolution skills to mediate conflicts between stakeholders.

64

Project Document

Lesson Learned Design Element

biodiversity management (Geisler 1993); measures need to be taken to build conflict mediation capacities.

3. Attention needs to be paid to strengthening conservation basics, such as policing, and enforcement capacities, in tandem with measures to integrate conservation and development approaches (Brandon 1997).

- Ensure that measures to integrate conservation and development and ensure development of a participatory management regime are complemented by capacity strengthening measures in basic conservation functions.

4. Strong linkages need to be maintained with policy based operations and high levels of commitments from senior officials should be evidenced.

- Involve high level decision makers in project strategizing during formulation and maintain dialogue with policy based operations during project execution.

- Recognise that networking to build linkages is time consuming (build activity into time budgets).

- Require legal designation of all sites prior to project implementation.

5. Project interventions need to be designed based on sound science, but the social feasibility of interventions is paramount.

- Monitor biological responses to interventions on an on-going basis, and impart knowledge to communities and other stakeholders.

- Focus interventions where social feasibility is likely to be high (the original concept called for the development of a large biological corridor in the Interior Atlantic Forest; the objective was modified following a determination that social feasibility was low.

PRIOR OBLIGATIONS AND PREREQUISITES

90. The project document will be co-signed by UNDP and the Minister of Agriculture and Livestock, the Executive Secretary of Planning, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. UNDP-GEF assistance to the project will be provided subject to UNDP being satisfied that the prerequisites listed below have been fulfilled or are likely to be fulfilled. When fulfilment of one or more prerequisites fails to materialise, UNDP may, at its discretion, either suspend or terminate its assistance.

Prior to Project Implementation

(a) The Government agrees formally to absorb the additional operational costs

65


arising from the project.(b)DPNVS/MAG receives authorisation to recruit 25 additional park rangers to

staff the new sites.(c) The Daniel Cáceres and Río Negro sites are legally gazetted as National

Parks by Executive Decree, with management responsibilities for natural resources entrusted to DPNVS/MAG.

(d)Site based infrastructure financed with GEF funds at the Río Negro National Park will be built on undisputed publicly owned lands;

(e) Assurances are provided that there will be no involuntary resettlement of Amerindian communities and that the ancestral usufruct rights of such communities will be respected, with management measures taken, as necessary, to ensure the ecological sustainability of use;

During Implementation

(f) The recurrent costs of ranger salaries met by the GEF in the early stages of the project will have been absorbed in their entirety by the DPNVS/MAG budget by the commencement of year 5

LEGAL CONTEXT

91. This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the Government of Paraguay and the United Nations Development Programme, signed by the parties on 10 October 1977 and ratified through Law Nº686 dated 7 June 1978. The host country implementing agency shall, for the purpose of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the government co-operating agency described in that agreement.

92. The following types of revisions may be made to this project document with the signature of the UNDP Resident Representative, provided he or she is assured that the other signatories of the project document have no objections to the proposed changes:(a) Revisions or additions to any of the annexes of the project document;(b)Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate

objectives, outputs or activities of a project, but are caused by the rearrangement of inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation; and

(c) Mandatory annual revisions which rephase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility.

FUNDING

Incremental Costs

66

Project Document

93. Incremental Costs to be financed by the GEF amount to US$ 8,896,363. Total cofinancing amounts to US$ 3,555,000. GEF investments represent a modest increment to Paraguay’s own commitments to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development (the baseline has been estimated at US$ 127, 396,000).

Output Budget

Project Outputs

GEF ( US$ ) Cofinancing ( US$ )

PA Planning 816,660 USAID/TNC: 150,000PA Operations 4,152,331 GOP 600,000 (operations)

USAID/TNC: 640,000CAF: 600,000

Training 980,232 USAID/TNC: 80,000SU Demonstrations 991,468 European Union: 425,000

USAID/TNC: 80,000 Awareness and Advocacy

979,234 USAID/TNC:120,000European Union: 200,000

Buffer Area Planning and Management

976,438 UNDP: 250,000USAID/TNC: 180,000European Union: 230,000

Total 8,896,363 3,555,000

INPUTS

94. GEF funding would provide for the following project inputs:

i. Personnel - Chief Technical Adviser (80 person months)- Project Administrator (84 person months)- Administrative Assistant (84 person months)- Protected Areas Management Adviser (international position, 54 person

months)- PA management Specialists (UN Volunteers, 108 person months)- Botanist (24 person months)- Resource Economist (international position, 36 person months)- Ecotourism Specialist (international, 13 person months)- Hunting Management Specialist (international, 14 person months)- Bioregional Planning Expert (international, 22 person months)- Social Organisers( 273 person months)- Short term technical assistance (participary learning and action)- Support costs for rangers in years 1-4

2. Official Travel- incountry travel to project sites

67


3. Mission Costs- Three Independent Evaluations in years 2, 5 and 7

4. Sub-contracts17

- Monitoring and Evaluation (social and biological assessment)- Legal Services- Conservation Awareness- Conservation Education- Advocacy for Indigenous Goups- Inservice Training (conservation methods, eco-tourism management)

5. Infrastructure - San Rafael NP, 6 kilometres of self-guided trails, tourism information

centre, interpretation facilities) - Paso BravoNP, 2 ranger posts, Park HQ/ interpretation centre, tool shop,

demarcation) - Rio Negro NP, 2 ranger posts, Park HQ interpretation centre, tool shop,

demarcation)

6. Equipment 18

- Office equipment - Field equipment- Vehicles

7. Training and Workshops- Community forums (6 forums per site)- Sustainable use management upskilling (6 training workshops)- Study tours (conservation methods, 20 participants)- Study tours (sustainable use, 25 participants)- Scholarships (10)- Parks Board meetings (operational costs)- Planning operations

8. Other- routine operations and maintenance - reporting

17 See annex IX. 18 An equipment list is provided in annex VIII.

68

Project Document

ANNEX I: BUDGET

BL Description Total p/m Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

10.00

Project Personnel

11.00

International Experts

10.01 PA Management Advisor 542,662 54 0 112,320 116,813 121,485 126,345 65,699 010.02 Resource Economist 324,127 36 0 0 0 103,834 107,987 112,30

60

11.00

International Consultants

11.51 Bio-regional Planning Expert 246,119 22 0 0 62,400 43,264 44,995 46,794 48,66611.52 Hunting Management Specialist 145,869 13 0 0 0 54,080 44,995 46,794 011.53 Tourism Specialist 135,053 12 0 0 0 43,264 44,995 46,794 011.54 Planning TA (short term) 51,000 25,000 26,000 0 0 0 0 011.99

Sub Total 1,444,830

25,000 138,320

179,213

365,927

369,315

318,389

48,666

13.00

Administrative Support Personnel

13.01 Administrator 284,339 84 36,000 37,440 38,938 40,495 42,115 43,800 45,55113.02 Administrative Assistant 115,974 82 12,500 15,600 16,224 16,873 17,548 18,250 18,98013.99

Sub Total : Admin. Support 400,313

48,500 53,040 55,162 57,368 59,663 62,049 64,531

14.01

UN Volunteers

14.01 PA Management Specialists (3) 286,338 108 0 91,728 95,397 99,213 0 0 014.99

Sub Total: UN Volunteers 286,338

0 91,728 95,397 99,213 0 0 0

15.00

Official Travel

15.01 Duty Travel 160,087 23,000 23,460 23,929 24,408 24,896 25,394 15,00015.99

Sub Total: Duty Travel 160,087

23,000 23,460 23,929 24,408 24,896 25,394 15,000

16.0 Mission Costs

69



Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

016.01 Independent Evaluations 160,000 0 0 50,000 0 55,000 55,00016.99

Sub Total: Mission Costs 160,000

0 0 50,000 0 55,000 0 55,000

17.00

National Staff

17.01 Chief Technical Advisor 358,873 80 48,000 49,920 51,917 53,993 56,153 58,399 40,49017.02 Rangers 450,000 100,00

0150,000 150,000 50,000 0 0 0

17.50

National Consultants

17.51 Botanist 96,422 24 0 0 0 11,357 39,370 28,662 17,03317.52 Social Organizers 354,392 273 76,800 81,120 62,300 48,594 50,538 35,040 017.99

Sub Total: National Staff 1,259,687

224,800

281,040

264,217

163,944

146,061

122,100

57,523

20.00

Sub Contracts

21.00

Monitoring

21.01 Scientific Studies (Biorap) 420,000 100,000

150,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 70,000

21.02 Lessons learned 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 50,00021.03 Social Assessment 398,824 55,000 55,000 55,500 56,610 57,742 58,897 60,07521.99

Sub Total 878,824

155,000

205,000

55,500 106,610

107,742

68,897 180,075

22.00

Legal Services 80,000 20,000 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0

22.99

Sub Total 80,000 20,000 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0

23.00

In service Training-- Conservation Methods

23.01 Training materials-- rangers 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 023.02 Training materials-- communities 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 023.04 Operational costs 76,200 0 0 15,000 20,000 20,400 20,800 0

70

Project Document


Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

23.05 Trainers 441,564 0 0 83,200 129,792 134,984 93,589 023.06 Materials & Equipment 131,597 0 0 43,000 43,860 44,737 0 023.99

Sub Total 749,362

0 0 241,200

193,652

200,121

114,389

0

24.00

Conservation Awareness

24.01 Design Media Outreach Programme

20,000 0 0 15,000 0 5,000 0 0

24.02 Media Fact Sheets 53,091 0 0 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,25524.03 Technical Assistance 110,110 0 0 24,000 25,000 25,750 23,360 12,00024.04 Radio 15,612 0 0 3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,24724.99

Sub Total 198,813

0 0 52,000 38,360 44,480 37,471 26,502

25.00

Schools in Conservation

25.01 Curricula Development 45,000 0 0 30,000 15,000 0 0 025.02 Resource materials 130,000 0 0 0 130,000 0 0 025.03 Train the Teachers 50,000 0 0 0 30,000 20,000 0 025.04 Technical Assistance 86,750 0 0 24,000 25,000 25,750 0 12,00025.99

Sub Total 311,750

0 0 54,000 200,000

45,750 0 12,000

26.00

Infrastructure Development

26.01 RNNP 459,000 0 0 117,000 312,000 30,000 0 026.02 PBNP 327,000 0 0 117,000 185,000 25,000 0 026.03 Tourism infrastructure 190,000 0 0 100,000 90,000 0 0 026.99

Sub Total 976,000

0 0 334,000

587,000

55,000 0 0

27.00

Tourism Interpretation & Promotion

27.01 Promotional activities 30,000 0 0 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 027.02 Interpretation materials/ facilities 30,000 0 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 027.99

Sub Total 60,000 0 0 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 0

71



Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

28.00

Advocacy-Indigenous Groups

28.01 Awareness raising & advocacy 79,637 0 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 028.99

Sub Total 79,637 0 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 0

30.00

Training & Workshops

30.01 Training- ecotourism 30,000 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 0 030.02 Training- hunting 25,000 0 0 0 10,000 15,000 0 030.03 Study Tours (overseas) PAs 100,000 0 0 28,000 40,000 32,000 0 030.04 Study Tours (Sustain. Use) 130,000 0 0 0 40,000 50,000 40,000 030.05 Scholorships (short term study) 142,000 0 16,000 35,000 35,000 31,000 25,000 034.01 Community Forums 158,800 30,000 42,000 26,000 30,000 30,80034.02 Customs Workshop-CITES 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 039.00

Sub Total 615,800

30,000 58,000 89,000 140,000

203,000

95,800 0

40.00

Equipment

40.01 PTU 18,600 12,000 0 0 1,000 4,600 0 1,00040.02 RNNP 168,886 46,202 51,250 12,580 1,422 41,180 7,150 9,10240.03 PBNP 169,546 46,532 51,250 12,250 2,082 40,850 7,150 9,43240.04 SRNP 61,492 12,404 16,250 11,680 2,524 5,180 6,250 7,20449.99

Sub Total 418,524

117,138

118,750

36,510 7,028 91,810 20,550 26,738

50.00

Miscellaneous

50.01 Operations (fuel, utilities etc) 157,101 20,000 25,000 25,500 26,010 26,530 27,061 7,00050.02 Audit 11,100 1,500 1,550 1,550 1,600 1,600 1,650 1,65050.03 Field Trials— Medicinal Plants 27,400 0 0 0 15,000 8,000 4,400 050.04 Maintenance 91,932 8,000 20,000 20,400 20,808 21,224 1,500 052.01 Reporting Costs 44,741 4,800 4,896 4,994 5,094 5,196 5,300 4,00052.99

Sub Total 332,274

34,300 51,426 52,455 68,504 62,574 51,017 12,000

90.00 Project Total 8,412,2 677,73 1,065,7 1,618,0 2,087,9 1,521,8 942,93 498,036

72

Project Document


Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

39 8 64 32 27 03 893.00 Project Support Services 484,124 48,067 53,317 89,867 117,124 71,481 53,151 51,11799.00

Grand Total 8,896,363

725,805

1,119,081

1,707,899

2,205,051

1,593,284

996,089

549,153

73


ANNEX II: WORK PLAN

Legend

Main Activity Follow on Activity

ACTIVITY YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 41.1 Mobilise local communities as “partners in conservation”Finalise strategy and code of practice for participatory management Adapt public participation strategy and code of practice based on social response/impact.Train social organisers in PLA tools Activate community outreach operations Perform participatory appraisals Provide indigenous groups with advocacy support Convene stakeholder workshops Identify and train community motivators to serve as local conservation advocates Provide technical assistance for participatory planning operations 1.2 Convene Multi-stakeholder Parks Management BoardsDefine procedures for constituting Parks Boards Prepare Terms of Reference and Work Plans for the Boards, and appoint chairperson Sensitise Board members to project objectives and management strategies Review functioning of the Boards, including the effectiveness of participation structures Establish Planning Sub-committees to prepare PA Management Plans 1.3 Formulate 5 Year Management Plans for each Protected Area ComplexPrepare operational plans for year 1 Formulate Terms of Reference and Work schedules for planning activities Convene multi-stakeholder Planning Committees to oversee planning efforts Provide technical assistance to develop adaptive management frameworks Corroborate information collected during project formulation on threats to biodiversity

74

Project Document


1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Collect additional information, as necessary, to frame management strategiesWork with indigenous groups to clarify customary rights, and management needs Elaborate social fencing measures to improve management control over the PAs Clarify Park boundaries and zoning requirements with local stakeholders Develop draft concepts, strategies, zoning plans, and participatory management guidelines Finalise first 5 year Management Plan, incorporating comments made by reviewers Prepare corresponding Annual Operational Plans Finalise second 5 year Management Plan 1.4 Develop legal/enforcement frameworks for the ParksSupply legal advice to parks authorities to develop rules and regulations Develop community-based, traditional sanction framework Conceive intelligence gathering strategies to monitor illegal activity Formalise usufruct rights for indigenous communities Customise policies to ensure congruence management needs 1.5 Catalyse long-term political support for the National ParksObtain necessary policy endorsements from the Minister for Agriculture and Livestock Submit plans and regulations to Cabinet for ratification Integrate Management Plans into regional development plans Support advocacy efforts aimed at key decision makers 2.1 Finalise demarcation of PAs boundaries and zonesUndertake survey work Physically delimit critical boundaries 2.2 Build and maintain critical infrastructure in the National ParksDevelop technical specifications and designs for physical infrastructure Prepare specifications for trails, and design signage and interpretation materials Determine the location of all physical infrastructure and trails Perform environmental impact assessments Construct infrastructure and trails Operationalise annual work programme for infrastructural maintenance 2.3 Supply equipment, and ensure adherence to maintenance schedules

75



1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Organise procurement and delivery of all equipment and supplies Develop and implement maintenance programme2.4 Undertake Social Assessments to monitor social impacts and participationDevelop sampling tools, and determine the periodicity of monitoring Design mechanisms to systematically involve communities in social assessments Monitor social impacts and processes likely to have a bearing on conservation outcomes Monitor the effectiveness of stakeholder participation measures Assess gender specific impacts of conservation measures Provide inputs into the adaptive management framework Contribute towards the documentation of best practices 2.5 Establish and execute a biological impact monitoring system in the target sitesInterpret existing satellite imagery and aerial photographs and develop baseline maps Select sampling tools, indicators, keystones, and the periodicity of assessment Undertake rapid biological assessments to provide benchmark data for future monitoring Perform additional sampling to determine biological responses to management Arrange scientific audit of results Provide inputs into the adaptive management frameworkMobilise grants from research agencies to address priority conservation research needs 2.6 Strengthen Basic Conservation Functions through capacity building Operationalise policing & enforcement activitiesDevelop local intelligence networks to track illegal activity Supply technical assistance to build basic enforcement / outreach capacities Monitor the efficacy of enforcement and institute corrective measures 2.7 Strengthen interface between parks authorities and local institutionsDevelop institutional networking capacities of parks authorities through informal training Ensure regular liaison between parks authorities and law enforcement units

76

Project Document


1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Strengthen co-ordination between parks authorities and stakeholder institutions Strengthen co-ordination between Parks authorities and local government representatives 2.8 Ensure effective functioning of Parks Management BoardsMonitor functioning of Management Boards Support functioning of the Boards 3.1 Train PAs staff in Basic Conservation SkillsUndertake Training Needs Assessments Identify sources of educational materials for in-service training purposes Develop training modules and new materials, as necessary, to meet the demands of clients Execute an iterative in-service training programme, focusing on field demonstration Evaluate feedback and impact and re-target training 3.2 Provide short-term scholarships to parks staff for courses overseasIdentify suitable and cost-effective training courses for Parks staff within the region Sponsor motivated and talented candidates for training courses Monitor application of results, and refine training programme as appropriate 3.3 Develop capacities of stakeholders engaged directly in Park managementUndertake a Training Needs Assessment Develop training modules/ materials Impart skills and know-how Evaluate feedback, and impact and adjust training programme as appropriate 3.4 Conduct training for customs officers Organise workshops on wildlife trade Monitor results, and organise follow on-workshops as necessary 4.1 Operationalise demonstrations of controlled sports huntingIdentify field sites for demonstrations Collect quantitative data, as necessary, on harvests and hunting practices Collect information on the population status of target species

77



1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Assess the socio-economic and institutional determinants of sustainable use Strengthen linkages with the Industry Associations Devise management guidelines/ rules to regulate hunting activity Devise monitoring indicators Develop capacities to monitor impacts and adapt management programmes Organise study toursDocument best practices and promote their broader application 4.2 Demonstrate effective sustainable use measures for threatened medicinal plantsIdentify species for management Identify field sites for demonstrations Collect information on harvest methods and the population status of target species Assess the socio-economic and institutional determinants of sustainable use Identify potential for adding value to productive uses of medicinal plants Assess ways and means of increasing harvest productivity Provide technical assistance to determine workable management measures Prepare a Management Plan Monitor results, and recommend adjustments to agreed management regimes Document best practices and promote their broader application4.3 Enhance sustainability of customary uses of resources by Amerindian groupsAssess impacts of subsistence uses Establish participatory mechanisms to control, monitor and report on wild harvests Monitor application of management methods, and supply capacity building services Organise study tours4.4 Demonstrate ways and means of overcoming barriers to nature tourismIdentify demonstration sites Design interpretation materials Develop and advertise a code of conduct for visitors Strengthen visitor management capacities through field demonstration

78

Project Document


1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Sensitise local entrepreneurs and sources of capital to investment opportunities Develop promotional material on the site Train local guides in visitor management and guiding skills Monitor impacts, and take corrective steps as necessary to strengthen visitor management 5.1 Design and implement an advocacy programme for conservationUndertake a scoping exercise to define site specific advocacy needs Design advocacy materials, field test them, and revise content based on feedback Monitor outcomes, and revise strategies and materials accordingly Facilitate the active participation of parks authorities in community events Define media information needs Develop updated fact sheets on conservation activities in the sites to distribute to media Facilitate participation of professional staff in radio shows and media sponsored events 5.2 Formalise and strengthen schools/youth outreach initiative Work with local educational authorities to integrate conservation education into curricula Develop resource materials and teaching aids to use in local schools Train teachers in conservation education techniques Monitor outcomes, and provide additional training as necessary Develop a tight interface between local schools and parks authorities 6.1 Define viable biological corridor and establish management frameworkAssess aerial imagery to define key habitats to be conserved in corridorConduct field surveys to “ground-truth” habitat significance Expand baseline ecological/ landholding and use maps of the ParkInterface with landholders6.2 Define strategies for integrating conservation & development in corridorProvide technical assistance to landholders to define strategiesObtain agreement from concerned landholders regarding the establishment of the corridorDevelop and agree on a spatial framework for conservation

79



1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Identify enabling policies, incentives, and development assistance programmesDefine the respective roles and responsibilities of different actors Frame targeted Management Plan for integrated conservation/ development 6.3 Operationalise corridor management strategies Establish high level Working Group to capacitate policy development/incentives Programme baseline to address management needsSupply legal support to draft enabling policiesTrain extension workers in integrated conservation and development methodsMonitor outcomes, and take corrective measures to enhance performanceDocument and disseminate lessons learned6.4 Ensure integration of conservation objectives into development planningDetermine the type/ location of developments likely to erode integrity of the sitesDesign safe minimum standards for development activityIncorporate standards into Park Management PlansDraft enabling policies and regulations to formalise standards Ensure integration of conservation objectives into regional development plans.

80

ANNEX III: SCHEDULE OF PROJECT REVIEWS AND EXTERNAL EVALUATIONS

Pro doc Signature: May 1999Project Commencement: June 1999

REPORTING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

1. Inception Report July 19992. 1st Project Steering Committee (PSC)meeting July 19993. 2nd PSC Meeting Jan 20004. 1st Annual Project Report (APR) May 20005. 3nd PSC meeting July 20006. 4th PSC meeting Jan 20017. 2nd APR May 20018. First Independent Evaluation June 20019. 5th PSC meeting July 200110. 3rd APR May 200211. 6th PSC meeting July 200212. 4th APR May 200313. 7th PSC meeting June 200314. Second Independent Evaluation Sep 200315. 8th PSC meeting Oct 200316. 5th APR May 200417. 9th PSC meeting July 200418. 6th APR May 200519. 10th PSC meeting July 200520. Terminal Report and PSC evaluation May 200621. Terminal Evaluation and Project Review Jun. 2006

In addition to the above, quarterly progress reports will be prepared, as per UNDP requirements.

ANNEX IV: INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

Baseline

Despite the laudable policy ambitions of government, there is a considerable unmet need for conservation. The Protected Areas system, as currently constituted, is not serving as a bulwark against pressures. Established parks suffer from poor management, and are often too small to maintain healthy populations of rare species. A number of new Protected Areas have been established under SINASIP. But for the most part, these have yet to be fully operationalised. The baseline situation (for the 7 year duration of the project) is as follows:

i. PA Planning Systems: Few parks boast sound Management Plans. In addition, there is little stakeholder participation in planning conservation strategies and field activities, in part because a suitable paradigm is lacking and parks staff lack participatory planning skills. This situation is unlikely to alter significantly in the baseline scenario. The lack of coherent planning suggests that inefficiencies in the allocation of financial and human resources within the parks system will in all likelihood continue.

NGO expenditures on conservation planning are limited to FMB allocations for operational planning in Mbaracayú Natural Reserve. The German Federal Geosciences and Natural Resources Institute has provided funding for the purchase of GIS equipment and procurement of LANDSAT imagery for the gran Chaco and eastern Paraguay. This will abet conservation planning efforts in the Chaco, Cerrado, and Interior Atlantic Forest (however, because this investment represents a sunk cost, it is not costed in the baseline). Less than US$ 650,000 would be expended on Protected Area planning over the next seven years. This sum includes expenditures by Government and NGOs, as well as inputs by the Andean Development Corporation (CAF) in Tte. Enciso National Park, south of Daniel Cáceras NP.

ii. PA Operations: The capacity of DPNVS/MAG to manage the PA system is inadequate. With a few exceptions, the parks lack infrastructure and equipment, hampering efforts at protection. PA boundaries have not always been legally recognised and demarcated. While new Laws have improved the regulatory framework governing natural resource management, the penalties for malfeasance are inadequate. Performance monitoring is inadequate, and is delinked from Protected Area planning processes.

The bulk of financing for operational activities in the baseline (just over US$ 7 million) would be obtained through government budgetary appropriations, mainly to cover salaries and basic operations in State owned parks. The FMB, would appropriate US$ 840,000 in financing in the Mbaracayú Reserve (in the northern IAF). The World Bank financed Natural Resources Management project, executed by UNDP, would provide some US$ 500,000 for the procurement of equipment and development of infrastructure (ranger posts, a research station and a central office) at San Rafael NP. Park boundaries were demarcated in 1996-97 with funding from this project. Finally, CAF would make a limited investment in infrastructure in Tte. Enciso National Park.

The baseline also includes a sizeable appropriation by Government (IBR) to compensate landowners for the alienation of private lands within National Parks. [The Law delimits use of lands within Parks for conservation purposes

whatever their status, but the government is gradually compensating the original landowners for lost access]. These funds would mostly be allocated to San Rafael National Park, the other priority Parks lying mostly on public lands.

iii. Training and Institution Building: A serious impediment is that parks service personnel lack the multiple skills required to effectively manage PAs. While DPNVS/MAG would make a small investment in training, this would be insufficient to address the full range of needs of parks personnel. Likewise, FMB would provide some training to its own personnel working in Mbaracayú Reserve. The baseline estimate projects that some US$ 315,000 would be available for conservation training, from all sources, during the project life.

iv. Wild Resource Use: A range of wild resources have associated consumptive and productive use values. Some of these resources are currently being harvested at unsustainable levels, a trend that, if left unchecked, will likely lead to local extirpation of the target species. This threatens to foreclose future use values, including recreational use options, and has wide ecological ramifications. In the short-term, a number of barriers hamper resolution of the problem. These include a lack of understanding of species management requirements, lack of information on market determinants, a dearth of skills and relevant management experience, and the inability of current institutions to regulate use. The institution responsible for regulating international trade in native species is the national CITES Secretariat within DPNVS/MAG. The office is responsible for discharging the Government’s responsibilities as a signatory of the CITES secretariat. However, in-house capacity is very weak, and the office is unlikely to invest in barrier removal activities to engender paradigm shifts from unsustainable to sustainable uses of wild resources.

The baseline for sustainable use includes Government appropriations for running the CITES office (~US$ 280,000), plus the budget for forest management activities in the systems boundary (~US$420,000). CECTEC, the Eco-development Studies and Training Centre has plans to promote sustainable uses of medicinal plants, but has little financial resources of its own (US$ 10,000) and the scale of demonstration is unlikely to be significant. Likewise, Altervida, another national NGO specialising in sustainable development issues, has a mandate to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems to recover productive functions, but has little money to execute the task (US$ 10,000).

v. Conservation Awareness & Advocacy: Understanding of the importance and local relevance of biodiversity conservation is limited. While conservation has been endorsed at the highest levels, decision-makers lack an awareness of management fundamentals. Paraguay’s conservation movement is embryonic, and has little capacity to engage in advocacy. Nevertheless, some awareness/ advocacy activities would occur in a business as usual situation. DPNVS/MAG supports some conservation awareness at a national level, and FMB funds community awareness activities in the vicinity of Mbaracayú, with limited efforts at the national level. Alter Vida runs a radio programme in the Ybyturuzú NP area which in part focuses on biodiversity conservation issues. The World Bank Natural Resources project would make a small investment in awareness. The combined investment in conservation awareness and advocacy activities over the next seven years is estimated at US$ 590,000.

vi. Natural Resource Management: Government policy supports the establishment Biosphere Reserves, comprising core protected wildlands,

buffer areas and sustainable use zones, known as transition areas. The objective is to integrate conservation objectives into cross-sectoral programmes and activities. A considerable number of programmes have been launched to develop the agriculture, livestock and forestry sectors. These activities are funding infrastructure development and ancillary economic support programmes, and aim at improving market access, credit outreach, communications, access to agricultural extension services, farming technologies, and farming systems research. The total baseline for development within the systems boundary is conservatively estimated at US$ 102 million.

In the vicinity of San Rafael, the baseline includes the World Bank financed Natural Resources Management project, Land Use Rationalisation project, and Rural Development Investments project, an IDB financed agricultural support project, and the IFAD Rural Development Credit projects. ITAIPU has plans to improve watershed management in the Paraná catchment area, part of which includes the area around the park. UNDP is funding a small project to improve the livelihoods of peasants and indigenous communities in the eastern region. In the Cerrado area, the baseline includes the IFAD Credit project, the above-mentioned UNDP project, and investments by BGR. At a more general level, CECTEC provides training to high school students in sustainable farming and resource management practices, with a focus on the eastern region. Alter Vida is also active in the eastern region, focusing on social mobilisation for sustainable development. The baseline for the Chaco is considerably smaller, given the small population base. The European Union would provide moneys through the Prodechaco project to support natural resource management and rural livelihood advancement. Finally, GTZ will provide moneys for Phase 2 of ENAPRENA, which will support implementation of pilot environmental management projects at the national, provincial, and local levels. Project sites have yet to be identified, but will include areas in the Chaco.

While several of the foregoing initiatives include environmental mitigation components, with the exception of the Prodechaco and Natural Resources Management projects, these do not focus specifically on biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity conservation objectives remain poorly integrated into development planning, a serious lacuna in management. While DPNVS/MAG is tasked with regulating the environmental impacts of buffer zone activities, in practice it has little capacity to do this. Land in these areas is thus being allocated for purposes that conflict with conservation objectives. Linkages between DPNVS/MAG and the Authority of Public Lands need to be strengthened, the latter being the authority responsible for allocating land titles.

GEF Alternative

Without execution of the GEF Alternative, Paraguay’s capacity to manage Protected Areas would remain weak, and the total area under effective management would be low. Globally significant Protected Areas would face growing insularisation as lands in the buffer are modified in ways that are incompatible with conservation aims, threatening the long-term survival of species unable to adapt to changing ecological conditions. This project aims at averting this, by strengthening management of San Rafael, Daniel Cáceres/ Defensores del Chaco, Río Negro and Paso Bravo National Parks—providing a model of conservation geared to the needs of different eco-regions. The following interventions would be supported:

i. Participatory Planning & Management System: GEF moneys would be employed to strengthen the Protected Area planning system at the sites, with USAID/TNC resources providing for planning needs in Defensores del Chaco. Multi-stakeholder Management Committees would be constituted at each PA, providing a platform for participatory management. The project would assist DPNVS/MAG to develop a framework for enabling local communities to collaborate in park management. Management plans would be formulated, and land zoned for multiple purposes, including strict protection, recreational and scientific uses. These plans guide annual operational planning for management operations. The project would also assist the Government to tighten conservation regulations, gearing them to site specific needs and increasing penalties as a deterrent against law breaking. In addition, a social fencing strategy would be designed, involving communities in monitoring and reporting illegal access to the Parks.

ii. Strengthening PA Operations: The project would provide resources to demarcate park boundaries, and with funding support from other donors, construct basic infrastructure at recently established sites and supply essential equipment as needed. GEF investments in infrastructure development and equipment supply would be concentrated in Paso Bravo and Río Negro, where there is no existing baseline. Infrastructure support in Daniel Cáceres/ Defensores del Chaco will be co-financed by CAF and USAID/TNC respectively. However, a small investment is required in San Rafael as a top up to funding already dedicated by the Natural Resources Management project (incremental moneys would be used to purchase horses for patrols and procure equipment for biological monitoring). The project would also support functioning of the Management Committees, serving as a Secretariat until they become self-sustaining entities. A robust monitoring system will be established to gauge conservation trends and social impacts, feeding into ongoing planning efforts and providing data on project performance. Finally, linkages between DPNVS and local institutions would be strengthened, including producer associations, co-operatives, the police force, magistrates, Authority of Public lands, and, in remote border areas, armed forces.

iii. Training: GEF moneys, supplemented by funds from USAID/TNC, would finance a comprehensive training program in conservation methods targeted at DPNVS/MAG staff and representatives of local communities. A “Mobile School” will be established to service training needs, with training programs delivered in iterative cycles. The training programme will also target local communities, to make them more effective partners in conservation; dedicated training modules will be designed for the purpose.

iv. Promoting Sustainable Use of Wild Resources: The project will undertake four demonstrations (nature-based tourism, controlled sports hunting, customary uses by indigenous groups and medicinal plants harvesting) in designated areas aimed at establishing the economic and ecological viability of sustainable use options and developing effective management measures. The principal focus will be on strengthening management capacity amongst institutions and developing effective regulatory instruments. To encourage the wide-scale adoption of sound practices, information will also be fed to ongoing baseline initiatives. To catalyse investment in conservation friendly businesses, a number of study tours to eco-development schemes in other countries will be organised for entrepreneurs. Co-financing for this component would be provided by the European Union and USAID/TNC, which would work in the Chaco/

Chaco/Pantanal parks to improve the sustainability of consumptive uses of wild resources (i.e. hunting, charcoal production and fuelwood use)19.

v. Awareness Creation and Advocacy: The project would support implementation of a media outreach programme focusing on biodiversity conservation issues. Linkages will be built with local radio stations and the print media to ensure that programming content includes information on pertinent conservation issues. High quality publications would be prepared to sensitise stakeholders to Paraguay’s conservation significance and needs. A special effort will be made to target landowners and local communities in park buffer zones. The project would also seek to integrate conservation education into the curricula of local schools. Activities would assist local educational authorities to perform curricula reviews, develop educational materials and teaching aids, and train teachers in conservation education methods. This component would be co-financed by the European Union.

vi. Management outside PAs: The livelihood needs of local communities in buffer zones outside the Parks are being addressed in the baseline situation. These programmes will have important conservation spin-offs, for instance by intensifying farming practices (and thus reducing extensification pressures). In order to better channel these benefits, the project would support development of an integrated conservation and development framework in a biological corridor between San Rafael NP and a neighbouring Reserve. In addition, the project would ensure that conservation objectives within the four Parks are fully integrated into regional development policies and strategies. This component would be co-financed by UNDP, USAID/TNC and the European Union. The GEF would fund the overlay of planning and management relating to the conservation of biological diversity.

Scope of Analysis

The systems boundary covers the four eco-regions that are the focus of interventions of the GEF alternative (covering an area of some 100,000 square kilometres). The geographical area includes Itapúa, Caazapá, Alto Paraná, Canindeyú provinces in the Interior Atlantic Forest, Concepción Province in the Cerrado, and Boquerón and Alto Paraguay Provinces in the Chaco/ Chaco Pantanal. The analysis includes a range of activities, aggregated into the 6 activity bundles. Costs have been estimated for 7 years—the duration of the planned GEF Alternative (sunk costs, incurred prior to 1998 have been omitted from the analysis). The baseline captures investments within the eco-regions. The Alternative captures the additional actions required to secure conservation objectives within the four priority sites. Co-financing consists of funds leveraged in order to fulfil the objectives laid out in the Alternative.

Costs and the Incremental Cost Matrix

Baseline expenditures amount to US$ 127,396,000; the Alternative has been

19 In the long-term, the objectives of barrier removal are to catalyse a negative incremental cost situation, whereby domestic benefits exceed domestic costs, providing Paraguay with an incentive to undertake the activity on its own accord. Such an outcome would yield incidental global benefits without need for global transfers, but could not be achieved without a demonstration of viability. The incremental costs of barrier removal are positive. The fact that sustainable use is not occurring is indicative of the fact that the costs of barrier removal are over and above the normal costs of doing business.

costed at US$ 139,847,363. The GEF would provide US$ 8,896,363 in incremental cost financing, or roughly 6.3% of the total cost of implementing the Alternative. Co-financing has been secured from USAID for strengthening of Defensores del Chaco NP, CAF for operations, the EU for sustainable use and conservation awareness activities, and UNDP for strengthening the planning and management in buffer areas. In addition, the Government absorb the additional costs of Protected Area operations at the sites—financing that would not ordinarily have been provided in the absence of this project. Total co-financing amounts to US$ 3,555,000.

The project will generate few incidental, tangible domestic benefits in the short-term. In the longer term, removal of barriers to sustainable use will widen the menu of development options available at a local level, and provide a new source of funding for conservation. Protection of the natural integrity of the 4 parks will also serve to maintain direct, indirect, option, and existence values accruing to Paraguayan’s from wildlands conservation. In other words, the country would have avoided losing its significant biodiversity endowment at a stage in its development when it was unable, by itself, to foreclose loss. These benefits are not treated as avoided costs in this analysis because they are difficult to quantify, uncertain, diffuse, and mostly benefit future generations (thus being discounted at the national level).

Incremental Cost Assessment: Paraguay Protected Areas Project

Cost/ Benefit

Baseline (B) Alternative (A) Increment

Domestic Benefits

1. Wild resources are used for a number of consumptive and productive purposes but the ecological sustainability of wild harvesting is low; sustainable use opportunities face a number of barriers to viability.

2. Environmental service functions are being hampered owing to ecosystem degradation

3. Future recreational opportunities are being lost as wildlands are cleared

1. Pilot projects demonstrating ways and means of removing barriers to wild harvesting (controlled sports hunting, medicinal plants) will be supported; The project will support information exchange between Paraguayan entrepreneurs and successful eco-businesses in other developing countries.

2. Strengthening of the capacity of responsible authorities and other stakeholders to support conservation and manage uses of wild resources.

3. The project will improve management of an expanded PA system, and invest in barrier removal activities to encourage nature tourism in SRNP and RNNP.

1. Demonstration of paradigm for sustainable management of medicinal plants harvesting and sports hunting; the menu of sustainable use options will have been expanded.

2. Indirect use values for environmental services and economic activities mediated by biodiversity in the target PAs and adjacent ecological landscapes will be maintained.

3. Future use opportunities for nature tourism in the priority sites will have been secured, with a demonstration of park’s promotion and visitor management.

Global Benefits

4. Existing PA system is embryonic, and globally significant ecosystems are insufficiently represented. Many existing PAs are too small to safeguard natural processes.

5. Hunting of wildlife for commercial, sport and subsistence purposes is contributing to the loss of globally significant species; illegal uses of Protected Areas, including encroachment and

4. Increasing Protected Area coverage. These areas will form the nucleus of Biosphere Reserves to be created as part of the country’s agenda for sustainable development

5. Improving Parks operations and strengthening and supporting enforcement of regulations; Demonstration of viability of sustainable sports hunting in designated areas;

6. Sustainable agricultural practices

4. Globally significant ecosystems will be adequately represented in the PA network; sites added to the system will be sufficiently large to provide for species survival needs, so reducing the risk of extirpation; maintenance of economic values accruing to the global community including values associated with use and non-use benefits.

5. Hunting pressures on endangered and rare species and other illegal uses of Protected Areas will have

Cost/ Benefit


logging, are contributing to a loss of habitat quality.

6. Land use conversion to agriculture is leading to habitat fragmentation, particularly within forest ecosystems.

7. National capacity constraints hamper conservation efforts.

8. Paraguayan society, particularly rural communities are not sensitised to conservation values.

will be supported by drawing linkages between conservation and baseline agricultural development activities

7. Strengthening of national capacity to manage Protected Areas and provide for long-term conservation objectives

8. Conservation awareness and advocacy programme will be executed to reach wider civil society and key decision-makers.

been curbed.6. Activities leading to habitat erosion

will be stemmed, enabling ecosystem integrity to be maintained in the long-term.

7. Sustainability of conservation interventions will be better ensured.

8. Improved receptivity of key stakeholders to conservation ideals thus providing a better platform for durable conservation in the long-term

Costs(US$)

PA Planning System

DPNVS 400,000NGOs 50,000CAF 106,000European Union 80,000

Total 636,000 Total: 1,602,660

GEF: 816,660Co-financingUSAID/TNC 150,000

Total: 966,660

PA Operations

DPNVS 7,270,000IBR (land purchase) 14,000,000WB NRM 500,000FMB 840,000 CAF 300,000

Total 22,910,000 Total: 28,902,331

GEF: 4,152,331Co-financingDPNVS 600,000USAID/TNC 640,000CAF 600,000

Total: 5,992,331Training

DPNVS 105,000FMB 210,000

Total 315,000 Total: 1,375,232

GEF: 980,232Co-financingUSAID/TNC 80,000

Total: 1,060,232

Sustainable MAG/ CITES 280,000 GEF: 991,468

Cost/ Benefit


Use (in situ) 2,450,000MAG/ SFN 420,000 AlterVida 10,000CECTEC 10,000

Total: 720,000Total: 2,216,468

Co-financingEU 425,000USAID/TNC 80,000

Total: 1,496,468

Costs (US$)

Awareness, Education & Advocacy for Biodiversity Conservation

DPNVS 90,000FMB 350,000Altervida 40,000CECTEC 50,000WB NRM 60,000

Total: 590,000 Total: 1,889,234

GEF: 979,234Co-financingEU 200,000USAID/TNC 120,000

Total: 1,299,234

Buffer Zone Planning and Management

SSERMA-SFN/DOA 2,600,0009,612,000

FMB 100,000Altervida 280,000CECTEC 105,000WB NRM 27,270,000WB Land Use 6,000,000WB (RDI) 15,000,000IDB 6,000,000IFAD [310 PG] 1,100,000IFAD (407-PY) 10,000,000UNDP 10,000,000BGR/Germany 1,500,000ENAPRENA 500,000Itaipú Binacional 5,000,000EU 16,770000

Total: 102,225,000Total: 103,861,438

GEF 976,438Co financing UNDP 250,000USAID/TNC 180,000EU 230,000

Total: 1,636,438

Cost/ Benefit


CostTotals (US$)

Grand Total: 127,396,000 Grand Total: Full Project 139,847,363With PDF 140,152,363

Incremental Costs to be funded by GEF Full project 8,896,363PDFB: 305,000Total GEF: 9,201,363

Co-financing: 3,555,000

ANNEX V: DESCRIPTIONS OF SITE BIOLOGY

The following narrative provides a brief description of the biological characteristics of the four project sites. There is in general a paucity of empirical data on Paraguay’s biodiversity owing to a lack of field research (there is considerable variation in the quality and quantity of information for different taxonomic groups and eco-regions). None of the four sites has been intensively surveyed, and the biological inventory is thus far from complete. But all are known to harbour a number of globally endangered and rare species of flora and fauna, and have zoogeographic and biogeographic characteristics that differentiate them from comparable ecosystems in neighbouring Bolivia, Brazil, and Argentina. The sites capture a broadly representative sample of the country’s rich diversity.

General Description

Paraguay is mostly flat and relatively low lying, with a mean altitude of some 160 metres a.m.s.l. (the highest point is a mere 800 metres a.m.s.l, in the Defensores del Chaco NP). The Chaco has a harsh climate, with summer temperatures rising to over 40 º C in the most arid parts. Rainfall in this part of the country varies from less than 44 millimetres per year in the north- west, to 1,200 millimetres in the south-east. The Eastern region receives more rain, with annual precipitation increasing from 1,300 millimetres along the Paraguay River to some 1,700 millimetres along the Brazilian border to the east.

Dinerstein et al. (1995) identify two Main Habitat Types (MHT) in Paraguay, namely Broad-leaved Tropical Rain Forests and Grasslands, Savannahs and Shrublands. The Two Habitat Types are further sub-divided into five eco-regions, namely the Interior Atlantic Forest, Cerrado, Chaco Savannah, Humid Chaco, and Pantanal. These are however, broad categories, and do not fully capture the full variation in ecological conditions. Hueck (cited in Brack. W and Weik, J., 1994) divides the country by vegetation type, with 7 general categories listed. All of these categories are found within the project sites, although 5 types predominate: Deciduous and Mesophytic Subtropical Forests of Eastern and Central Brazil; Campos Limpios (open grasslands); Campos Cerrados (forest/grassland complexes), Chaparrales (shrubland), Central Chacoan Dry Forests, and Gallary Forests. Río Negro National Park contains small areas of Dry to Semi-humid Forests, and Flooded Grasslands are found in the south-west corner of San Rafael National Park. Interior Atlantic Forest:

The Interior Atlantic Forest constitutes a sub region of the Atlantic Forest (referred to as Brazilian Interior Atlantic Forest by Dinerstein et al, 1995). According to the convention followed by Hueck, the following general types of vegetation may be identified: Deciduous and Mesophytic Subtropical Forests of Eastern and Central Brazil, and isolated patches of Campos Limpios. The Conservation Data Centre in Paraguay, (CDC-DPNVS/MAG) lists 3 different “eco-regions”: Alto Paraná, Selva Central, and Amanbay, providing a more specific level of classification.

The Atlantic Forest zoogeographical region, including the IAF, is a centre of biological endemism. This is true for plants (Mori et al. 1981, Henderson et al. 1995), birds (Haffer 1974, Cracraft 1985, Stotz et al, 1996, Stattersfield et al, 1998), mammals (Mittermeier et al. 1982, Oliver & Santos 1991), reptiles

(Müller 1973), and butterflies (Brown 1982). The region as a whole contains 200 endemic species of birds (Stotz et al. 1996) and nearly 60 globally threatened species (Collar et al. 1994). As many as 82 of the region’s endemics have been recorded in Paraguay (Brooks et al. 1993, Parker et al. 1996, Hayes 1995), although the species tally is probably higher. Birdlife International has identified 6 Endemic Bird Areas (EBA’s) in the zoogeographical region, two of which are found in Paraguay (Stattersfield et al, 1998, ICBP 1992).

The IAF has the highest number of endemic birds of any zoogeographical sub-region in the Neotropics, with 101 endemics (the next in the list is the Central Andes with 70 endemics). 48 of the true IAF endemics have been recorded in Paraguay.

The fauna of the Paraguayan IAF includes 403 species of birds, of which 13 threatened and 20 near-threatened forest- dependent species have been reported (9 and 16 of these respectively are Atlantic Forest endemics; of the 48 IAF endemics, 7 are classified as threatened and 9 as near-threatened). Threatened species include the Brazilian Merganser (Mergus octosetaceus), Black-fronted Piping-guan (Pipile jacutinga), Purple-winged Ground-dove (Claravis godefrida), Blue-winged Macaw (Ara maracana), Vinaceous Amazon (Amazona vinacea), Red-spectacled Amazon (Amazona pretrei), Helmeted Woodpecker (Dryocopus galeatus), Sao Paulo Tyrannulet, (Phylloscartes paulistus), Russet-winged Spadebill, (Platyrinchus leucoryphus), Temminck's Seedeater (Sporophila falcirostris), and Buffy-fronted Seedeater (Sporophila frontalis). Notable near-threatened species include the Solitary Tinamou (Tinamus solitarius), Mantled Hawk, (Leucopternis polionota), Harpy Eagle, (Harpia harpyja) and Crested Eagle (Morphnus gujanensis).

Threatened and near-threatened mammals include the Giant Armadillo (Priodontes maximus), Bush Dog (Speothos venaticus,) Azara’s Agouti (Dasyprocta azarae), Oncilla (Felis tigrina), Tapir (Tapirus terrestris), Dwarf Red Brocket-deer (Mazama rufina), and Short-tailed Opossum (Monodelphis sorex—an IAF endemic). Other species include two species of primates, namely the Brown or Tufted Capuchin (Cebus apella), Black Howler Monkey (Alouatta caraya), Crab Eating Fox (Cerdocyon thous), Southern River Otter (Lutra longicaudis), several species of opossums, White-lipped Peccary (Tayassu tajacu), Nine-banded Long Nosed Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), Brazilian Lesser Long-nosed Armadillo (Dasypus septemcinctus) and Grey Brocket Deer (Mazama gouazouvira).

The Atlantic forests have been severely degraded by anthropogenic pressures, with little more than 13% of the original cover remaining (Brown & Brown 1992), perhaps only 2% in a pristine condition (Wilson 1988). The importance of the Paraguayan IAF is underscored by the fact that much of the Brazilian IAF has already been cleared. But these forests are also severely threatened in Paraguay. Originally covering some 85% of the area of eastern Paraguay, or 93,888 sq. km. (Hueck 1978), more than 87% of the IAF had been cleared by 1994 (DOA 1996), much of the deforestation having occurred during the 1980s. The establishment of Protected Areas in remaining large forest stands is thus a high global conservation priority. Although several Protected Areas have been established, only one, Mbaracayu Natural Reserve (644 square kilometres) is fully operationalised and large enough to safeguard ecological processes over the long-term. Another large area, San Rafael National Park (730 square kilometres), has been legally designated, but site management is lacking.

San Rafael National Park

Located between latitudes 26º 25” S. and longitudes 57º 40’ W, San Rafael was established (under Decree No 13680 of 29-05-92) to conserve the largest extant area of forest within the Paraguayan IAF. According to Lowen, J.C, et al. 1996, the park “presents an excellent opportunity to conserve almost all the fauna and flora occurring in Paraguay’s IAF”. It is large enough to support populations of most species, including raptors and other widely dispersed species ordinarily found in low-densities. The Park includes an extensive tract of primary forest at its heart, and also contains large bamboo (Chusquea) thickets, an important habitat. Despite the limited field work conducted, over 300 species of birds have been recorded (the second highest tally for any site in Paraguay), including 8 threatened and 16 near-threatened species. The final species count is likely higher20. A number of narrow biological corridors remain to the nearby Caaguzú Protected Area (20 km north of SRNP and with an area of 160 square kilometres). San Rafael is considered by many scientists to be Paraguay’s highest conservation priority (Madroño et al, 1997).

Cerrado Forest/ Grasslands Mosaic:

Dinerstein et al (1995) list the Cerrado as a single eco-region, but posit that the category could probably be further be sub-divided, this task being hampered by a dearth of data on patterns of biodiversity. Located mainly in the northern extreme of the Eastern Region, the Cerrado extends south, intermixing with the IAF. Based on Hueck’s classification, it is possible to differentiate the following vegetation types: Campos Cerrados, Chaparrales and similar Savannahs. [This type predominates in the province of Concepción, extending to the provinces of Amambay and San Pedro, with small enclaves in Caaguazú and Canindeyú provinces]; and isolated patches of Deciduous and Mesophytic Subtropical Forests from eastern and central Brasil. In the far east of the country, a small area of Campos limpios is found. The Conservation Data Centre within DPNVS/MAG classifies the Cerrado as forming a single eco-region, the Aquidabán.

Conservation efforts in the neo tropics have tended to overlook the cerrado plains, few Protected Areas having been established in this eco-region. This is a serious gap, given that grassland biomes in the neotropics harbour considerable biodiversity. While at a global level, some 6.3% of threatened bird species inhabit grassland biomes (Collar et al.1994), the percentage for the neotropics is 12% (Wege & Long, 1995). The cerrado has become one of the fastest disappearing habitats in the World (Willis and Oniki, 1988). Less than 5% of the original 2 million square kilometres of Brazilian Cerrado remained in a virgin state by 1988 (Cavalcanti 1988). This degradation has 20 More Atlantic Forest endemic species and Atlantic Forest indicator

species (as identified by Parker et al. 1996) have been found in San Rafael National Park than in any other site in Paraguay. In total, 67 of 81 Atlantic Forest endemics have been recorded, and 60 of 72 Atlantic Forest indicator species, an indication of habitat quality. A nesting site of the Russet-winged Spadebill (Platyrinchus leucoryphus) has been found in the Park, the only such nest recorded for this globally threatened, Atlantic Forest endemic (Clay and Madroño, 1997). The grasslands in the southwest of San Rafael support one threatened species - Strange-tailed Tyrant, (Alectrurus risora)- and survey work in surrounding areas has revealed another three threatened grassland species - Rufous-faced Crake (Laterallus xenopterus), Ochre-breasted Pipit (Anthus nattereri) and Saffron-cowled Blackbird (Xanthopsar flavus)—whose ranges likely extends into the Park. (Rob Clay, Guyra Paraguay, pers comm., 1998).

been accompanied by an extirpation of species, several of which face global extinction. Consequently, several conservation biologists maintain that the cerrado ranks amongst the seven most urgent conservation priorities in the neotropics (Kelsey 1991,Wege & Long 1995).

There is a distinct cerrado endemic avifauna, with 41 species being considered as endemic to the region (Stotz et al. 1996). This distinctive avifauna is threatened with extinction: over 75% of the endemic cerrado avifauna are at risk, and over 45% of the species are either threatened or endangered (ibid.). Paraguay's cerrado habitats hold seven threatened, 15 near-threatened, and one data deficient species. Of the threatened species, one is critically endangered, one endangered and five vulnerable (Collar et al. 1994). The threatened/ vulnerable grassland species are the White-winged Nightjar (Caprimulgus candicans—critically endangered), Marsh Seedeater (Sporophila palustris—endangered), Crowned Eagle (Harpyhaliaetus coronatus), Rufous-faced Crake (Laterallus xenopterus), Hyacinth Macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), Rufous-sided Pygmy-tyrant (Euscarthmus rufimarginatus), and Black-masked Finch (Coryphaspiza melanotis). Near threatened species include the Greater Rhea (Rhea americana), Ocellated Crake (Micropygia schomburgkii), Sickle-winged Nightjar (Eleothreptus anomalus), and Grey-cheeked Grass-finch (Emberizoides piranganus). Silva (1995a) demonstrated that ca. 70 % of Paraguay’s cerrado’s have been inadequately studied. Several cerrado-dependent species have ranges that closely approach the Paraguayan border, and it is likely that they occur within the country. These species include the Critically Endangered Blue-eyed Ground-dove (Columbina cyanopis), the Endangered Black-and-tawny Seedeater (Sporophila nigrorufa) and two Vulnerable tinamous, namely the Lesser Nothura (Nothura minor) and Dwarf Tinamou (Taoniscus nanus).

One Protected Area has been established and another is in the process of being designated in north-eastern Paraguay to protect cerrados. These are Serranía de San Luis Ecological Reserve (already established, with an area of 126 Sq.Kms), and Paso Bravo National Park (area 1030 square kilometres) which has recently been gazetted. This region receives some 1,400 mms of precipitation annually.

Paso Bravo National Park:

PBNP is located at a Latitude: of 22º 20'' S. and Longitude 57º 11' W. The Park constitutes the largest Protected Area – at a global level— in the Cerrado eco-region. [The establishment of this site, already listed in the SINASIP Master Plan, was triggered during Block B implementation.] Paso Bravo contains a savannah / forest complex, with a mosaic of habitats and biological communities including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and palms. The region is influenced by periodic fires, and the vegetation is naturally fire resistant. The landscape is dominated by low hills with sandy soils, with shrubs, woodlands, and palms dispersed over open grasslands. A recent ornithological survey in the region found most of the threatened and near threatened species of avifauna listed above. Biologists expect the area to harbour a large assemblage of globally rare species, particularly of grasses and shrubs— the biology of which remains largely undocumented.

The fauna includes a number of globally rare and near threatened species, including the Giant Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis), Marsh Deer (Blastocerus dichotomus), Giant Anteater (Myrmecophaga tetradactyla), Jaguar (Panthera onca), and Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus). The reptile fauna includes

the Broad-snouted Caiman (Caiman latirostris), and species such as the Anaconda (Eunectes murinus) and Cuvier’s Dwarf Caiman (Paleosuchus palpebrosus). The inventory of avifauna includes several threatened macaws, including the Hyacinth Macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), Red and Green Macaw (Ara chloroptera), and Blue-winged Macaw (Ara maracana). A recent study of parrots found 16 species, with healthy populations of several rare species (López 1994).

López counted 32 tree species on survey plots, with an average of 2517 trees /hectare. Species inventories for the Cerrados of San Pedro Province (140 kms south-east of Paso Bravo) give a total of 350 plant species (grasses, scrubs and shrubs) (D.Mandelburger, Natural History Museum –DPNVS/MAG. pers. comm.). The Cerrado contains at least 70% of the palm species recorded in Paraguay. Endemic plants found within the PA include species belonging to the Annonaceae, Palmae, Graminae, Bromeliaceae and Compositae families. A preliminary estimate of numbers of plant species gives a total of 600-700. The most abundant trees are Cumbarí (Coumarouma alata), Mbocayá (Acrocomia totai) and Guatambú (Balfourodendron riedelianum). Less common species include Trébol (Amburana cearensis), Curuguaí (Copaifera chodatiana), Pindó (Syagrus romanzzofiana, and Avayerú (Coupeia sp.).

Chaco Savannah and Chaco/ Pantanal Eco-tone:

Dinerstein et al. (1995) lists the Chaco Savannah and Pantanal as two separate eco-regions. Only a small portion of the Pantanal is located in Paraguay, but the country contains a unique transition between the Pantanal and Chaco savannah. Though the Chaco savannah is listed as a single eco-region, there are considerable variations in vegetation and faunal communities, correlating with deviations in climatic factors, particularly levels of precipitation (rainfall decreases towards the western Chaco). According to Hueck’s classification of vegetation types, the Chaco savannah is dominated by Central Chacoan Dry Forest, a typical Subtropical Dry Forest, with a predominance of trees that reach 25-30 metres in height; also found are Gallery Forests and other vegetation associated with rivers and streams.

Dominant plant species in the Chaco savannah include Quebracho blanco (Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco), samuhú (Chorisia insignis) and cactaceae such as Stetsonia coryne and Cereus stenogosus. Common shrubs are guamí piré (Ruprechtia triflora), Capparis spp., and bougainvillas (Bougainvillea campanulata, B. Infesta, B.praecox). Other species include Capparis spp., mistol (Ziziphus mistol), palo santo (Bulnesia sarmientoi), labón (Tabebuia nodosa), Prosopis spp. and guayacán (Caesalpinea paraguariensis).

The Pantanal comprises an area of permanently and seasonally flooded savannas, lying at a mean altitude of 120 metres a.m.s.l. This region receives between 1000-1400 millimetres of rain annually, 80% of which drops in summer. Permanently inundated areas support a variety of aquatic plants, including species in the Eichornia, Azola and Pistia genera. The vegetation includes herbs such as Thalia geniculata, Cyperus spp, Ipomoea fistulosa, and Parathenia postata, intermixed with shrubs of genera Cecropia, Inga, Ficus and Astrocaryum. On higher ground, shrubs such as Curatella americana, Vochysia, Piptadenia and Qualia predominate, with patches of low semi-decidious forest, dominated by genera such as Tecoma, Jacaranda, Caryocar and Vochisya. Gallery forests are found along streams and other watercourses, with a dominance of trees of the genus Tecoma and the palm Karanda (Copernicia alba).

There have been few surveys of the biology of northern Paraguay, which until recently has remained a remote frontier region, isolated from anthropogenic impacts. But threats are accelerating, making conservation efforts a growing priority. There is a unique opportunity to bring significant areas within the Chaco savannah under conservation management, foreclosing their degradation. A noteworthy point is that the region contains large numbers of predators, pointing to the good condition of the eco-system at all trophic levels. Numbers of Jaguars, and Pumas are particularly high, when compared to typical population densities in neo tropical forest environments (Redford et al, 1990, Kato and Torres, 1997). 26 species of birds are considered to be endemic to the Chaco (Parker et al. 1996); of these, 22 occur in Paraguay—the majority of which within the two Parks.

Several Protected Areas have been established or are proposed in these eco-regions. Two of these are noteworthy in terms of their global significance, namely the Daniel Cáceres National Park. (5,640 sq.km.) in the driest areas of the Chaco, and Río Negro National Park (3,180 sq.km.), in the Chaco/ Pantanal transition. The project would assist in creating a unique Protected Area complex, which together with the biologically rich Defensores del Chaco NP in North Central Paraguay, would cover the range of Chaco savannah biomes, from the arid north-west to the more humid east. Both Daniel Cáceres and RNNP are in the process of being legally designated, a process that will be completed prior to the commencement of project implementation in 1999.

Daniel Cáceres/ Defensores del Chaco National Parks

Daniel Cáceres is positioned between latitudes 20º 30'' S. and Longitudes 62º 00' W, and Defensores del Chaco between 19º 45'' S. and 61º 10'' W. The two sites, which form a single Protected Area complex, are located in the extreme north-western region of Paraguay, and contain a variety of dry ecosystems. The north-western area within Daniel Cáceres is particularly dry, receiving 400 millimetres of rain on average per annum, and facing occasional extended periods of drought. Rainfall increases to wards the East.

The north-western section of Daniel Cáceres has an unusual landscape, containing sizeable dune formations, stabilised by herbs (such as Elionorus muticus) and shrubs. This region has a unique vegetation not captured in existing protected areas, including Defensores del Chaco. Immediately east of the dunes, also within Daniel Cáceres is a dry savannah, characterised by an open landscape with trees such as Jacarandá (Jacaranda cuspidifolia), quebracho colorado (Schinopsis balansae), guatambú (Aspidosperma pyrifolium), tipa colorada (Pterogyne nitens), aromo negro (Acacia aroma), algarrobillo (Prosopis affinis), yaguareté nambí (Maytenus vitis-idaea) and palo papel (Cochlospermun salbrucknerii). Further to the east, there is a transition to a more complex dry forest (with taller trees, reaching a height of 25-30 mts). Dominant species include Quebracho blanco (Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco), and samuhú (Chorisia insignis), with an abundance of cactaceae (Stetsonia coryne and Cereus stenogosus). Other trees include palosanto (Bulnesia sarmientoi) and labón (Tabebuia nodosa). Defensores del Chaco NP includes a mix of RedQuebracho Thornscrub, Palosantal-Labonal Forest, Gallery Forests, Saline Bushes and Humid savannah.

The wildlife list for the area is impressive, and includes Guanaco (Lama guanicoe), Puma (Felis concolor), Geoffrey’Cat (Felis geoffroyi), Ocelot (Felis

pardalis), Jaguarundí (Felis jagouarundi), Jaguar (Panthera onca), Hog-nosed Skunk (Conepatus chinga), Brazilian Tapir (Tapirus terrestris), Tamandúa (Tamandua tetradactyla), Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), White-lipped Peccary (Tayassu pecari), Collared Peccary (Tayassu tajacu), Chacoan Peccary (Catagonus wagneri – a species that until 1975 was believed to be extinct), Nine Banded Long-nosed and Yellow Armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus and Euphractes sexcinctus), Giant Armadillo (Priodontes maximus), and Night Monkey (Aotus azarae). The density of large mammals is particularly high in the dry forest areas (Kato and Torres, 1997), recent surveys pointing to abundant evidence (scats, sightings and tracks) of Jaguars, Pumas and various species of ungulates.

The birdlist includes the King Vulture (Sarcoramphus papa), Greater Rhea (Rhea americana), Turquoise-fronted Amazon (Amazona aestiva), Jabirú (Jabiru micteria), Charata or Chaco Chachalaca (Ortallis canicollis). Although very limited bird inventory work has been done in the Park, available evidence points towards an area with a unique assemblage of species (Rob Clay, Guyra Paraguay, pers comm.). Reptiles include Cascabel (Crotalus durissus), Broad-snouted Caiman (Caiman latirostris), Tejú Guazú (Tupinambis teguixin) and turtles such as Carbonaria chacoensis.

Río Negro National Park

This park, (Latitude: 19º 55'' S. Longitude: 58º 35' W), which is in the process of being legally established, is one of the most outstanding in Paraguay— containing as it does transitional ecosystems between the Chaco Savannah and Pantanal. Forest cover includes types associated with the Chaco savannahs with species such as Quebracho blanco (Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco), samuhú (Chorisia insignis), and cactaceae. Common shrubs are duraznillo (Ruprechtia triflora), at least four species of Capparis spp. and bouganvilla. Also found are mistol (Ziziphus mistol), palo santo (Bulnesia sarmientoi), labón (Tabebuia nodosa), algarrobillos (Prosopis spp) and guayacán (Caesalpinea sp). The transitional zone is dominated by species such as quebracho colorado (Schinopsis balansae), ivirá itá (Astronium fraxinifolium), palo blanco (Callycophyllum multiflorum), and labón (Tabebuia nodosa) giving way, to the east, to large extensions of Palm forest with Karandaí (Copernicia alba), and various species of algarrobos or algarrobillos (Prosopis sp.,Prosopis nigra and Prosopis affinis). In the extreme east, these palm forests are intermixed with seasonally flooded grasslands.

The Pantanal area forms part of an important flyway/ stopover site for some 32 species of migratory birds. The bird list includes species such as Jabiru Stork, (Jabiru mycteria), Taguató (Rosthramus sociabilis), Hyacinth Macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and hummingbirds like Eupetomena macroura. The area supports large populations of Spectacled Caiman, (Caiman crocodilus), Broad-snouted Caiman (Caiman latirostris), Capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), and Southern Otter (Lutra longicaudis). The threatened Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) and Marsh Deer (Blastocerus dichotomus) inhabit grasslands along the riverbanks. Other mammals include the White Marmoset (Callithrix argentata), Duski Titi monkey (Callicebus moloch), Night Monkey (Aotus trivirgatus), Giant Anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), Armadillo (Dasypus novemicinctus), Agoutí (Dasyprocta punctata), Pampas Fox (Dusycion gymnocercus), Hog-nosed Skunk (Conepatus chinga), Tayra (Eira barbara), Jaguar (Panthera onca), Brazilian Tapir (Tapirus terrestris), Puma (Felis concolor), and Gray Brocket Deer (Mazama gouazoubira).

Final Comments

Dinerstein lists the Chaco Savannah, Cerrado, Pantanal and IAF as being of the highest conservation priority. A fifth eco-region, that of the humid Chaco is listed as being important for conservation at a national scale, and is consequently not included within the scope of this project. [The humid Chaco covers a large area in the central and south portion of the Occidental region, and the south-west section of the Paraguayan Orient.]

Maps of the Project Region:

Overview Map of Paraguay

102

ANNEX VI:ROOT CAUSES ANNEX

Table 1 provides a summary of the main threats to biodiversity in the four parks. The first column articulates the root causes mediating each threat. and the second describes how the project will address each threat. The four parks are coded as follows:

Site A: SRNP San Rafael National Park Site C: RNNP: Río Negro National ParkSite B: PBNP Paso Bravo National Park Site D: DDNP: Daniel Cáceres/ Defensores del Chaco

National ParksAn estimate of the order of magnitude of each proximate threat and root cause is given, with 0 designating no apparent influence, 1 a low influence, 2 a medium one and 3 a high one.

Table 1: Threats & Root Causes Matrix

Root Causes of Threat Proposed Actions

Proximate Threat : Habitat degradation due to livestock rearing and progressive expansion of the agricultural frontier. These threats are greatest in SRNP, and to a lesser extent in RNNP. Though not presently significant at the other sites, they pose a long term risk.

For all intents and purposes, the four sites lack field implementation of basic conservation functions; though boundaries have been established, they need to be formalised. The lack of policing and penalisation for malfeasance provides little disincentive against potential encroachment [SRNP: 3, PBNP: 2; RNNP:2; DDNP:2].

Agriculture and livestock practices do not take conservation needs into account; in SRNP and RNNP, extensification of cultivation is a problem. In the Chaco/ Chaco Pantanal and Cerrado, the danger comes from intensification of livestock ranching. Though there are a

Clarification of boundaries and physical demarcation; operationalisation of Protected Area operations, including the establishment and enforcement of site specific regulations under the framework of detailed Management and Operational Plans. linkages with law enforcement agencies to control unauthorised activity; establish participatory management regime to involve local communities in conservation planning and management. Establish a monitoring system to gauge impacts of land use for management purposes.

Encouragement of more ecologically rational land use allocation and use (protecting key habitats and corridors on private land) in buffers. This will include integration of park


number of current and planned baseline initiatives aimed at improving farming systems productivity and livestock husbandry practices, these do not account for conservation needs in ecologically sensitive areas, such as park buffers. Weak spatial planning has resulted in the absence of integration of conservation objectives into agriculture/livestock activities. (SRNP:3; PBNP:1 ; RNNP :3, DDNP: 2]

The institute for public lands (IBR) requires registration for livestock rearing and/or agriculture as a prerequisite for the sale of public lands. Environmental mitigation plans make little provision for biodiversity protection. This serves to encourage ecologically destructive activities and discourage more conservation compatible land uses, including a reduction in stocking levels, the development of eco-tourism, and game ranching. (SRNP:0; PBNP: 1; RNNP : 3, DDNP: 1]; Weak institutional co-ordination between government agencies may result in landless peasants being encouraged to settle in buffer zones. (SRNP:3; PBNP: 1; RNNP : 1, DDNP: 1]

Alternative income earning opportunities are limited, with little understanding of options, consequently there is a high dependence of the local economy on traditional agricultural and cattle rearing activities. (SRNP:3 PBNP: 1; RNNP : 2, DDNP: 1]

Awareness of the adverse systems feedbacks on biodiversity of ecologically deleterious agriculture/ livestock practices is very limited; resource managers lack an understanding of the linkages between ecology and economy . (SRNP:3; PBNP: 3; RNNP : 3, DDNP: 3]

management objectives into regional development planning. In SRNP and RNNP, baseline programmes would seek to intensify agriculture in a sustainable manner. In the Chaco, steps would be taken to maintain biodiversity on farms and ranches through spatial planning and the development of incentives. A review of agricultural/ livestock policies as they relate to sectoral biodiversity impacts will be undertaken with the objective of identifying avenues for policy reform and creation of appropriate incentives measures.

Establishment and execution of requirements for mitigating adverse impacts on biodiversity on land abutting the Parks. Awareness raising at the national level regarding sustainable use options. Sensitising IBR Staff to opportunities for sustainable development of public lands. Raise awareness amongst decision-makers regarding the impacts of land settlement on conservation objectives.

Identify options for sustainable use (eco-tourism and sports hunting) in designated buffer areas, including supply and demand side determinants of feasibility; Raise awareness of options amongst local entrepreneurs, agricultural extension services and credit institutions; promote information exchange between landowners and community leaders and successful eco-businesses in other countries.

Awareness raising activities targeted at decision-makers, local communities and large landowners, and the wider public regarding natural capital values, (including functions such as soil nutrient replenishment, natural pest control,


Development of roads threatens to exacerbate the above-mentioned problems. Though environmental mitigation activities are included in infrastructure projects, little holistic planning has occurred at a landscape level. Active park management is currently lacking to deal with emergent threats. (SRNP:2; PBNP: 2; RNNP : 2, DDNP: 2].

and crop pollination) and systems linkages between conservation and agricultural sector activities.

Integration of infrastructural planning with conservation activities, with strengthening of co-ordination mechanisms between the Ministry of Public Works and DPNVS/MAG. Safeguarding areas that would otherwise face degradation through parks strengthening

Threat: Reduction in wildlife numbers due to over hunting for subsistence needs ( ungulates, capybaras, agouti, javelinas, alligators) : This threat is most acute in the Interior Atlantic Forest; in the other eco-regions, the problem is considered to be less serious, but empirical data on the impacts of hunting on population dynamics of target species is lacking. This threat is expected to increase as economic infrastructure is developed and access to remote areas is improved.

Poor control and management by government in National Parks results in open-access regime. This in turn is causing over-exploitation of wildlife resources. (SRNP:3; PBNP: 1; RNNP : 2, DDNP: 2].

Information on sustainable yields is lacking, and monitoring of harvest levels and population trends is inadequate. (SRNP:3; PBNP: 3; RNNP : 3, DDNP: 3].

Indigenous communities inhabiting the parks and buffers (who depend on game meat and animal by products for subsistence) lack formal usufruct rights, providing little incentive for self regulation of harvest levels. (SRNP:3; PBNP: 1; RNNP : 2, DDNP: 2].

Uncontrolled hunting by temporary residents such as military personnel and State workers. (SRNP:0; PBNP: 1; RNNP : 3, DDNP: 2].

Improve planning and enforcement capacity of Protected Areas authorities to stem hunting pressures within core PAs , and develop monitoring framework to assess response to management interventions.

Collect information on hunting trends and conduct targeted research into impacts on species populations. Develop a management plan for the control of hunting, with mechanisms for involving local communities in management. Strengthen the capacity of community-based organisations to engage in hunting management.

Investigate feasibility of formalising usufruct rights for indigenous groups as an incentive for self-regulation and control of resource access.

Impart conservation values through awareness and advocacy to a wide range of civil society and decision-


makers (including within the military). Strengthen law enforcement.

Threat: Reduction in wildlife numbers due to over hunting for commercial purposes (hunting of ungulates, armadillos, peccaries, alligators, cats; and live trapping of monkeys, parrots, reptiles, birds). Ungulates, peccaries and armadillos are hunted for meat, for sale in Paraguay. Monkeys, parrots, reptiles, cats and alligators are hunted for the external trade in wildlife. The threat is most acute in San Rafael, and exists to a lesser extent in Río Negro (including of Caimans). The difficulty of access to the Chaco and Cerrado has attenuated pressures, at least for the time being. There is a tradition of hunting in frontier regions, but information on the extent of such activities is limited.

As is the case for subsistence hunting, weak management by conservation authorities contributes to an open access problem., leading to over-exploitation. Local communities have little incentive to control access to the parks by outsiders, and see little reward in controlling their own behaviour. (SRNP: 3; PBNP: 1; RNNP : 3, DDNP: 2].

Lack of information and intelligence of the extent of the wildlife trade, both internally and to markets overseas. Understanding of the determinants of trade is very limited. (SRNP: 3; PBNP: 3; RNNP : 3, DDNP: 3].

The Government has established a CITES unit to monitor and control legal access to wild resources; however linkages between this unit and border control authorities is very weak. (SRNP:3; PBNP: 3; RNNP : 3, DDNP: 3].

Cultural practice of ‘Sport Hunting’ by visitors from Asunción and other towns for trophy values. (SRNP: 2; PBNP: 1; RNNP : 2, DDNP: 2].

Improve planning and enforcement capacity of Protected Area authorities to stem commercial hunting pressures. Develop a participatory management regime to encourage community involvement in law enforcement efforts, and build local intelligence networks to alert authorities to illicit hunting. Encourage mitigative action by raising awareness of the problem.

Provide resources for investigating the determinants of the problem and market chains, identifying cost-effective options for control.

Build linkages with and provide appropriate training to law enforcement personnel and customs officers to control illegal hunting and trade. Review penalty structures for malfeasance, and strengthen these if appropriate. Create awareness of the problem at the national level, and develop interpretation materials for display at border posts and airports. Strengthen trans-boundary co-operation with neighbouring countries to control trade.

Review the feasibility of establishing local sport hunting industries in designated sites as a sustainable use measure; involve local communities and indigenous groups in the


control of access to the Parks and improve overall policing of Protected Area regulations.

Threat : Habitat loss due to charcoal production and firewood collection: Charcoal production is a threat in the Brazilian Cerrdao, and may later be an issue in the Paso Bravo area. It also occurs in the humid Chaco, and poses a potential future threat at Río Negro and the Daniel Caceres/Defensores del Chaco complex. The same holds true for firewood collection. Indigenous communities collect firewood in SRNP, but information on the intensity of use is lacking.

Lack of preparation to deal with these threats in the Chaco and Cerrado eco-regions. (SRNP:2; PBNP: 2; RNNP : 2, DDNP: 2].

Lack of information and management measures in SRNP to ensure that production does not outpace the natural regenerative capacity of the forest. (SRNP:3].

Awareness building at regional and national level of the ecological fragility of dry ecosystems, and development of anticipatory control measures as part of the Park Management Plans.

Investigation of fuelwood use trends and management of collection, with community participation, to ensure use does not lead to forest degradation. Maintain a watching brief on trends.

Threat: Potential visitor damages in Protected Areas: Again this is a potential future problem ,as road infrastructure development improves access to the parks. Substantial potential exists to develop tourism to Paraguay’s wild areas, focused on national, regional and in the longer-term, international markets. But little capacity exists to deal with the threats posed by visitation.

Planned road development will improve access to Protected Areas and will therefore increase the number of visitors. (SRNP:2; PBNP: 2; RNNP : 3, DDNP: 3].

Development and operation of visitor management strategy in the operational plans of each PA. Train Protected Area staff in visitor management,

Threat: Habitat disturbance and loss due to illegal timber extraction: This threat presently only exists in SRNP, where timber extraction is presently unchecked.

Poor monitoring and control of SRNP, and lack of implementation of forestry laws (that prohibit access) is leading to extraction of high valued timber species by private entrepreneurs. Indigenous communities living within the park lack a utilitarian incentive to control

Enforcement of park regulations, with promotion of community involvement in controlling access to forest resources; awareness building at the community level of ecological importance and benefits of forests ; strengthen PAs regulations to check malfeasance and build linkages


access. (SRNP:3]. with law enforcement agencies. Sensitise decision-makers to the needs of Protected Areas and opportunities for conservation.

Threat : Over-extraction of flora (Orchids, bromeliads, medicinal plants): This problem is currently mainly a problem in SRNP, through future trade is unique species in the other eco-regions may increase, as species become more well known in the trade.

Open-access is leading to depletion of wild floral resources (SRNP:3).

Information barriers exist to the implementation of sustainable management and use paradigms (SRNP: 3).

Understanding of use opportunities in the other eco-regions is very limited, and managers are little prepared to address threats as they arise. (PBNP: 1; RNNP : 2, DDNP: 2].

Improve enforcement capacity to stem collection pressures within core Protected Areas and clarify usufruct rights for indigenous groups as a management measure. Improve understanding amongst customs officials of issues relating to the trade in endangered plant species. Review and strengthen the law regulating harvests, and raise awareness amongst stakeholders of the provisions of the law.

Demonstration of viable sustainable use models (focusing on eco-tourism and medicinal plants). Support removal of barriers to sustainable use; conduct site-specific trials of management methods and document the results.

Investigate potential use opportunities, and document harvest trends as a basis for determining management needs.

ANNEX VII: DUTY STATEMENTS—STAFF

The Terms of Reference for staff will be finalised during the course of project implementation, based on the duties and responsibilities listed below for the various personnel.

Long Term Personnel: National Staff

1. Chief Technical Advisor

BackgroundThe Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) will be responsible for the overall management and co-ordination of project activities, liaising with government, UNDP and NGOs, and maintaining tight links with all project partners providing co-financing for the GEF Alternative. The CTA will have dual reporting responsibilities, reporting to the Director, DPNVS/MAG through the Co-ordinator of DPNVS’s Planning and Projects Unit, and the UNDP Resident Representative through the Programme Officer. The incumbent will be either a Paraguayan national or bona fide permanent resident within the country. Duties and Responsibilities1. Supervise and co-ordinate the production of project outputs as per the project

document;2. Provide technical assistance for project activities, including planning,

monitoring and Protected Area operations and assume responsibility for maintaining quality control in interventions;

3. Mobilise all project inputs in accordance with UNDP procedures for nationally executed projects;

4. Supervise and co-ordinate the work of all project staff, including national and international consultants;

5. Finalise Terms of Reference for Personnel, advertise positions, and co-ordinate the recruitment process for all project staff;

6. Prepare and revise project work plans, travel plans, and financial plans as required from time to time;

7. Liaise with the UNDP-Paraguay Country Office, government and all project partners, including donor bodies and NGO’s to ensure effective co-ordination of all project activities;

8. Facilitate administrative backstopping to sub-contractors and training activities supported by the project;

9. Oversee and ensure timely submission of quarterly financial reports, quarterly progress reports and the Annual Project Report (APR) to UNDP-Paraguay and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG);

10.Disseminate project reports to and respond to ad hoc queries from concerned stakeholders;

11.Represent the project on the Steering Committee and ensure follow-through on PSC directives.

Selection Criteria1. Post-graduate degree in natural resource management with at least 10 years

professional experience;2. Ability to effectively co-ordinate a large, multi-disciplinary project;3. Experience in implementing conservation/natural resource management

projects;4. Excellent Spanish language writing and speaking skills;

5. Fluency in the English language (reading, writing and oral communications).

2. Project Administrator

BackgroundThe Project Administrator will be responsible for providing administrative support to the Project. The incumbent will report directly to the Chief Technical Adviser. This position will be filled locally. Duties and Responsibilities1. Set up a financial accounting, transactions and reporting system for the project

in accordance with UNDP’s financial rules and regulations; 2. Advise the CTA on the budgetary implications of project management

decisions; 3. Ensure that all financial transactions are in compliance with the applicable

UNDP rules and procedures; 4. Prepare payment requests for submission to UNDP through the CTA;5. Facilitate audits of project accounts conducted by external auditors;6. Assist the CTA in the execution of staff recruitment and management functions,

including finalisation of Terms of Reference and advertising positions;7. Ensure timely preparation and submission of quarterly and annual project

progress reports;8. Organise procurement of equipment, and preparation of tender documents for

Sub Contracts;9. Maintain a ledger of non expendable equipment purchased with project funds;10.Assist SSERNMA/MAG to organise PSC meetings and ensure timely

preparation and distribution of PSC minutes.11.Provide operational support to UNDP Missions, including Independent

Evaluators.Selection Criteria1. Undergraduate degree in Business Administration and/or Accounting;2. A minimum of 3 years experience in administering large-scale projects;3. Excellent Spanish communication skills, particularly in writing;4. Strong computer skills and experience with using project planning software.5. Knowledge of UNDP-Paraguay’s operational systems and procedures will be a

strong asset.

3. Administrative Assistant

BackgroundWorking under the direct supervision of the Project Administrator, the Administrative Assistant will be responsible for providing administrative support within the Project Technical Unit. The position will be filled locally. Duties and Responsibilities1. Provide administrative support to the Chief Technical Adviser and Project

Administrator including independent handling of routine letters and queries, in writing or verbally, scheduling appointments, answering phone calls, and miscellaneous related activities;

2. Assist in processing administrative and financial management forms, particularly processing of travel request forms, payment request forms, leave applications, etc.;

3. Co-ordinate travel arrangements, both domestic and international, for all staff

members;4. Co-ordinate logistical arrangements for all meetings, in house as well as

others;5. Develop and maintain a database for mailing of newsletters, correspondence,

etc.;6. Ensure proper filing of all office correspondence and project documents;Selection Criteria1. Minimum of 3 years of administrative experience, preferably within

development assistance projects;2. Excellent computer skills especially typing, word processing, and document

formatting; 3. Ability to format and organise reports;4. Excellent Spanish and English writing and verbal communication skills.

Long Term Personnel: International Staff

4. Protected Areas Management Adviser

BackgroundThe Protected Area Management Adviser will be a senior, internationally recruited, consultant responsible for advising on protected area planning and management needs, assisting to develop and institutionalise participatory planning processes, promoting high standards of discipline within ranger cadres in the execution of basic conservation functions in the National Parks, contributing to the development of a robust biological and socio-economic impact monitoring system, and contributing to the development and implementation of conservation awareness and advocacy strategies. Protected Area Management Specialists located in each of the 4 sites will assist the incumbent in these activities.Duties and Responsibilities1. Work with DPNVS personnel and representatives of local stakeholder groups in

the National Parks to develop a modus operandi for participatory planning and conservation management; this will initially entail development of new procedures and guidelines for facilitating stakeholder representation on Park Management Boards and committees;

2. Backstop execution of participatory planning processes at the site level, ensuring broad-based stakeholder consultation, institution of Multi Stakeholder Parks Management Boards, application of participatory learning and action (PLA) exercises, and providing other inputs to ensure smooth and effective Management/ Operational Planning;

3. Provide necessary inputs to develop technically robust zoning plans, annual operational work plans, and 5 and 10 year Park Management Plans prepared through a highly participatory planning process and building on the findings of biological inventories and socio-economic assessments performed under the Monitoring & Evaluation sub contract;

4. Supply technical assistance as necessary to enable application of adaptive management principles, thus ensuring management adapts over time in line with changing biological, ecological and socio-economic fundamentals;

5. Contribute to the development of training programmes (Training sub contract) to build local capacity in basic conservation functions (community outreach, advocacy, conservation interpretation, monitoring, policing and enforcement of regulations);

6. Contribute to the development of a monitoring and evaluation system to gauge

project impact, and ensure quality control in M&E interventions;7. Contribute to the development of a conservation awareness and advocacy

programme and ensure quality control in its application;8. Provide high levels of professional conservation planning, field management

and operational advice and support to Parks staff as needed.Selection Criteria1. Minimum of 15 years experience in planning and managing Protected Areas,

with past work experience in Latin America, preferably in one or more of the Southern Cone countries;

2. Experience working with and developing effective partnerships between local communities and indigenous people, NGOs (national and international), and government agencies.

3. Skills in various aspects of conservation area operations and field management including participatory management/ operational planning, enforcement, community outreach, conservation education and advocacy. Experience with conflict resolution would be an advantage.

4. Willingness and ability to travel frequently to the project sites and to function within difficult working conditions;

5. Patience and cultural sensitivity needed to gain the trust, understanding and support of all stakeholders.

6. Good interpersonal skills, and a track record in providing training “on the job”;7. Excellent Spanish communication skills (writing and verbal communications);

5. PA Management Specialists [Four Positions]

BackgroundPA Management Specialists will be recruited as counterparts to Protected Area Managers in the four Parks. The incumbents will be seconded from Parks’ Services elsewhere in Latin America through the vehicle of the United Nations Volunteer Scheme. The incumbents will work in close partnership with the PA Management Adviser to ensure capacity building in participatory planning methods and basic conservation functions. Duties and Responsibilities1. Provide technical assistance to Parks staff and local stakeholders to effect

participatory planning; Catalyse development of transparent decision making structures in the National Parks;

2. Provide training to rangers in conservation functions (policing, enforcement, outreach, advocacy) demonstrating the application of skills developed through formal training;

3. Assist in instituting a schedule of conservation activities (monitoring, enforcement, maintenance, awareness raising, visitor management etc.) involving Parks staff and local communities;

4. Work to resolve local conflicts between stakeholders through negotiation and mediation;

5. Supply operational advice and support to Parks staff and local stakeholders as required;

6. Promote “discipline” and dedication in the execution of ranger functions by providing leadership.

Selection Criteria1. Experience in participatory planning and management in Protected Areas;2. Past experience in Preparing Conservation Plans and operationalising

Conservation functions;3. Patience and cultural sensitivity needed to gain the trust, understanding and

support of stakeholders;4. Excellent oral communications skills in Spanish;5. Willingness and ability to reside in remote localities and to travel frequently.

6. Resource Economist

BackgroundThe Resource Economist will contribute to understanding of the demand side determinants of sustainable uses for eco-tourism, medicinal plants and sports hunting, in addition to participating in participatory planning activities to define conservation planning and management mechanisms in buffer zones to the Parks. The incumbent, who will report directly to the CTA, will backstop the activities mandated of other long-term staff and consultants. Duties and Responsibilities1. Assess the determinants of demand for eco-tourism, sports hunting and trade

in medicinal plants and evaluate the economic viability of different sustainable use management options drawing on cost/ benefit appraisal tools;

2. Participate in the development of Management Plans for the sustainable use demonstrations;

3. Promote deal flow identification for sustainable use opportunities by sensitising loans officers of rural development banks and other sources of finance to promising new investment opportunities and promoting linkages between

entrepreneurs and financiers; 4. Evaluate the private costs and benefits of different buffer zone management

strategies to create corridors and protect prime habitat on private lands outside of the parks and participate in management planning and community outreach in buffer zones;

5. Identify fiscal and other incentives to promote conservation on lands adjacent to the National Parks, and make appropriate inputs to policy development within the Ministry of Agriculture.

Selection Criteria1. A Masters Degree in economics, with a sound grasp of natural resource

management issues.2. Extensive professional and practical experience in natural resource

management.3. Demonstrated knowledge of conservation fundamentals; 4. Willingness to travel frequently and to adapt to difficult working conditions;5. Strong leadership and communications skills;6. Fluency in Spanish and excellent writing skills.

Short Term Consultants: National Positions

7. Botanist

BackgroundThe Botanist will assist Parks authorities and communities to undertake a demonstration of medicinal plant management in the environs of San Rafael National Park. The incumbent will establish site based trials and control plots, appraise results, develop a Management Plan (through a participatory process) for plant harvests, work with collectors to ensure operationalisation of the plan, and document and report on the results of the demonstration. Duties and Responsibilities1. Perform a Participatory Assessment to enhance knowledge on medicinal plant

harvest patterns;2. Oversee establishment of demonstration/ control plots to determine biological

responses to different harvest intensities and to define management requirements for sustained harvests;

3. Prepare a Management Plan for target species listing harvest quotas, methods, and regulatory and monitoring mechanisms, to be integrated into the Park Management Plan;

4. In conjunction with other project staff, design and execute a structured information dissemination program to sensitise collectors and local managers to management needs;

5. Work with local community members and parks authorities to monitor implementation of the Management Plan;

6. Provide training to managers in adaptive management methods, enabling management to be refined over time;

7. Assist Project staff to develop and implement a training programme for managing harvests of medicinal plants.

8. Report on the outcomes of the demonstration to government counterparts and other project staff.

Selection Criteria1. Post graduate training in botany, with field research experience;

2. Considerable experience in medicinal plant management and participatory planning;

3. Strong oral communication and training skills;4. Past knowledge of written and spoken Spanish;

8. Social Organisers

BackgroundThe social organisers will play assist Parks authorities in social outreach activities engineered to engage local communities in conservation. The organisers will undertake dialogue with community members, establishing a two-way flow of information between community groups and Parks authorities. Gender considerations would be taken into account in establishing the teams. Duties and Responsibilities1. Continue dialogue with communities at the four sites with the objective of

further uncovering grass root perspectives;2. Under the direction of the Parks Management Boards, mobilise community

representative for conservation planning activities;3. In collaboration with local landholders, perform participatory learning and

action exercises to map local endorsements and management needs;4. Organise community forums on behalf of parks authorities and local

community representatives;5. Assist in the training of community motivators as conservation advocates;6. Report on community concerns, and work towards the resolution of

conflict.. Selection Criteria1. At least 5 years field experience in community development work; 2. High school degree (minimum); further education desirable;3. Ability to work in the field for extended periods of time, often under difficult

conditions;4. Excellent oral communication skills;5. Demonstrated leadership skills.

Short Term Consultants: International Positions

9. Ecotourism Specialist

BackgroundThe Ecotourism Specialist will provide technical assistance to Parks authorities and local communities in San Rafael and Río Negro National Parks to demonstrate ways and means of promoting nature tourism at these sites and develop and execute a strategy for visitor management. The Specialist, who will be recruited internationally, will be supervised by the CTA. Duties and Responsibilities1. Work with Parks authorities and local stakeholders to elaborate a nature

tourism development strategy for the two sites, and, in conjunction with other project staff, undertake necessary feasibility work;

2. Sensitise local entrepreneurs at the two sites to the potential for nature tourism;

3. Assist the Resource Economist to promote “deal flows” by informing sources of private capital (i.e. rural development banks) of new tourism development opportunities;

4. Advise parks authorities on infrastructural development aspects (i.e. design and location of interpretation facilities, trails and signage);

5. Prepare a Management Plan and Code of Conduct for visitors geared to the ecological and social landscapes of the two sites;

6. Abet the design of interpretation material to advertise the Code of Conduct;7. Assist stakeholders to design promotional material for nature tourism

(pamphlets, internet sites);8. Help Project staff to develop and implement a training programme for local

guides at the sites;9. Assist Project staff to develop and implement a training programme for visitor

management;10.Report on the outcomes of the demonstration to government counterparts and

other project staff.Selection Criteria1. Considerable experience in ecotourism management and participatory

planning;2. Strong oral communication and training skills;3. Knowledge of written and spoken Spanish;4. Past experience working in Southern Cone countries will be a distinct

advantage;

10. Hunting Management Specialist

BackgroundThe Hunting Management Specialist will provide technical assistance to Parks authorities and local communities in the Chaco Parks to manage hunting on private lands. The specialist will be recruited internationally and will work under the supervision of the CTA.Duties and Responsibilities1. Work with Parks authorities and landowners to identify opportunities and

constraints facing management of sports hunting;2. Assist in the design of biological surveys to elicit the status of target species

populations; 3. Interpret the results of biological surveys for the purposes of establishing

management needs;4. Participate in awareness efforts aimed at sensitising landowners to the need

for hunting management;5. Advise on management requirements for species (numbers culled; harvest

seasons) and develop a Management Plan describing the modus operandi for planning, operationalising, monitoring and reporting hunts, and for assessing wider biological impacts;

6. Provide training to managers in adaptive management methods enabling management approaches to be adapted in light of biological responses;

7. Assist Project staff to develop and implement a training programme for hunting management;

8. Report on the outcomes of the demonstration to government counterparts and other project staff.

Selection Criteria1. At least 15 years experience working within the conservation arena, with post

graduate training in conservation biology; 2. Considerable experience in hunting management, preferably in Latin America;3. Strong oral communication and training skills;4. Knowledge of written and spoken Spanish.

11. Bioregional Planning Expert

BackgroundThe Bioregional Planning Expert will contribute to the development of strategies for buffer zone management to create biological corridors and conserve prime habitats on private lands buffering the National Parks. The Expert will take primary responsibility for developing the management strategy, based on a highly participatory process involving affected landowners, and building linkages with other rural development programmes to ensure effective joint programming of interventions. The consultant will report to the project’s Chief Technical Adviser. Duties and Responsibilities1. Work with the Multi Stakeholder Management Boards to further define the

process for engendering buffer zone planning and management; 2. Co-ordinate efforts to map biological corridors and critical habitats in

collaboration with landowners;3. Work with other project staff, parks authorities and local stakeholders to define

appropriate and workable strategies for operationalising buffer zone management, geared to the needs of the different sites;

4. Take primary responsibility for the development of a Management Plan for buffer areas at each sites, to be integrated within the Five Year Park Management Plan;

5. Provide inputs as necessary to facilitate enabling policy development, including institution of targeted incentives;

6. Backstop efforts within MAG to engender a joint programming of agricultural, forestry and other natural resource activities and management programmes in each region for the purposes of fulfilling the conservation objectives articulated in Park Management Plans.

Selection Criteria1. At least 10 years experience in bio-regional management, with considerable

experience in participatory planning and management;2. Experience working in Latin America, preferably in Southern Cone Countries;3. Knowledge of Spanish;4. Excellent inter-personnel communication skills, and a strong cultural

sensitivity;5. Willingness to work under difficult conditions, and to travel frequently.

ANNEX VIII: EQUIPMENT LIST

Item Qty

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7

PTUOffice Equipment 18,600 12,00

01,000

4,600 1,000

Computers 4 2,600 10,400 7,800 2,600Printer 3 500 1,500 1,000 500Scanner 1 300 300 300Photocopier 2 1,500 3,000 1,500 1,500Fax machine 1 400 400 400Furniture 3 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,00

01,000

RNNP4 wd vehicle 3 25,000 75,000 25000 25000 25000motorcycles 3 4,000 12,000 8000 4000horses 10 150 1,500 600 600 300boats 3 4,000 12,000 4000 4000 4000Field Equipment: 25,686 4,002 6,000 2,580 1,42

21,680 900 9,102

tents for 3 people 9 142 1,278 426 426 426 sleeping bags 18 49 882 294 294 294 lanterns 24 22 528 132 132 132 132 walkie-talkie 18 229 4,122 1,374 1,37

41,374

camping stove-utensils

9 60 540 180 180 180

compass 18 8 144 48 48 48 GPS 4 3,000 12,000 6,000 6,000 first aid kit 8 129 1,032 258 258 258 258 helmets, overalls, other

24 160 3,840 960 960 960 960

shovels & picks kit 4 330 1,320 330 330 330 330Office Equipment: 12,900 6,650 6,250 computers-Pentium 2 2,600 5,200 2,600 2,600 printer 2 250 500 250 250 photocopier 2 1,500 3,000 1,500 1,500 overhead projector 2 500 1,000 500 500 slide projector 2 400 800 400 400 fax machine 1 400 400 400 furniture 2 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000interpretation facilities 1.5 10,000 15,000 0 5000 10000 0 0 0 0generator 4 1,600 6,400 1600 1600 0 0 3200 0 0radio 2 3,000 6,000 3000 0 0 0 3000 0 0meteorological equipment

1 2,400 2,400 0 2400 0 0 0 0 0

PBNP4 wd vehicle 3 25000 75,000 25000 25000 0 0 25000 0 0motorcycles 3 4000 12,000 8000 0 0 0 4000 0 0horses 10 150 1,500 600 600 0 0 300 0 0boats 3 4000 12,000 4000 4000 0 0 4000 0 0Field Equipment 26,346 4,332 6,000 2,250 2,08

21,350 900 9,432


41,374

Item Qty

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7


9 60 540 180 180 180


24 160 3,840 960 960 960 960

shovels & picks kit 6 330 1,980 660 660 660Office Equipment 12,900 6,650 6,250 computers-Pentium 2 2,600 5,200 2,600 2,600 printer 2 250 500 250 250 photocopier 2 1,500 3,000 1,500 1,500 overhead projector 2 500 1,000 500 500 slide projector 2 400 800 400 400 fax machine 1 400 400 400 furniture 2 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000interpretation facilities 1.5 10,000 15,000 0 5,000 10,00

00 0 0 0

generator 4 1,600 6,400 1600 1600 0 0 3200 0 0radio 2 3000 6,000 3000 0 0 0 3000 0 0meteorological equipment

1 2400 2,400 0 2400 0 0 0 0 0

SRNP horses 10 150 1,500 600 500 0 0 300 0 0Field Equipment 23,292 10,20

41,680 2,52

41,680 7,204


41,374


12 60 720 240 240 240


24 160 3,840 960 960 960 960

shovels & picks kit 4 330 1,320 330 330 330 330Office Equipment 12,900 6,650 6,250 computers-Pentium 2 2,600 5,200 2,600 2,600 printer 2 250 500 250 250 photocopier 2 1,500 3,000 1,500 1,500 overhead projector 2 500 1,000 500 500 slide projector 2 400 800 400 400 fax machine 1 400 400 400 furniture 2 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000interpretation facilities 1.5 10,000 15,000 0 5000 10000 0 0 0 0generator 4 1,600 6,400 1600 1600 0 0 3200 0 0meteorological equipment

1 2400 2,400 0 2400 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL

418,524 117138

118750

36,510

7,028

91,810

20,550

26,738

ANNEX IX: DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR SUB-CONTRACTS 21

1. Monitoring & Evaluation Sub ContractBiological Impact Monitoring

Objectives: To design and execute biological assessments in the project sites to track population trends for indicator species, monitor habitat quality and provide early warning of threats. Activities- Develop a strategy for communicating the results of biological monitoring to

park authorities, boards and other key stakeholders, with the objective of adapting management.

- Design a long-term Biological Monitoring Programme to verify natural systems integrity at the site level. The Programme would require:(a) preparation of baseline ecosystem maps based on interpretation of remote

sensing materials, for project sites and for the San Rafael – Caaguazú Corridor.

(b) design of inventories for indicator species and species targeted for game harvesting activities

(c) developing sampling tools and procedures and establishing the periodicity of conservation monitoring

(d) establishing the procedures for collecting of data on harvest and hunting practices; on management of medicinal plants; on customary uses of resources by amerindian groups and the biological impacts of visitor use (sustainable use monitoring).

- Execute rapid biological assessments at the beginning of project implementation (month 6) to concretise baselines.

- Perform additional sampling in years 4 – 5 and 7 to determine biological responses to conservation/ sustainable use management.

- Make arrangements for scientific audits of results. - Support DPNVS/PTU in its efforts to mobilise grants from research agencies to

address priority biological research needs.

Social Assessments & Lessons Learned

Objectives: To design and execute social impact assessments to appraise social processes likely to have a bearing on conservation outcomes and gauge the effectiveness of measures to optimise public participation.Functions- In consultation with DPNVS, project staff, and communities, develop guidelines

and procedures for involving communities in social assessments and communicating the results of field monitoring.

- Design a long term Social Assessment Programme to track social dynamics and stakeholder perceptions of conservation. The Programme design would require:(a) the design of social assessment methods,(b) determination of key social variables to be monitored,(c) development of sampling tools, and(d) determination of the periodicity of assessment

- Collect and interpret baseline data by conducting rapid rural appraisals. - Undertake annual process oriented monitoring of social impacts and processes,

document results and provide recommendations that may be used to adapt conservation management strategies as appropriate.

- Document the best practices, challenges and constraints inherent in conservation processes and prepare a lessons learned document for

21 Terms of Reference, deliverables and contractual arrangements would be finalised by DPNVS/PTU in consultation with UNDP-Paraguay and the Executing Agency during project implementation.

distribution to conservation professionals and decision makers.

Experience: The sub contractor will comprise a consortium of firms with experience in conducting biological inventories and social assessments, interpreting data and documenting lessons learned.Duration: The Sub contract will be operative over a period of 81 months. Baseline ecological maps will be delivered at the end of year 1, and benchmark data on populations of indicator species would be made available at the end of 16 months. Mechanisms for community involvement in social assessments and monitoring procedures would be defined at the end of the second quarter of year 1. Accountability: The sub-contractor will be responsible to DPNVS for the quality and timeliness of the products required under this contract.

2. Advocacy for Indigenous Groups Objectives: To provide advocacy support to indigenous groups residing in the target sites or buffers to enable them to participate on an equal footing with other stakeholders in conservation management processes. Activities:- work with Amerindian leaders to identify constraints and opportunities for

participation in conservation.- act as an advocate of community interests to DPNVS/ Parks authorities and

other stakeholders.- provide networking support to community members to enable them to

communicate more effectively with other community based groups, non government organisations and government.

- provide training to community leaders in negotiation techniques.- assist in resolving disputes between Amerindian communities and other

stakeholding groups.- advise on policy development issues relating to customary use rights.Experience: The firm or group must have previous experience and credibility in advocating indigenous groups rights in Paraguay.Duration: The contract will be operative for 60 months, commencing in year 2 of project implementation.Accountability: The sub-contractor will be responsible to DPNVS for the quality and timeliness of the products required under this contract.

3. Legal ServicesObjectives: To provide legal services to the project with a view to strengthening conservation policies and regulations.

Activities:- assist in drafting amendments to conservation policies and regulations to

strengthen sanctions against malfeasance. - draft regulations as needed to operationalise conservation strategies

articulated in site Management Plans. - work with indigenous groups, DPNVS, IBR and other concerned institutions to

clarify and formalise usufruct rights for the customary use of wild resources by local indigenous communities.

- devise rules for the management of sports hunting, medicinal plant harvests and nature tourism as dictated by the objectives of each sustainable use demonstration.

- assist DPNVS to draft enabling policies, as necessary, to integrate agriculture and biodiversity conservation activities, in the San Rafael – Caaguazú biological corridor.

- draft enabling policies and regulations to integrate set conservation standards

and mitigation requirements into environmental impact assessment and mitigation requirements.

Experience: The contract will be awarded to a private consultancy or legal firm with experience advising on natural resource management issues, preferably relating to biodiversity conservation. Duration: The contract will provide for inputs over the project life, as needed (based on request by DPNVS/PTU).Accountability: The sub-contractor will be responsible to DPNVS for the quality and timeliness of the products required under this contract.

4. Conservation AwarenessObjectives: To design and execute a media outreach and advocacy programme using radio, local newspapers and other communication channels to impart conservation values to concerned stakeholders. Activities: - Undertake a scoping exercise with the Parks’s Boards, radio producers,

journalists and community representatives to determine the type of awareness activities needed in each project area, develop site-specific strategies for raising awareness, and select appropriate channels of communication.

- Design and update interpretation materials on conservation themes for dissemination to media.

- Prepare a project newsletter to communicate project activities, accomplishments, challenges and lessons to stakeholders.

- Organise special radio presentations by project staff/ consultants on conservation/ sustainable use activities.

- Revise the content of interpretation materials based on client feedback. - Work with the Postal authorities to develop a stamp series in celebration of

Paraguay’s biodiversity.Experience: The contract would be awarded to an NGO or consultancy firm with experience in media outreach and environmental advocacy work, preferably in the arena of biodiversity conservation. Duration: The contract will cover a period of 60 months, commencing in the third year of implementation. Accountability: The sub-contractor will be responsible to DPNVS for the quality and timeliness of the products required under this contract.

5. Conservation Education Objectives: To design and execute a conservation education programme for local schools in the project areas.Activities:- Work with local educational authorities to define gaps in existing primary

school curricula with regard to conservation.- Support design of a conservation education module for local schools, and

develop materials and teaching aids.- Provide training to school teachers in conservation education techniques.- Monitor execution of the programme and take steps to improve its efficacy

through additional training.- co-ordinate field visits by schools to the project sites for educational purposes.Experience: The consultancy firm must have experience in teacher training and environmental education. Duration: The contract will commence in year 3 of project implementation and continue until project closure. Accountability: The sub-contractor will be responsible to DPNVS for the quality and timeliness of the products required under this contract.

6. Inservice Training Objectives: To design and execute a comprehensive training program for parks staff and community motivators that imparts know-how in conservation methods and raises the standard of conservation operations. Activities: - perform a training needs assessment for parks staff and community motivators,

uncovering differentiated client needs. The assessment would include an

assessment of the absorptive capacities of the different groups plus time budget and other constraints that impact their ability to participate in training.

- identify existing sources of training materials, (including those developed by the Office of International Affairs of the National Park Service of the USA) and assess gaps requiring development of new materials.

- design iterative training modules geared to the needs of the different client groups covering conservation topics identified in the training needs assessment.

- design additional training materials and teaching aids and procure existing materials as necessary.

- execute the training programme, monitor outcomes, and adjust the strategy as appropriate.

Experience: The contract would be awarded to a private consulting firm with experience in delivering conservation training and with expertise in basic conservation functions and relevant management disciplines.Duration: The contract will run for a period of 48 months, commencing inn year 3. Accountability: The sub-contractor will be responsible to DPNVS for the quality and timeliness of the products required under this contract.

Infrastructure Specifications Park Headquarters:

Area in m2

Cost /m2 Total Cost

Building (lobby + office + work room+ utility + bathroom + exhibit room)

191 US$ 265 / m2

US$ 50.615

External development (porch, deck or covered walk)

80 US$ 180 /m2 US$ 14.400

Chief Ranger house

166 m2

house 80 m2

exterior

US$ 265 / m2

US$ 180 / m2

US$ 43.990US$ 14.400

Ranger Posts:

Area in m2

Cost /m2 Total Cost

Building (lobby + office + work room+ utility+ bathroom)

166 US$ 265 / m2

US$ 43.990

External development (covered walk or deck)

80 US$ 180 /m2 US$ 14.400

Ranger house 166 m2

house 80 m2

US$ 265 / m2

US$ 180 /

US$ 43.990US$ 14.400

exterior m2

Visitor Centre (or Interpretation Center)

Area in m2

Cost /m2 Total Cost

Building (+ exhibit room + office + utility + bathroom)

194 US$ 265 / m2

US$ 51.410

External development (porch, deck or covered walk)

80 US$ 180 /m2 US$ 14.400

Tool Shop

Area in m2

Cost /m2 Total Cost

Building (work room + bathroom)

40 US$ 265 / m2

US$ 10.600

External development (sheltered carport + covered walk)

80 US$ 180 /m2 US$ 14.400

Total Cost US$ 25.000

Camp Site (San Rafael NP)One campground should provide for 120 camp sites on 15 Ha. Minimum distance between sites is 25 metres in woodlands. Each campsite should provide space for a bedding area, a table and cooking facilities: fireplace or barbecue, wood storage and trash disposal. Parking should be available in the vicinity.

TrailsLocated to offer hikers or riders as many interesting views as possible. Interpretative signs should be used. Hiking trails will be as narrow as possible to permit single file use with widened areas every 200 to 400 metres where terrain permits. Pack trails need 2.5 metres of clearing although the tread will be considerable narrower. Connectivity would be maintained throughout the trail network.

ANNEX X: LIST OF REFERENCES

Brandon, K, 1997, Policy and Practical Considerations in Land-Use Strategies for Biodiversity Conservation, in Kramer, R, Schaik, C, Johnson, J. (eds.), Last Stand, Oxford University Press.

Bridgewater, Peter et.al. 1996. Biosphere Reserves and the IUCN System of Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Australian Nature Conservation Agency and MAB. Canberra.

Bryant,D.,Nielsen & Tangley,L. 1997. The Last Frontier Forests, Ecosystems & Economies on the Edge. World Resources Institute with the collaboration of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre and the World Wildlife Fund.

Bucher, Enrique et. al. 1993. Hidrovia un Examen Ambiental Inicial de la Vía Fluvial Paraguay-Paraná. Humedales para Las Américas. Manomet, Mass. USA & Bs.As, Argentina .

Cavalcanti, R.B. 1988. Conservation of birds in the cerrado of central Brazil, in Goriup, P.D. (ed), Conservation of tropical grasslands. ICBP Technical publication no. 7: Cambridge.

Clay, R.P., Capper, D.R., Barnett, J.M., Burfield, I.J., Fariña, R., Kennedy, C.P., Perrens, M. and Pople, R.G. (in press) White-winged Nightjars and Cerrado Conservation: The key findings of Project Aguará Ñu '97. Cotinga 9.

Collar, N.J. 1996. The Conservation of Grassland Birds: Towards a Global Perspective. Pp 9-18 In: Fernández Gutiérrez, J. & Sanz-Zuasti, J., (eds.) Conservación de las Aves Estaparias y su Hábitat. Junta de Castilla y Líon: Valladolid.

Clay, R. P. y Madroño, A. 1997. The first reported nest and eggs of the Russet-winged Spadebill (Platyrinchus leucoryphus). Cotinga 8: 83-85

Dinnerstein, E., et.al. 1995. Una Evaluación del Estado de Conservación de las Eco-regiones Terrestres de América Latina y el Caribe. World Bank – WWF.

DOA, 1996. Mapa de Avance de la Deforestación (1991-1994) 1:1.000.000. Proyecto de Racionalización del Uso de la Tierra: Dirección de Ordenamiento Ambiental/Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería: Asunción, Paraguay.

DPNVS/MAG 1997. Informe Nacional: Areas Silvestres Protegidas del Paraguay-SINASIP. Presented at the 1st Latin American Congress on National Parks & Protected Areas, Santa Marta, Colombia, May 21-18.

DPNVS- FUNDACION DESDELCHACO- TNC. 1997. Programa Parques en peligro. Plan de Trabajo de tres años PN defensores del Chaco.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 1998, Paraguay Country Report, 1st Quarter, 1998, London

Eiten, G. 1972. The Cerrado Vegetation of Brazil. Bot. Rev. 38: 201-341.Eiten, G. 1978. Delimitation of the Cerrado Concept. Vegetatio 36: 169-78.ENAPRENA. 1996. Estrategia Nacional para la Protección y el Manejo de los

Recursos Naturales del Paraguay. De.. M.Grisetti y G Stohr. Proyecto Estrategia Nacional para la Protección de los Recursos Naturales, SSRNMA/MAG-GTZ. Asunción, Paraguay.

ENAPRENA. 1995. Estrategia Nacional para la Protección y el Manejo de los Recursos Naturales Documento Base sobre Biodiversidad. Proyecto Estrategia Nacional para la Protección de los Recursos Naturales, SSRNMA/MAG-GTZ. CONSULFOREST S.R.L. Asunción, Paraguay.

ENAPRENA. 1996. Lineamientos Sectoriales para una Política Nacional de los Recursos Naturales y el Ambiente. Ed. M.Grisetti y G Stohr.

Proyecto Estrategia Nacional para la Protección de los Recursos Naturales, SSRNMA/MAG-GTZ. Revised Version. Asunción, Paraguay.

Fernández Casas, J., R. Garilleti & A. Schinini. 1988. Paraquariae Florae Atlas. Fontqueria 19.

FMAM. 1996. Estrategia Operativa del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial. Washington, D.C.

FUNDACION CHACO Y GEOSURVEY SRL.1992. Areas prioritarias para la conservación en la región occidental del Paraguay. Asunción.

Fundación Moisés Bertoni para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. 1994. Projecto Trinacional de Manejo de Bosque Atlántico Interior, Ia Etapa de los Recursos Ambientales. Cap. Paraguay Vol.I. Abril.

FMB.1996. Reserva Natural del Bosque Mbaracayú. Plan de Manejo 1997-2001. Fundación Moisés Bertoni. Asunción.

Geissler, C. Adapting Social Impact Assessment to Protected Area Development, in Davis, S. 1993. The Social Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation, Global Environment Facility, Washington D.C.

Henderson, A., Galeano, G., & Bernail, R. 1995. Field Guide to the Palms of the Americas. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Kato, H and Torres R. 1997. Evaluación de Mamíferos en el Paraguay. Technical Report. JICA-DPNVS.

Kelsey, M., 1991. Priority Areas for Conservation Action in the Neotropics, World Birdwatch, 13: 8-9

López, Nancy E. 1994. Distribución, ecología y situación de psitácidos del Departamento de Concepción, Paraguay. Thesis. Universidad Nacional de Heredia. Costa Rica.

Lowen, James C. et al. 1996. Biological Surveys & Conservation Priorities in Eastern Paraguay The Final Report of Projects CANOPY’92 & Yacutinga’95. Cambridge, UK. Oct. CSB Conservation Publications.

Madroño N., A., Clay, R. y Hostettler, H. (1997) Sites to Save: San Rafael National Park. World Birdwatch. 19(3): 6-7.

MAG. 1994. Ecosistemas Compartidos-Gran Chaco Americano, Establecimiento de Areas Silvestres Protegidas en la Frontera Paraguaya-Boliviana, Propuesta Base Paraguaya. SSERNMA, DPNVS, Paraguay.

MAG. 1995.Legislación Indígena Legislación Ambiental en el Paraguay. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, Subsecretaria de Estado de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente, Centro de Estudios Humanitarios - CEDHU. Esther Prieto y Enrique Bragayrac. Asunción, Paraguay.

MAG. 1994. Parque Nacional y Area Natural de manejo Integrado Kaa-iya del Gran Chaco. Propuesta Técnica Etnica. Secretaría Nacional de Recursos Naturales y Gestión Ambiental, Subsecretaría de Recursos Naturales. C.A.B.I.-Capitanía del Alto y bajo Izozog/Fundación Ivi-Iyambae/Wildlife Conservation International. Setiembre 1994.

MAG. 1992. Plan Estratégico del Sistema Nacional de Areas Silvestres Protegidas, SINASIP. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, Subsecretaria de Estado de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente. Asunción, Paraguay.

MAG. 1992.Políticas y Estrategias para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad. SSERNMA/DPNVS.

Mereles, F. and Degen,R. 1993. Aspectos Fenológicos de Arboles y Arbustos del Chaco Boreal I. In: Rojasiana. Vol 1(2): 49-78. Universidad Nacional de Asunción. Asunción

Mereles,F. and Degen,R. 1994. Contribución al Estudio de la Flora y la Vegetación del Chaco Boreal Paraguayo. Rojasiana Vol 2 (1): 36-38.

Universidad Nacional de Asunción. AsunciónMereles,F. and Degen,R. 1994. Los Nombres Vulgares de los Arboles y

Arbustos del Chaco Boreal,Paraguay. Rojasiana Vol 2 (2): 102-128. Universidad Nacional de Asunción. Asunción

Mereles,F. and Degen,R. 1997. Las Cortezas Chaqueñas Utilizadas en la Medicina Popular. Rojasiana. Vol 4 (1): 11-24. Universidad Nacional de Asunción. Asunción

Mereles,F. and Degen,R. 1997. Leñosas Colonizadoras e Indicadores de Sitios Modificados en el Chaco Boreal, Paraguay. Rojasiana Vol 4 (1): 25:83. Universidad Nacional de Asunción. Asunción.

Miller, K.R. 1996 Balancing the Scales: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity’s Chances Trough Bioregional Management. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.

MOP. Relevamiento Ecológico para la Identificación del Potencial de Parque Nacional Serranía de San Luis y Zonas Aledañas. Consorcio Parelc-Foragro-Porto Real. Plan de Mitigación de Impactos Indirectos. Vice-Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Dirección de Vialidad. Convenio de Préstamo BID 635/OC-PR. 1997.

Ministerio de Obras Públicas. Estudios de Protección al Medio Ambiente y a las Comunidades, Sub-Proyecto Villarica-San José. Conve. Préstamo BID 744 y 755/OC-PR. Informe Preliminar Goetécnica OC Ing. Consultores.

Museo Nacional. 1996. Colecciones de Flora y Fauna del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay. DPNSVS/SSERNMA/MAG. Paraguay.

PARAGUAY.1996. Producción Agropecuaria 95/96. Síntesis Estadística. MAG. Dirección de Censos y Estadísticas Agropecuarias. Asunción

PARAGUAY. 1995. Necesidades Básicas Insatisfechas, Atlas, Paraguay, 1995. Presidencia de la República, Secretaría Técnica de Planificación/FNUAP-UNDP.

PARAGUAY. 1993. Atlas Censal. Presidencia de la República, Secretaría Técnica de Planificación. Dirección Gral. De Estadística.

PARAGUAY.1992. Informe Nacional UNCED-92. Ministerio de Agricultura. SSERNMA. Asunción

Redford, K., H., A Taber, and J.A. Simonetti. 1990. There is more to Biodiversity than the Tropical Rainforests. Conservation Biol. 4: 328-330

Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J., and Wege, D.C. (1998), Endemic Bird Areas of the World. Cambridge, U.K.: BirdLife International.

Silva, J.M.C. da (1995a) Avian Inventory of the Cerrado region, South America: Implications for Biological Conservation. Pp. 291-304 in Schulenberg, T.S. and Collar, N.J. (eds) In memory of Ted Parker. Bird Conserv. Inter, vol. 5, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Silva, J.M.C. da (1995b) Biogeographic Analyses of the South American Cerrado avifauna. Steenstrupia 21: 49-67.

Silva, J.M.C. da (1995c) Birds of the Cerrado region, South America.Steenstrupia 21: 69-92.

SINASIP, 1993. Plan Estratégico del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del Paraguay. Dirección de Parques Nacionales y Vida Silvestre del Paraguay, Fundación Moisés Bertoni, United States Agency for International Development and the Nature Conservancy.

SSRNMA/MAG/GTZ. 1996. Gestión Ambiental Transfronteriza, Plan ¨Modelo de Gestión Ambiental Transfronteriza para el Desarrollo Sostenible de Departamentos y Municipios que Limitan con Países Miembros del MERCOSUR. Asunción.

SSRNMA/MAG-DPNVS-GTZ. 1996. Conceptos y Metodología para la Elaboración de Planes de Manejo de Areas Silvestres Protegidas ,

Memoria del Taller. Proyecto Estrategia Nacional para la Protección de los Recursos Naturales. Parque Nacional Caaguazú.

TNC. 1997. Programa Parques en Peligro, Parque Nacional Defensores del Chaco, Plan de Trabajo de Tres Años.

Batisse, Michel. Biosphere Reserves and Regional Planning: a Prospective Vision. In: Nature & Resorces Vol.32, No3. UNESCO.

Wege, D. and Long, A.J. 1995. Key Areas for Threatened Birds in the Neotropics. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (Conservation Series no.5).

Willis, E. and Oniki, Y. 1988. Conservation of the Grassland Birds of São Paulo State, Brazil. In Goriup, P.D. (ed), Conservation of Tropical Grasslands. Cambridge: ICBP Technical publication no. 7.

Willis, E.O. and Oniki, Y. 1993. New and Reconfirmed Birds from the State of São Paulo, Brazil, with notes on Disappearing Species. Bull. Brit.

WRI, IUCN, PNUMA. 1992. Estrategia Global para la Biodiversidad. Pautas de Acción para Salvar, Estudiar y Usar en Forma Sostenible y Equitativa la Riqueza Biótica de la Tierra.

Zardini, E.M., 1993. Paraguay’s Floristic Inventory. National Geographic Research & Exploration 9:128-131

· Web viewProject Document. 1. Identifiers. Project Number PAR/98/G31/33/A/1G/99. Name of...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewProject Document. 1. Identifiers. Project Number PAR/98/G31/33/A/1G/99. Name of...