June 2019
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared independently by the United States Forest Service, Office of International Programs.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report –
USAID/Paraguay Forest Conservation and Agriculture
Alliance
Front cover photograph:
Aerial image of typical land clearing patterns for cattle ranching in the Alto Paraguay region of 
northeastern Paraguay. Forested areas correspond to these general classifications: (1) 25% 
forest reserves, (2) 100 meter wide wind breaks, and (3) riparian areas; Alto Paraguay region, 
northeastern Paraguay; copyright - of Yawar Films/WWF-US; used with permission of 
WWF/Paraguay.
MID-TERM 
PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION OF 
USAID/PARAGUAY 
FOREST 
CONSERVATION AND 
AGRICULTURE 
ALLIANCE
GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE 
FOREST CONSERVATION AND AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE; 
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE/SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES 
INITIATIVE
June 30, 2019
Cooperative Agreement Number - AID-OAA-A-15-00065
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

CONTENTS
Acronyms.....................................................................................................................................................................1
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................2
Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions.....................................................................................................11
Project Background..................................................................................................................................................13
Evaluation Methods and Limitations......................................................................................................................16
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations.....................................................................................................19
Annexes......................................................................................................................................................................40
Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work................................................................................................41
Annex II: Evaluation Chronogram............................................................................................................54
Annex III: Evaluation Matrix......................................................................................................................55
Annex IV: Persons Interviewed................................................................................................................58
Annex V: Bibliography of Documents Reviewed...................................................................................60
Annex VI: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest................................................................................61
Annex VII: Evaluation Team Members....................................................................................................64
Annex VIII: Statement of Differences......................................................................................................65
Annex IX: WCS & Neuland Cooperative Commentaries...................................................................70
1
ACRONYMS
AF Atlantic Forest
ARP Paraguayan Rural Association (Asociación Rural del Paraguay)
APAD Asociación de Productores de Agua Dulce
BMP Best Management Practices
CFA Collaboration for Forests and Agriculture
CRS Certified Responsible Soybean
EU European Union
ET Evaluation Team
FCAA Forest Conservation Agriculture Alliance
FECOPROD Federación de Cooperativas de Producción
FY Fiscal Year
GDA Global Development Alliance
GCC Global Climate Change
GFW Global Forest Watch
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GIS Geographic Information System (SIG in Spanish)
GRSB Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef
IFC International Finance Corporation
ISO International Organization for Standardization
INFONA National Forest Institute
LUP Land Use Plan
MADES Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development
MAG Ministry of Agriculture and Cattle
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
PaCha Pantanal Chaco Project
PES Payment for Ecosystem Services
POUT Plan de Ordenamiento Urbano y Territorial
PRSB Paraguayan Roundtable for Sustainable Beef
PRSF Paraguayan Roundtable for Sustainable Finance
SOW Statement of Work
SULU Sustainable Land Use Project
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNICOOP Central Nacional de Cooperativas
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WP Work Plan
WRI World Resource Institute
WWF World Wildlife Fund
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to assess the performance of The Forest Conservation and 
Agriculture Alliance (FCAA) Activity, implemented by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to evaluate the 
activity’s progress to date and to determine whether activity interventions are properly oriented to 
achieve the stated goals.
This performance evaluation is expected to accomplish the following: (1) to fill in evidence and learning 
gaps on activity performance and progress to date not available through regular monitoring efforts; (2) 
to recommend mid-course corrective actions necessary to improve activity effectiveness; and (3) to 
identify opportunities for possible future interventions in the sustainable beef/soy sectors.
The evaluation posed five questions of personnel/organizations within and outside of the FCAA Activity:
1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the FCAA project approach? 
2) What is your vision of the Alliance?
a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being part of the Alliance?
b. Is there enough interest and financial commitment to continue working as an Alliance 
after USAID support ends?
3) Is the current governance, management, and staffing structure for the project effective to ensure 
the achievement of the project's objectives?
a. What are the external communication agreements between members?
b. Is the current governance and management structure effective to ensure the 
achievement of the Alliance’s objectives beyond the life of the project?
4) Does WWF's management and staffing structure address the personnel requirements of the 
project?
a. With organizational chart, clear decision of the roles and responsibilities, and internal 
communications process?
b. Is there a clear strategy for coordination between the different programs that WWF 
implements and the roles of the teams and the personnel assigned to them?
5) Are pilot projects scalable, replicable, and feasible examples of sustainable practices that can be 
required by the Paraguayan Government to approve environmental licenses and land use plans?
The findings and recommendations from this evaluation will help to make necessary adjustments during 
the second half of the ongoing Project (through September 2020) and will also help to identify new or 
expanded interventions in the case that USAID decides to continue supporting this sector in Paraguay.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Agricultural commodities play an important role in contributing to deforestation and the associated 
greenhouse gas emissions throughout the Latin America region. Commodities such as beef, coffee, 
cocoa, palm oil, and soybeans are some of the principle drivers of deforestation globally and throughout 
the region. Until recently, most deforestation was thought to be driven by small-scale producers seeking 
to provide for their families. However, this perception has changed due to increased meat consumption 
3
in increasingly affluent nations, and increased resources required for meat production (e.g., significant 
grazing lands).
In Paraguay, these issues are of critical importance. Paraguay has one of the highest deforestation rates 
in the world, which is driven almost entirely by agriculture. Nearly a quarter of the Paraguayan 
workforce is employed by the agricultural sector, which accounted for nearly 18 percent of the 
country’s overall GDP in 2017. Paraguay is now ranked among the top global producers for both soy 
and beef exports and has plans to expand both. 
Paraguay is split into two agriculturally distinct regions: the Occidental or “Chaco” in the west (which 
includes the Chaco tropical dry forest, the Pantanal savannas and wetlands, and part of the Cerrado); 
and the Oriental Region in the east (which includes the Atlantic Forest and portions of the Cerrado and 
the Humid Chaco). For the past two decades, soy production has primarily taken place in the Oriental 
region. In the Chaco, cattle ranching is the predominant land use. 
There is an urgent need to ensure that the rapid expansion of the agricultural frontier, which continues 
to be fueled by a growing global demand for soy and beef, will be implemented under a sustainable 
development strategy. According to Paraguay’s Ministry for the Environment and Sustainable 
Development (MADES), 1,057,888 hectares were cleared in the Chaco region between January 2014 
and January 2018. In the Atlantic Forest region, where 90 percent of forested lands have already been 
converted to agriculture, the 2005 Zero Deforestation Law has reduced deforestation rates by 80-90 
percent, but the region is still experiencing an average rate of deforestation of 12,000 hectares per year. 
In this region, it is important to stop conversion, effectively manage remaining forests, and restore 
corridors between important remaining forest blocks.
Land use change and conversion of forests to agriculture represents the majority of Paraguay’s 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Under a business as usual scenario, deforestation in Paraguay will 
continue to grow, as will associated GHG emissions.
In response to these challenges, USAID’s Forest Conservation and Agriculture Alliance (FCAA) Activity 
seeks to reduce GHG emissions in the production of beef and soy in Paraguay by increasing investments 
in climate change mitigation with the participation of the private and public sectors. In addition, it aims 
to improve productivity in the beef sector and promote the development of sustainable landscapes.
The Alliance brings together a range of actors uniquely positioned to make this happen. The World 
Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) are serving as the FCAA’s primary 
implementing partners – providing expertise on how to build environmental sustainability into 
agricultural operations. Two private sector partners — Minerva (Paraguay’s second largest beef 
exporter) and the Neuland Cooperative in the Chaco— have joined FCAA. The International Finance 
Corporation (IFC) is also partnering with FCAA, to develop and increase access to favorable financial 
products for producers who adopt more sustainable practices. The Association of Municipalities in the 
Central Chaco is the public sector partner participating in the Alliance.
The overall purpose of this activity is to avoid deforestation and reduce GHG emissions by incentivizing 
a shift from traditional agricultural expansion (which has been associated with forest loss and 
4
degradation, and is fueled by the demand for soy and beef) to a landscape of sustainable agricultural 
production in harmony with protection of forest ecosystems.
EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
This performance evaluation is expected to accomplish the following: (1) to fill in evidence and learning 
gaps on activity performance and progress to date not available through regular monitoring efforts; (2) 
to recommend mid-course corrective actions necessary to improve activity effectiveness; and (3) to 
identify opportunities for possible future interventions in the sustainable beef/soy sectors.
The findings and recommendations from this evaluation will help to make necessary adjustments during 
the second half of the ongoing Activity (through September 2020) and will also help to identify new or 
expanded interventions in the case that USAID decides to continue supporting this sector in Paraguay.
Design: An evaluation Work Plan (WP) was developed to guide the overall process. The WP 
components include the following:
1) Chronogram – details sequencing of discrete evaluation activities;
2) Matrix – listing of five principle questions and sub-questions and data collection methods;
3) Listing of potential people to interview and interview questions per person; and
4) Evaluation team members – roles and responsibilities.
Methods: There were two parts to the project evaluation: the internal Pause and Reflect workshop and 
the external Performance Evaluation.
The purpose of the Pause and Reflect workshop was to bring together the project partners to consider 
how the project was progressing, to discuss the successes and challenges of the project, to identify ways 
to improve the impacts of the current Alliance program, and to identify strategic activities and 
approaches to maximize project impact. During the Pause and Reflect workshop, participants prioritized 
the importance of addressing urgent issues within the framework of external and internal 
communication and defining the vision of the Alliance and guidelines for a mission, governance system,
and communication strategy. Information gathered during the Pause and Reflect workshop helped 
inform development of the evaluation questions.
The purpose of the Mid-Term Performance Evaluation was to assess the performance of The Forest 
Conservation and Agriculture Alliance (FCAA) Activity, implemented by the World Wildlife Fund 
(WWF), to evaluate the activity’s progress to date and to determine whether activity interventions are 
properly oriented to achieve the stated goals. The evaluation began with a desk review of project 
documentation such as project proposal, project strategy, annual reports, M&E plan, monitoring reports 
and data, Performance Monitoring Plan, and Paraguay beef sector reports. During the evaluation field 
work, the Evaluation Team (ET) applied primary data collection methods, primarily semi-structured, in￾depth-interviews of FCAA Project partners and Alliance stakeholders, Government of Paraguay (GOP)
ministry personnel, interested parties not directly affiliated with FCAA; discussions with Project 
managers, technical staff, Best Management Practices (BMP) technical assistance providers; and project 
beneficiaries, as well as non-beneficiaries. Inquiries focused on perceived Project effectiveness, 
constraints inhibiting effectiveness, and suggested means of overcoming these constraints. Key 
informants included FCAA staff, involved USAID/Paraguay personnel, sub-awardee and implementing 
5
partners within Asuncion and the Central Chaco region, and GOP representatives at national and 
municipal levels.
Limitations: Not all ET members were able to participate in the Pause and Reflect Workshop preceding 
the mission. Because of limited time in country, interviews during the Performance Evaluation focused 
on two urban geographic areas: Asuncion and municipal centers in the Central Chaco region. The ET 
did not have the opportunity to interview people working with sustainable soy, nor the opportunity to 
visit the Atlantic Forest in the Oriental region of Paraguay (soy) or the Department of Alto Paraguay in 
extreme northeast Paraguay (cattle). All five of the Evaluation questions focused on cattle production. 
It would have been valuable to have visited cattle ranches and talked with Project ranchers to see 
firsthand on-ranch baselines monitoring work accomplished on ranches; the limited time in-country did 
not allow for this to occur. The ET prioritized activities undertaken in the Central Chaco geographic 
region, where interventions were considered to make a relatively high contribution toward achieving 
overall project objectives. The ET recognizes that the resulting trade-off was inadequate attention to 
non-Central Chaco activities, including the one activity devoted to sustainable soy. This report includes 
observations of activities not visited in the field, but discussed by people interviewed.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the FCAA project approach?
Fifteen “strengths” identified detail the aspects of FCAA that partners, and people/organizations with no 
affiliation to FCAA, perceive the implementing partner to be doing well and advancing the overall 
purpose and objectives of FCAA (fifteen strengths are defined in “Findings, Conclusions, 
Recommendations” section of the report). The “strengths” listing focuses exclusively on cattle ranching 
in the Chaco. An analysis of “weaknesses” (20 identified) demonstrates opportunities to make 
improvements to FCAA implementation so that the Project is more effective and leads to improved 
accomplishments within the three Sub-Purposes and corresponding outputs/inputs.
The three Sub-Purposes in the FCAA Logistical Framework relate to supply, demand, and land use 
management. “Demand side” work has made little significant progress in addressing the fostering of 
demand from differentiated markets and the securing of large scale commitment and private sector 
leadership (Outputs 3.1 and 3.2 of the FCAA Logical Framework). The implementing partner has 
devoted much effort to this area of work, but it appears the supply-side of the equation is not ready for 
demanding international beef purchasers to make significant purchases at this time as a result of the 
quantity of beef available to enter into these markets. Sub-Purpose 1 focuses on increased supply of 
sustainably produced beef and soy, and advances under this sub-purpose have been positive, as 
demonstrated by an increase in beef supply. There have also been positive advances that have occurred 
in Sub-Purpose 2, which focuses on increasing of sustainable land use management of key landscapes. 
However, two areas emerged during interviews as those needing additional development: (1) Payment 
for Ecosystem Services (PES) and (2) alternative livelihoods for smallholders.
2) What is your vision of the Alliance?
The original vision for the Alliance stated a focus on reducing carbon emissions. Many conservative 
cattle ranchers in the Chaco region do not embrace the scientific consensus on Global Climate Change 
(GCC), and if they do, they see the solution in the hands of developed countries that produce the 
majority of carbon emissions. The original “project goal” regarding GHG emissions can be distracting 
for rural ranchers in the Chaco from the important message of sustainable cattle management that 
conserves Chaco forests. (Cooperative Agreement text – “Project goal: By 2019, reduce GHG 
emissions and increase productivity in the production of soybeans, associated rotational crops and beef 
in Paraguay by increasing investments in climate change mitigation with the participation of the private 
6
and public sectors.”) FCAA should place emphasis on all the positive benefits of forest conservation 
(Logical Framework “purpose”) with beneficiaries, while decreasing attention placed on GHG emissions 
reductions (Logical Framework “goal”).
When asked Sub-question 1 regarding advantages and disadvantages of being a part of the Alliance, all 
people interviewed stated that the Alliance has gone a long way to significantly improve the 
relationship/confidence and levels of dialogue between the broader Paraguayan environmental non￾governmental organization (NGO) community and Chaco cattle producers. The Alliance has helped 
move the constituents from a toxic to a productive environment. In many ways, this is a real, significant 
success story of the FCAA-founded Alliance, albeit one not reflected in FCAA official accomplishments 
to USAID/Paraguay. When asked Sub-question 2 regarding if there was enough interest and financial 
commitment to continue working as an Alliance after USAID support ends, most people interviewed 
indicated it is unlikely the Alliance will survive as an organization without the direct support/leadership 
of the FCAA implementing partner.
3) Is the current governance, management, and staffing structure for the project effective to ensure the 
achievement of the project's objectives?
Two areas of implementing partner staffing need addressing: (1) the need for an increase in the number 
of field-going range management technicians and (2) the need for a full-time communication specialist. 
There were concerns among people interviewed regarding project governance, as many felt the lack of 
governance from the beginning of the project, combined with poor internal and external 
communication, has resulted in a general lack of knowledge about project functions among Project 
stakeholders. The implementing partner needs to improve sharing of annual reports and other relevant 
information with Project stakeholders as well as select non-Project stakeholders, such as the MADES, 
MAG, and INFONA.
4) Does WWF's management and staffing structure address the personnel requirements of the 
project?
Overall, the implementing partner’s in-place team is professional and motivated. However, existing 
range technicians are stretched thinly to cover a lot of territory and to work with many cattle 
producers. Additionally, the current part-time, lead communications specialist is unable to devote the 
time/resources that the position requires. Most of the partially USAID-funded FCAA staff in Asuncion 
are also financed from various other funding sources and competing priorities amongst non-USAID 
funded WWF projects working in the Chaco dictate how personnel are worked on any given day.
When asked Sub-questions 1 and 2 regarding clear roles and responsibilities of staff and strategy for 
coordination among projects, implementing partner staff indicated they communicate among themselves, 
but there is a general lack of coordination and communication outside of the implementing partner 
organization.
5) Are pilot projects scalable, replicable and feasible examples of sustainable practices that can be 
required by the Paraguayan Government to approve environmental licenses and land use plans?
Consensus among individuals interviewed was that pilot projects are feasible, but insufficient information
exists today to credibly/scientifically state that pilot projects are either scalable or replicable. ET 
believes that with a thorough analysis of the effectiveness of current pilot projects, the results could
show that pilot projects are both scalable and replicable.
7
Recommendations:
The following recommendations from this evaluation are presented in prioritized order and will help to
both make necessary adjustments during the second half of the ongoing Activity and identify 
new/expanded interventions.
1) A multi-stakeholder Alliance (separate from FCAA) exists in theory, but the Alliance has no 
formal structure, poor communications (amongst members and the broader Chaco cattle 
producing community), and no defined roles/responsibilities. To use an analogy from protected 
area management, the Alliance exists at this time as a “paper park”. A “paper park” is a national 
protected area that exists on maps and within official documents at the national-level of a 
country, but the reality of a protected area on-the-ground is another matter. Recommendations 
to address this issue include the following:
a. Develop a governance plan.
b. Investigate the best manner to involve GOP ministries (MAG, MADES, and INFONA) 
within the Alliance.
c. Develop a communication plan for the Alliance.
d. Above actions will, to no guarantee, improve the likelihood that the Alliance has a life 
beyond FCAA.
2) Project to develop an overall communications strategy. ET recommends contracting with a 
third-party Paraguayan entity to do a thorough analysis of FCAA’s current communication 
operations. Follow up with recommendations; if necessary, it may be beneficial to consider how 
to re-structure FCAA’s overall communication operation, addressing both internal and external 
communications. Note that currently, the primary communication specialist works part-time. 
Recommendations to address this issue include the following:
a. Investigate the need for a full-time communication specialist;
b. Analysis to address all aspects of an effective communication strategy.
c. Implementing partner to continue the important communication task of 
maintaining/improving the relationship between Chaco cattle producers and the 
Paraguayan environmental NGO community.
3) Implementing partner staffing:
a. Two current field, range management specialists are very effective, but the required 
work to be accomplished is more than either individual can accomplish in an effective 
manner. Investigate the employment of up to two additional range technicians to 
provide quality services to Chaco cattle producers. These additional personnel will be 
needed as FCAA moves from baseline data collection of private ranches to BMP 
implementation. The final number of additional range technicians to be determined via 
the next FCAA Work Plan.
b. At this time the implementing partner has one part time (100% FCAA funded) 
communications specialist; a part-time person is not capable of meeting the 
communications demands of the FCAA Project. Recommendation - employ one full￾time communications specialist.
c. By employing additional technical range personnel, FCAA should make corresponding 
cuts to less than 100% FCAA-funded staff. Positions to consider for a significant 
reduction of level of effort: climate change mitigation specialist, finance and 
administrative personnel, and secondary monitoring and evaluation personnel.
d. At this stage of FCAA implementation, there are part-time positions that are no longer 
necessary; those positions should be eliminated and resulting cost savings reassigned to 
8
other resource areas, including market development, incentives, and working with the 
financial sector to improve access to rancher credit.
e. Undertake a thorough review of their organizational chart to align it with where the 
Project is at this stage of implementation.
f. Develop a concise chart that clearly shows all the linkages between FCAA, its staff, all 
other non-USAID funded implementation partner projects working in the Chaco, the 
aim is to demonstrate potential synergistic effects of multiple projects.
4) FCAA has produced two high quality, comprehensive BMP Manuals; each Manual is more than 
130 pages. While the overall length and thoroughness of each Manual is deemed appropriate, a 
significant impediment to their adoption/use by field-level cattle producers is their length. FCAA 
should produce a pocket-sized version of the BMP Manuals that only focuses on practical, field￾level BMP implementation. The overall “tone” of the pocket-sized handbook should be 100% 
practical with emphasis on how BMPs are installed in the field. BMP implementation should be 
coupled with hands-on technical assistance by Project range technicians to ensure that the BMPs 
are being successfully implemented in the field. Develop a “user-friendly” training package to 
disseminate important elements of BMP Manuals to Chaco cattle ranchers.
5) Re-focus the Project’s geographic foci from two broad ecoregions (Atlantic forest and Chaco) 
to focus on the Chaco region, working exclusively in sustainable cattle production. The 
rationale for this shift is that during the implementation to date of FCAA, the role sustainable 
soy plays in FCAA has gone from initially significant, to minimal as of March 2018. Project should 
focus its efforts in one area for the remainder of the time said area being all that implies for 
sustainable cattle production in the Chaco. This recommendation is not for a wholesale “walking 
away” from the eastern/soy region of Paraguay, FCAA to continue with any contractual 
obligations with soy producers and purchasers, but undertake no new soy initiatives. If a “phase 
two” of FCAA should result, recommend the project solely focus on sustainable cattle ranching 
in the Chaco region.
6) Sub-Purpose 3 addresses the topic of “increased demand for more sustainably produced 
Paraguayan beef and soy,” which is a well-conceived objective. FCAA has expended much work 
in this area, but with minimal results due to conditions (criteria for sustainable beef: social and 
environmental) not being in place at this time to effect an increase in demand for sustainable 
beef. Conditions are not currently in place for Chaco cattle producers to enter demanding 
international markets (Japan, EU for example) due to a lack of widespread BMP implementation. 
Recommend the same level of effort in this area, but the implementation partner should change 
their strategic approach; consider utilization of a “jurisdictional approach”.
7) FCAA partner WCS has done very good work in identifying biodiversity/mammals located on 
Chaco ranch lands, inclusive of both pastures and forest lands. Land owners have responded 
very positively to the monitoring work done by WCS. Their bio-monitoring results have been 
widely disseminated. Two recommendations:
a. From now forward, deemphasize WCS monitoring work; FCAA to place more 
emphasis on on-the-ground BMP implementation;
b. WCS should undertake a survey of Alto Paraguay and Chaco Central cattle 
farmer/model farms and farms receiving no FCAA assistance, to determine if cattle 
farmers discern a linkage between biodiversity conservation and forest reserves. Such a 
survey would help determine if a hard linkage exists between the biodiversity 
monitoring accomplished to date and forest conservation.
8) Replicate cadaster strengthening work done for the Municipality of Filadelfia with the other 
three municipal governments of the Central Chaco region: (1) Mariscal Estigarriba, (2) Loma 
9
Plata, and (3) Primer Teniente Manuel Irala Fernandez. Such an initiative would mesh well with 
the Chaco Integrado partnership formed by the same four municipalities. If this initiative were to 
be undertaken, it would be beneficial to replicate the same successful process used with 
Municipality of Filadelfia.
9) Recommend a Pause and Reflect workshop late this fiscal year, just prior to implementation 
partner preparation of their FY2020 Work-Plan, so that the Work Plan better reflects partner 
needs. For any potential future projects of this nature, conduct a Pause and Reflect workshop at 
the end of year one of implementation and again in two years’ time. The use of professional 
facilitators helps to best manage workshop time.
10) Increase work in the area of “input 1.2.1 – financial instruments” that focuses on Chaco cattle 
producers who find it challenging to obtain financial institution credit. Chaco cattle producers 
not connected to a cooperative face significant obstacles obtaining credit to implement more 
costly BMPs. It would be opportune to collaborate with the Paraguayan Roundtable for 
Sustainable Finance to investigate financial incentives for BMP implementation at the field-level.
11) PES is an “input” of Sub-Purpose 2; implementing partner has worked in fulfilling this input, but 
has been met with minimal results, especially when tied to forests controlled by Chaco 
indigenous groups. ET understands the implementing partner has an on-going study in this area, 
but it is believed PES is not currently a viable solution to Chaco forest conservation. At a 
reduced level of effort, continue to explore discrete opportunities, but without expending 
significant resources.
12) Prior to the inception of FCAA, USAID/Paraguay produced a well-crafted Logical Framework. 
Critical assumptions and conditions changed over time through the implementation of the 
project. The FCAA Goal and Purpose should remain unchanged. Sub-Purpose 1 and 2 remain 
equally valid and should not be modified, except for the focus on cattle production at the 
expense of soy. Sub-Purpose 3 (increased demand) was originally well conceived and 
implemented by the implementing partner. Many results from Sub-Purpose 3 have not met 
expectations. Recommend the Logical Framework be reviewed/modified prior to August 2019 
so that a modified Framework can inform development of the Fiscal Year 2020 Work-Plan.
13) Immediately begin to investigate opportunities to best involve GOP ministries within the 
Alliance. Their involvement is key for several reasons: (1) obtain their support for Alliance 
goals/objectives, and (2) to improve their capacities to incorporate sustainable development 
standards promoted by FCAA into their environmental management policies and environmental 
licenses/permits. If a “Jurisdictional Approach” is adopted by FCAA, then the support of GOP 
ministries will be necessary. Include those GOP ministries that have a direct role in cattle 
management, Environmental License issuance, and forest management/conservation.
14) The Goal of FCAA is very clear and well designed, but the message of GCC and reduction of 
carbon emissions does not resonate well amongst conservative Mennonite cooperatives in the 
Central Chaco region (GCC is not a shared significant concern for them). ET recommends this 
FCAA Goal not be in the principle message to Alliance members, Chaco cooperatives, or rural 
cattle farmers. Rather, the public message for FCAA should focus on the Project’s “Purpose”, 
the conservation of Chaco forests.
15) FCAA to work with Alliance to create a process to seek a shared common vision of a 
sustainable future for Chaco cattle producers. The vision would be to incorporate many 
elements of municipal Land Use Plans and beyond.
16) FCAA conclude the important work of establishing baseline data for the 20 model farms and 
then move into the important work of implementing BMPs on-the-ground. In the case of small￾to medium-scale ranchers who lack the financial means currently to undertake the more 
10
expensive BMPs, begin with the implementation of those BMPs that do not require significant 
expenditures of capital. Concurrently, continue the important work of collaborating with the 
Paraguay financial sector to obtain needed financing for BMP implementation for small- to 
medium-sized producers.
17) The life of the Alliance beyond the life of the project is uncertain. Recommend the Alliance 
develop a vision apart from FCAA goals/objectives that work to support sustainable cattle 
production in the Chaco. Additionally, continue working with these entities that FCAA has 
spawned and/or supported:
a. Integrated Chaco;
b. Paraguayan Sustainable Finance Roundtable;
c. Paraguayan Sustainable Beef Roundtable.
18) FCAA’s implementing partner has several other projects operating in the broader Chaco region 
(inclusive of Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina) that are financed by the Moore Foundation, 
Government of The Netherlands, and others. In any potential future USAID/Paraguay initiative 
similar to FCAA, it would be very effective for all entities to come to the table during project 
development to prevent a duplication of activities.
19) Model rancher visits/interchanges (information and sharing of experiences) at three levels: (1) 
between cattle farmers in Alto Paraguay and Chaco Central regions, (2) between FCAA Project 
ranches and sustainably managed Paraguay ranches beyond the Chaco region, and (3) between 
FCAA project ranchers and sustainably managed ranchers in adjoining countries with Chaco or 
Chaco-like ecosystems (i.e. nearby Argentina or Brazil).
11
EVALUATION PURPOSE & 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
EVALUATION PURPOSE
The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to assess the performance of The Forest Conservation and 
Agriculture Alliance (FCAA) Activity, implemented by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to evaluate the 
activity’s progress to date and to determine whether activity interventions are properly oriented to 
achieve the stated goals.
This performance evaluation is expected to accomplish the following: (1) to fill in evidence and learning 
gaps on activity performance and progress to date not available through regular monitoring efforts; (2) 
to recommend mid-course corrective actions necessary to improve activity effectiveness; and (3) to 
identify opportunities for possible future interventions in the sustainable beef/soy sectors.
The findings and recommendations from this evaluation will help to make necessary adjustments during 
the second half of the ongoing Activity (through September 2020) and will also help to identify new or 
expanded interventions in the case that USAID decides to continue supporting this sector in Paraguay.
The primary evaluation audiences are: 
• USAID Mission in Paraguay and the Environment Team in the Latin America and Caribbean 
(LAC) Bureau’s Regional and Sustainable Development Office (LAC/RSD);
• FCAA partners: WWF, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Minerva Foods Inc., Neuland 
Cooperative, the Association of Municipalities in the Central Chaco, and the International 
Finance Corporation (IFC); and
• Paraguayan Government (Ministry for the Environment and Sustainable Development, National 
Forestry Institute), environmental NGOs, private sector companies working in beef production.
USAID will also disseminate the evaluation findings to secondary audiences, such as other USAID 
Missions working on related programming, E3’s Global Climate Change (GCC) Office’s Sustainable 
Landscapes team and the Forest and Biodiversity Team, and USAID’s Office of Land and Urban. Other 
donor partners such as the United Nations Development Programme’s “Green Commodities Program” 
and the Paraguayan chapter of the Roundtable on Sustainable Beef will also be interested in the findings, 
as would global partnerships such as the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The evaluation posed five questions of personnel/organizations within and outside of the FCAA Activity. 
It is important to note that the evaluation questions were refined with USAID following the Pause and 
Reflect Workshop and do not necessarily reflect the same wording as the original questions stated in 
the SOW. However, these final evaluation questions were approved in the Evaluation Matrix as part of 
the workplan. The recommendations that resulted from this evaluation are presented in the “Findings, 
Conclusions, and Recommendations” section of the report.
12
The five performance evaluation questions are as follows:
1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the FCAA project approach?
2) What is your vision of the Alliance?
a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being part of the Alliance?
b. Is there enough interest and financial commitment to continue working as an Alliance 
after USAID support ends?
3) Is the current governance, management, and staffing structure for the project effective to ensure 
the achievement of the project's objectives?
a. What are the external communication agreements between members?
b. Is the current governance and management structure effective to ensure the 
achievement of the Alliance's objectives beyond the life of the Project?
4) Does WWF's management and staffing structure address the personnel requirements of the 
project?
a. With respect to the organizational chart, clear decision of the roles and responsibilities, 
and internal communications process?
b. Is there a clear strategy for coordination between the different programs that WWF 
implements and the roles of the teams and the personnel assigned to them?
5) Are pilot projects scalable, replicable, and feasible examples of sustainable practices that can be 
required by the Paraguayan Government to approve environmental licenses and land use plans?
13
PROJECT BACKGROUND
USAID’s Forest Conservation and Agriculture Alliance (FCAA) Project seeks to reduce Greenhouse 
Gas (GHG) emissions in the production of beef and soy in Paraguay by increasing investments in climate 
change mitigation with the participation of the private and public sectors. In addition, it aims to improve 
productivity in the beef sector and promote the development of sustainable landscapes.
The Alliance brings together a range of actors uniquely positioned to accomplish its mission. The World 
Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) are serving as the FCAA’s primary 
implementing partners, providing expertise on how to build environmental sustainability into agricultural 
operations. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is also partnering with FCAA to develop and 
increase access to favorable financial products for producers who adopt more sustainable practices. 
Two private sector partners, Minerva (Paraguay’s second largest beef exporter) and Neuland 
Cooperative in the Chaco, have joined FCAA, and the Association of Municipalities in the Central 
Chaco is the public sector partner participating in the Alliance. 
Given the organizations that are participating as partners in the Alliance, most of the Activity focus to 
date has been in the Chaco region working on the beef sector. There have been a limited number of 
activities focusing on the drivers of deforestation from the soy sector in the Atlantic Forest (eastern) 
region of the country. The Alliance works together with the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), 
an international multi-stakeholder initiative that works to promote sustainable soy production and to 
support selected soy farmers to make the final step toward RTRS certification. The project is also 
providing a grant to a local NGO, A Todo Pulmon (ATP), to implement reforestation components in the 
soy belt.
The overall purpose of this Activity is to avoid deforestation and reduce GHG emissions by incentivizing 
a shift from traditional agricultural expansion (which has been associated with forest loss and 
degradation and is fueled by the demand for soy and beef) to a landscape of sustainable agricultural 
production in harmony with protection of forest ecosystems. The Forest Conservation Agriculture 
Alliance is working to achieve this by focusing on three main lines of action; each line of action has its 
own Theory of Change:
1. Increasing the supply of sustainably produced beef and soy 
Standards for Best Sustainable Practices (BSPs) have been tailored to two distinct geographic regions 
(Central Chaco and Alto Paraguay [northeast Chaco region]) and are being implemented by producers. 
The FCAA seeks to slow traditional agricultural expansion, and associated forest land clearing
(significant source of carbon emissions), by providing win-win outcomes for producers through their 
voluntary adoption of BSPs; this occurs by increasing their productivity and securing access to new 
markets. FCAA is implementing the BSPs that will help producers generate increased income on their 
farms in a sustainable way, without the need to expand into forested areas. At the same time, FCAA is 
identifying markets and traders that recognize this as a key element in their procurement strategy.
In addition, FCAA is promoting incentives for producers to adopt BSPs. Issues surrounding the supply 
chain in relation to producers being influenced by demand for sustainable product include the following: 
14
(i) Generating increased markets for Paraguayan beef and soy provides an incentive for producers to 
adopt the BSPs;
(ii) Ensuring that the product can be traced from the sustainably operated farms – and through the 
supply chain – is the only way buyers can be assured that they get the product they want; 
(iii) Positive recognition of producers adopting BSPs provides a reputational incentive; and
(iv) To maintain access to markets, producers must be able to generate an adequate supply; access 
to finance bolsters producers’ ability to generate that supply.
Theory of change: If producers are connected to markets via traders demanding sustainability; if their 
product can be successfully traced through the supply chain; if they have the financing to generate 
enough supply to meet the needs of their buyers; and if they are recognized for their efforts, they will be 
more likely to adopt BMPs. If they adopt BSPs, deforestation will be reduced, and along with it, GHG emissions.
2. Increasing the sustainable land use management of key landscapes
FCAA enables policies and sustainable landscapes visions. FCAA is designing and implementing a 
Sustainability Vision for given landscapes (Chaco and Atlantic Forest regions), incorporating economic, 
environmental, and social variables. In combination with the FCAA’s technical assistance for the 
implementation of actions toward the vision and strategies, plus mapping and monitoring methodologies 
in place and, the support/strengthening of enforcement agencies, the existing laws will more effectively 
achieve their goal of curtailing the loss of forests.
In parallel, FCAA supports improved land use management and forest restoration. FCAA is bolstering 
the implementation of the existing laws (the forest code, zero-deforestation law, Payment for Ecosystem 
Services (PES) law, and others) designed to stem forest loss and develop livelihood options for small￾holders that are tied to healthy forest ecosystems and BSP implementation in agriculture. The Forest 
Law has a requirement for reforestation under certain conditions; FCAA provides technical support for 
reforestation and restoration efforts, making those efforts more successful. Developing forest￾dependent alternative livelihoods for smallholders is designed to address the –issue that many 
smallholders are so financially strapped that they are renting their lands to agricultural developers.
Theory of change: If smallholders can make a living that is tied to a healthy forest ecosystem, then they 
will be financially able to withstand the offers to rent their land, and will maintain their forests intact.
3. Increasing demand for more sustainably produced beef and soy.
The supply chains for soy and beef stretch from the producer to the trader to the corporate buyers to 
the retailers to the consumers; efforts are needed to spur demand throughout the supple chain. 
Initiatives under this component are two-pronged: (1) focus on demonstrating that there are 
differentiated markets that are interested in paying more for sustainable beef (business case) and (2) 
promoting and supporting the implementation of deforestation-free commitments of traders and 
retailers on a larger scale (in coordination and cooperation with the Collaboration for Forest and 
Agriculture and Green Commodities initiatives).
Theory of change: If importers desiring sustainable products are more aware of the availability of 
sustainably-produced products available from Paraguay, then links can be established with traders, and 
producers will have an incentive to adopt BSPs and FCAA can demonstrate that there is a business case 
15
for adopting BSPs. If links are established between importers desiring sustainable products, through 
trade fairs, networking events and marketing campaigns, then demand will increase, sales contracts can be 
signed, and sustainable products will flow through the supply chain.
Also, if key companies are enabled to be more effective in cleaning their supply chains by strengthening 
their commitments to deforestation-free commodities, and if producers are enabled to adopt practices 
that yield better environmental performance, then it is possible to make a difference using sourcing 
commitments to drive improved practices through the supply chain, as downstream market actors are 
an increasingly potent leverage point for influencing the production of beef and soy. The companies that 
have made early commitments will spur other key companies to implement their own commitments to eliminate 
any remaining deforestation in their beef and soy supply chains.
16
EVALUATION METHODS & 
LIMITATIONS
METHODOLOGY:
A detailed Evaluation Design Matrix was developed utilizing USAID evaluation resources located within 
USAID’s Learning Lab publically-accessible website. USAID/Paraguay reviewed/approved the Design 
Matrix to ensure the proposed methodology concurred with Mission expectations. The evaluation used
a primarily qualitative approach through participant interviews. The open-ended questions utilized in an 
interview allowed for in-depth information collection on opinions and experiences for which a 
quantitative data collection method would not allow. The Evaluation Design Matrix was a primary 
component of the overall Work Plan (WP) for the evaluation; the WP was developed prior to the 
interview process and approved by USAID/Paraguay. Primary WP components (reference Annexes II
and III) included:
1) Chronogram – details sequencing of discrete evaluation activities;
2) Matrix – listing of five principle questions and sub-questions, along with data collection methods;
3) Listing of potential people to interview and interview questions per person; and
4) Evaluation team members – roles and responsibilities.
The evaluation began with a desk review of project documentation, such as project proposal, project 
strategy, annual reports, M&E plan, monitoring reports and data, Performance Monitoring Plan/Results 
Tracking Table, and Paraguay beef sector reports. The team also reviewed Government of Paraguay 
(GOP) strategies addressing the forest conservation sector, beef and soy sectors, and environmental 
sector regarding “environmental licenses” (needed to clear land for agricultural/range purposes) issued 
by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADES in Spanish).
During the evaluation field work, the ET applied primary data collection methods, primarily semi￾structured, in-depth-interviews of FCAA and Alliance stakeholders, GOP ministry personnel, entities
working on sustainable beef production and land use management not directly affiliated with FCAA;
discussions with Project managers, technical staff, Best Management Practices (BMP) technical assistance 
providers; and project beneficiaries, as well as non-beneficiaries. Inquiries focused on perceived Project
effectiveness, constraints inhibiting effectiveness, and suggested means of overcoming these constraints.
Key informants included FCAA staff, involved USAID/Paraguay personnel, sub-awardee and 
implementing partners within Asuncion and the Central Chaco region, and GOP representatives at 
national and municipal levels.
Because of limited time spent in the field, fieldwork did not include direct observation of Project 
activities such as on-ranch implementation of BMPs or biodiversity monitoring work performed; ET 
visited one municipal land planning unit and viewed FCAA-supported mapping products.
17
Sample:
Project personnel, USAID staff, and lead evaluator selected a mixed sample of interview sites/people, 
representing the Central Chaco agro-ecological zone and stakeholders/non-stakeholders in the City of 
Asuncion. Other considerations for sample selection included the ET’s ability to visit multiple sites in 
the time available for the evaluation. The ET conducted 37 key informant interviews; reference Annex 
IV for a listing of people interviewed.
Analysis:
Daily, the ET recorded field notes and convened regularly to discuss and process emerging findings. The 
ET thus began preliminary analysis in-country during and after fieldwork. The Pause and Reflect 
Workshop immediately prior to the ET field provided initial findings to a sub-set of the ET. The ET 
continued its analysis post-mission using qualitative analytical methods.
LIMITATIONS:
Sustainable soy production in the eastern/Atlantic Forest region was an initial area of FCAA work, 
especially in the area of soy certification (achieving international sustainability standards). Over time 
FCAA moved to focus a preponderance of activities in the Chaco region working in sustainable cattle 
production. The ET’s SOW did not include interviewing people working with sustainable soy, nor 
visiting the eastern/soy region of Paraguay. Additionally, all five of the Evaluation questions focused on 
cattle production. As a result of the lack of prioritization of sustainable soy production in the evaluation, 
the ET has recommended completely shifting the project focus to sustainable cattle production rather 
than soy.
Not all ET members were able to participate in the Pause and Reflect Workshop preceding the mission. 
The varied experience of ET members was both a challenge and a benefit: a challenge in that not all ET 
members were thoroughly familiar with the USAID performance evaluation process, and a benefit in 
that “fresh eyes” from varied professional backgrounds brought new analytical insights to the table. To 
mitigate this challenge, when in-country, the ET members worked diligently as a functioning team to 
share their observations and interpretations and traveled together in the field to ensure consistency in 
observation and interpretation.
Considering the ET’s in-country time, interviews focused on two urban geographic areas: Asuncion and 
three municipal centers in the Central Chaco region; no on-ranch interviews were undertaken. Limited 
in-country time (March 18 – 27 [not inclusive of travel days]) precluded travel to two important FCAA 
work areas: Atlantic Forest region of eastern Paraguay and the Department of Alto Paraguay in the 
extreme northeast region of Paraguay. Additionally, it would have been valuable to have visited, and 
talked with, Project ranchers and cattle ranches, and to have seen firsthand baseline monitoring work
accomplished on ranches; limited time in-country did not allow for this to occur. However, the ET was 
able to interview two Alto Paraguay cattle farmers who have FCAA model farms; one interview took 
place in Asuncion and the other in Filadelfia.
Given the allotted time for fieldwork, the ET did not review all field interventions promoted by the 
project. The ET prioritized those activities undertaken in the Central Chaco geographic region that had
interventions considered as making a relatively high contribution toward achieving overall project 
18
objectives. The ET recognizes that the resulting trade-off was inadequate attention to non-Central 
Chaco activities, including the one region devoted to sustainable soy activities. This report includes 
observations of activities not visited in the field, yet discussed by people interviewed.
19
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & 
RECOMMENDATIONS
Principle recommendations derive from responses of people interviewed regarding the five questions 
USAID/Paraguay selected for the ET. Additionally, numerous findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations arose apart from USAID/Paraguay’s listing of five questions as a result of responses 
from people interviewed. The Methodology section of this report details how numerous FCAA 
stakeholders, and people not directly affiliated with FCAA, provided responses that directly led to the 
following recommendations.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
This section of the report includes both Findings and Conclusions. Findings/Conclusions are not co￾mingled, rather for each of the Five Principle SOW Questions, and associated sub-questions, Findings 
and Conclusions are presented separately. Findings are factual statements based on the data collected 
during the interview process; ET opinions are not included. Conclusions synthesize and interpret the 
findings and judgements are made by the ET that are supported by one or more specific findings.
1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the FCAA project approach? 
With the concurrence of USAID/Paraguay, the scope of Question One was expanded beyond what was 
initially contemplated. Initially, Question One only focused on the strengths/weaknesses of the project 
approach as perceived by FCAA non-partners; the scope was expanded to list the perceived 
strengths/weaknesses by both non-partners and FCAA partners. Of note is that of the 37 people 
interviewed, the majority had neither an overwhelming number of strength nor weakness comments, 
although the ET received more weakness responses than strength responses.
Weaknesses were interpreted by most people interviewed as Project areas in need of improvement. 
For each of the following “weaknesses” (Project areas needing improvement), a corresponding 
“recommendation” has been provided in the Recommendation section of this Report. In lieu of listing 
all the strengths/weaknesses, the ET determined the 15 most important areas to provide as “strengths”. 
“Weaknesses” voiced by interviewees were more numerous than “strengths,” therefore the 20 most
significant weaknesses are listed.
FINDINGS - Project Strengths:
1) Through the Alliance partnership, the Project brings together representatives from two broad 
sectors that have traditionally had an acrimonious relationship: (1) cattle/beef production and (2) 
Paraguayan environmental groups. Through four years of the FCAA Project, a level of 
confidence has developed between Alliance partners, something that did not exist prior to the 
inception of FCAA. Confidence leads to the building of trust between actors.
2) The Alliance works with partners from diverse sectors: cattle/beef producers, environmental 
NGOs, beef industry, financial sector, and a municipal government.
20
3) Alliance partners have widely different goals and objectives as individual entities, but through the 
Alliance are working together to achieve a common goal – sustainable (encompassing social, 
environmental, and economic standards) cattle production that works to conserve Chaco 
forests.
4) FCAA works to create and strengthen important, independent Paraguayan bodies:
o Paraguayan Roundtable for Sustainable Beef – FCAA collaborated in its development;
o Paraguayan Roundtable for Sustainable Finance (Mesa Paraguaya de Finanzas Sostenible in 
Spanish) – created prior to FCAA
o Chaco Integrado – a formal organization of the four municipal governments covering the 
Central Chaco region, with the goal of bringing together various projects and initiatives 
that are executed in the Chaco and coordinating and integrating them sustainably to 
achieve efficiency and effectiveness; FCAA collaborated in its development.
5) Synergies have developed working with other actors that are considered “non-traditional” for 
the implementing partner. This is beneficial to the implementing partner because they have been 
able to successfully collaborate with organizations with whom they had be unsuccessful working 
in the past.
6) Strengthening of the Municipality of Filadelfia’s “land use planning” office; with FCAA hardware 
and training support, a fully functioning Land Use Planning office now exists that provides 
information on land ownership, land cover, etc. This is important because the Municipality of 
Filadelfia can now more easily manage and track land use changes in their municipality. 
7) Leveraging of funds by partners demonstrates their seriousness to work together in the 
Alliance. Leveraging is positive because different partners are able to do more with the modest 
funding from FCAA.
8) Project produced two Best Management Practices (BMP) Manuals for cattle management
(Central Chaco and Alto Paraguay regions).
9) Project working to conserve Chaco forests within two broad geographic areas that have seen 
significant deforestation and cattle ranch development over the last 20 years:
o Alto Paraguay (northeastern section of Paraguay)
o Chaco Central
10) Chaco cattle producers in the Alliance desire to (1) produce cattle without destroying forests 
that are important for biodiversity conservation and as carbon sinks for global climate change 
mitigation; and (2) comply with Government of Paraguay ([GOP] [INFONA]) forest 
conservation regulations.
11) There is increased cattle producer interest in wildlife conservation and the conservation of key 
species through work done by sub-grantee Wildlife Conservation Society.
12) Producers now realize that cattle production and forest conservation are complementary since 
there are now niche/incipient markets demanding sustainably produced beef; large-scale markets 
do not now exist for sustainably produced beef from the Chaco.
13) In the opinion of the Superintendent of Filadelfia, the municipality now has 5th best cadaster/GIS 
system in Paraguay, which is a vast improvement from the beginning of the Project.
14) Private sector Alliance partners potential/forthcoming utilization of the Alliance to better 
position themselves for international beef markets; highlighting the sustainable nature of their 
products to better enter demanding niche markets for specific cuts of beef and obtain higher 
economic returns due to access to these niche markets.
21
FINDINGS - Project Weaknesses:
1) The established structure (formal bylaws, roles/responsibilities, membership, etc.) of the 
Alliance, as it now exists, was not initially set up with the end goal envisioned of an independent 
body that would exist beyond the life of FCAA. The Alliance internal structure/governance is 
perceived as weak by its members at this time, years removed from when the internal structure 
was originally established. Therefore, Alliance members do not fully understand their role in the 
Alliance, perceive that they do not participate in decisions affecting the governance of the 
Alliance, and have not had the opportunity to fully benefit from what an Alliance of this type 
could offer.
2) There are poor internal and external communications within the Alliance. Additionally, actors 
not directly involved with FCAA view external FCAA communications as poor.
3) Range Management Technical Staff – the two current field, range management specialists are 
very effective, but the required work to be accomplished is more than what is feasible for either 
individual to complete in an efficient manner. Currently one technician is assigned to the distant 
Alto Paraguay region, and road travel times to and from Alto Paraguay from Asuncion are 
significant. The other technician works with cattle producers in the extensive region of Chaco 
Central. Since both technical staff are based in Asuncion, they spend a lot of their time traveling 
to reach their areas of work. Note the Neuland Cooperative and Minerva Foods both have their 
own, internal range technicians that coordinate with member ranchers in on-ranch range 
improvements. WCS has one technician that supervises other extension work not directly 
related to BMP implementation.
4) The two existing FCAA-produced BMP manuals are considered very well executed, but their 
complexity and size (greater than 130 pages each) make them unwieldly and unusable by field 
technicians (too complex for on-the-ground BMP implementation).
5) FCAA’s mandate is to work in two broad ecoregions (Atlantic Forest and Chaco) and two 
corresponding production areas: soy in the Atlantic Forest Region and cattle production in the 
Chaco Region. Over time the FCAA focus has significantly shifted in favor of the Chaco; some 
people interviewed see the Atlantic Forest work with soy taking away time and energy of the 
implementing partner for their Chaco sustainable cattle production work.
6) The entrance of sustainably produced Chaco cattle into demanding international markets 
requires strict BMP implementation, inclusive of both social and environmental standards:
a. All beef producers interviewed believe entering better paying, niche international 
markets is key, large-scale international purchasers of sustainably produced beef do not 
now view Chaco produced beef as meeting stringent sustainability conditions.
b. There is overall pessimism that the demand-side aspect of FCAA will work because it is 
such a complicated, worldwide issue.
c. International niche markets for quality/sustainably raised beef are very small; therefore,
existing premium prices paid for sustainably produced beef from the Chaco will not be 
reflected in the overall price of Chaco beef sold on the international market.
d. There is no clear plan how to best position Chaco beef in the international market. 
Sustainable beef export focus of the Project when most Chaco beef producers do not 
have the capacity to enter/compete in markets that demand quality grass-fed beef. 
e. Paraguay exports the majority (more than 60%) of its beef; the two largest current 
markets are Russia and Chile (note that neither Russia nor Chile pay premium prices for 
grass-fed beef).
22
f. Worth noting that the opposite is true for international, sustainable soy markets; a well￾developed supply chain exists to meet international demand for sustainably produced 
soy.
7) The question was raised as to whether there is a clear linkage between WCS’s 
biodiversity/mammals monitoring work (camera traps, publications, outreach, etc.) on Chaco 
range lands and FCAA’s forest conservation mandate. Since the USAID GCC/Sustainable 
Landscapes funding for this project must be used to support the reduction of emissions, there is 
a question as to whether these funds have been used in the appropriate manner in this project.
8) Three of the municipal governments that make up the Central Chaco region are aware of the 
Municipality of Filadelfia’s FCAA work to bolster their previously weak land use planning 
department. A perceived FCAA weakness is not working in this area with three other Central 
Chaco municipal governments.
9) FCAA and Alliance partners who participated in the recent Pause and Reflect workshop saw 
much benefit in such a working space, yet lamented the fact that a workshop of that nature had 
not occurred much earlier in the life of FCAA.
10) Many Chaco cattle producers have a difficult time obtaining financial institution credit to 
implement BMPs; this is neither an issue for large-scale cattle operations nor cooperatives who 
self-finance BMP implementation. 
a. This lack of financial institution credit is, and will be, a significant limiting factor in BMP 
implementation amongst small- to medium-scale cattle producers. 
b. There is a lack of financial incentives for BMP implementation at the field-level.
11) Implementing partner has experienced many difficulties in implementing Payment for 
Environmental Services (PES) in Chaco Region, especially among indigenous communities and 
their associated forests. A primary hurdle is finding national or international parties (primarily 
financial institutions) willing to fund forest conservation of indigenous lands over a long period of 
time; this difficulty is not unique to Paraguay.
12) Is the Logical Framework developed in 2014 still a valid model after four years of 
implementation? Thorough analysis of Logical Framework discussion from Pause and Reflect 
workshop should help address any uncertainty.
13) FCAA has written MOUs with MADES, INFONA, and other GOP agencies, but there is a lack 
of involvement of GOP ministries and other powerful cattle producer associations within the 
Alliance, viewed as a limiting factor, especially since those entities have direct influence of forest 
conservation and cattle ranching in the Chaco region.
a. GOP ministries have relatively good laws/regulations protecting forests, but field 
enforcement/monitoring appears to be weak in the Chaco region.
b. GOP ministries/institutions of interest: Secretary of Planning, Ministry of the 
Environment and Sustainable Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cattle, National 
Institute of Forests.
c. Rural Producers Association (ARP) – not a GOP ministry, but a powerful cattle 
producer association.
14) For the implementing partner, it has been difficult to gain the confidence of non-traditional 
partners, and they must overcome significant amount of animosity due to past national-level 
conflicts between the Paraguay environmental community with the large and the cattle/beef 
industry. Note that the implementing partner has made much progress in this area since the 
inception of FCAA, but additional trust building work remains to be accomplished.
15) There has been less of a focus on the overall goal of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
reductions; GHG emissions reductions is integral to Global Climate Change (GCC) mitigation. 
23
Among conservative Mennonite cooperatives in the Central Chaco region, GCC is not a shared 
significant concern. 
16) Alliance vision of a sustainable future (within the time constraints of the Alliance as now 
functioning) is not shared by all partners.
17) There is poor implementing partner Project management, specifically regarding communication 
and Alliance governance. 
a. Implementing partner administration is seen as less than ideal by some Alliance 
members. High overhead costs perceived by some Alliance members. ET note –
overhead costs are within USAID norms; ET does not see this as a valid issue, but this 
negative perception held by some Alliance members.
18) FCAA is not viewed as doing real on-the-ground work. There is a desire stated to begin BMP 
implementation as soon as possible.
19) There is a question of relevance of the Alliance, now that the following three Paraguayan actors 
have been formed and are operational in the Chaco:
a. Chaco Integrado – a four municipality government partnership;
b. Roundtable for Sustainable Finances;
c. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef
CONCLUSIONS:
The “strengths” identified above detail the aspects of the FCAA Project that partners, and 
people/organizations with no affiliation to FCAA, perceive the implementing partner to be doing well 
and advancing the overall Purpose and objectives of FCAA. The above “strengths” listing makes no 
mention of FCAA’s work with sustainable/certifiable soy in the eastern region of Paraguay. As discussed 
in the “limitations” narrative earlier in the Report, the ET did not interview anyone working in the soy 
sector. One of FCAA’s primary implementing partners in the Atlantic Forest region, Fundacion Moises 
Bertoni, was interviewed, but the interview centered around their work with sustainable financing for the 
cattle sector; their work with soy certification was not discussed.
An analysis of “weaknesses” demonstrates many opportunities to make improvements to FCAA 
implementation so that the Project is more effective and leads to improved accomplishments within the 
three Sub-Purposes and corresponding outputs/inputs. The “demand side” (or “Sub-Purpose 3”) has 
been problematic in making significant progress in addressing Outputs 3.1 or 3.2; the primary obstacle 
encountered by the implementing partner is potential large-scale/international purchasers of sustainable 
beef do not encounter a sustainable beef supply chain that is ready at this time. The implementing 
partner has devoted much effort to this area of work, but it appears the supply-side of the equation 
(sustainable cattle/beef incorporating Project BMPs) is not ready at this time (relatively few Project 
supported Chaco beef producers have implemented BMPs) for demanding international beef purchasers
to make significant purchases at this time. Once Project BMPs are implemented on Project-assisted 
cattle ranches and once baseline monitoring work (assessment of range conditions, water developments 
(or lack thereof), forest reserves meeting legal requirements, etc.) is completed, international 
purchasers of sustainably produced beef will then be in a better position to consider sustainably￾produced Chaco beef. Advances under Sub-Purpose 1 have been positive; numerous interviewees 
highlighted the “recognition of good Chaco cattle producers” event held during 2018 in Filadelfia as an 
event receiving favorable, national publicity.
Positive advances have occurred in Sub-Purpose 2, although two areas emerged as problematic during 
interviews: (1) PES and (2) alternative livelihoods for smallholders. The implementing partner has 
24
pursued work in each area, but PES to conserve indigenous forest lands has run against a lack of viable 
markets (national and international) at this time to purchase carbon credits. The ET learned that an 
operating PES system exists in Paraguay for offsetting some significant environmental impacts of larger 
infrastructure projects (dams, highways, and large-scale commercial developments), although those 
larger-scale projects aren’t located in the Chaco region at this time. Both of these work areas are 
addressed in the Recommendation section of this report. Note that the majority of the above listed 20 
“weaknesses” have become Recommendations that are found later in this section of the report.
2) What is your vision of the Alliance?
One area of consensus amongst all people interviewed by the ET is the diverse range of stakeholders 
within the Alliance. The diverse range of stakeholders is most easily characterized by the “environmental 
community” (represented by WWF and WCS), Chaco cattle producers, municipal governments, and 
financiers (IFC) sitting down at the same table and discussing areas of mutual concern, primarily 
sustainable cattle production employing BMPs and conservation of Chaco forests. Many people 
interviewed emphatically stated that prior to FCAA, there was much enmity between the broader 
Paraguay environmental NGO community and cattle producers; the analogy of “rocks thrown between 
parties” was used by numerous people. All people interviewed stated that the Alliance has gone a long 
way to significantly improving the relationship, trust, and levels of dialogue between the broader 
Paraguay environmental NGO community and Chaco cattle producers.
2.1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of being part of the Alliance? 
Amongst interviewees, there was much overlap between question number one 
(advantages/disadvantages of the FCAA Project) and this question specifically directed toward the 
Alliance. USAID/Paraguay did a good job of clearly articulating each question, but for many 
interviewees, “Project” and “Alliance” were synonymous. While the difference between Project and 
Alliance in English is very clear, much of this misunderstanding between Project and Alliance can be 
attributed to the name of the Project in Spanish; in Spanish (Alianza Para el Desarrollo Sostenible) people 
focus on the first word - “Alliance” (Alianza), hence a certain amount of confusion.
ET heard many more advantages than disadvantages to being within the Alliance.
The following is a non-prioritized list of advantages of being in the Alliance:
• The Alliance serves as a mechanism to break antagonisms between the broader Paraguay 
environmental community and cattle producers.
• Alliance has created new way of thinking about land management and BMP implementation so 
that forests are conserved and producers can sustainably manage their lands at a profit.
• Alliance has brought attention of the positive work the implementing partner is doing to 
producer groups/cooperatives working in the Chaco.
• There is an opportunity to create a brand for Alliance products.
• Producers are better able to position their beef for expanded international markets.
• There is an opportunity for individual members to think beyond traditional methods of cattle 
production and focus on sustainable production.
• Partners have the prestige of being part of a multi-stakeholder organization.
• There is an opportunity to exchange technology/ideas with other members of the Alliance.
• Producers are aligned with a USAID project which has potential positive use in international 
marketing.
25
• Producers have expanded their ways of thinking as a result of being part of the Alliance with 
regard to forest conservation (i.e. an Alto Paraguay large-scale cattle rancher has embraced 
wildlife corridors, something he/she could not have done prior to the Alliance).
• Alliance stakeholders are working toward a common/shared goal - increased productivity of 
cattle producers coupled with forest conservation.
• Alliance are seen as providing added value to Chaco cattle producers and beef supply chain 
companies. Cattle producers not in the Alliance aware of very positive dialogues between 
FCAA – Chaco cattle producers – beef supply chain companies.
The following is a non-prioritized list of disadvantages of being in the Alliance:
• The Alliance approach to sustainable beef does not align with the GOP (Ministry of Agriculture 
and Cattle) policies for cattle production.
• The Alliance is still seen as just a project at this time (hasn’t been able to effectively grow and 
mature into a functioning body).
• Some cattle producers are put off by poor internal communications and lack of coordination 
amongst all parties.
• There is a lack of a “plus”/incentive to being in the Alliance, such as financial incentives.
• Alliance’s focus on a reduction of carbon emissions is not productive to sell the advantages of 
the organization.
Chortitzer Cooperative (headquartered in Loma Plata) is the largest of the three cooperatives in the 
Central Chaco with 7,000 members, until now they have seen more disadvantages than advantages to 
being part of the Alliance. But by observing the FCAA and Alliance operations to date, they now see an 
advantage to being part of the Alliance; dialogue is currently underway to become an Alliance member. 
They see definite linkages between where they want to position themselves in the market and FCAA’s 
goal of BMP implementation/sustainable beef, forest conservation, and preparing cattle producers to 
allow for a traceable beef supply chain. Noteworthy of the sophisticated nature of Chortitzer 
Cooperative, they are now working towards International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14,000 
certification, an international certification addressing social/environmental criteria.
2.2) Is there enough interest and financial commitment to continue working as an Alliance after USAID support 
ends?
Various people interviewed stated that the Alliance could continue after the FCAA Project ends (with 
zero USAID support), although most people stated they saw the Alliance coming to an end at the end of 
the Project. The current lack of a written governance structure and communication strategy does not 
bode well for the continuation of the Alliance beyond the life of the Project. Even though most people 
replied in the negative, many noted three self-sustaining initiatives spawned by FCAA that further the 
goals/objectives of the Alliance:
• Paraguayan Roundtable for Sustainable Beef;
• Paraguayan Roundtable for Sustainable Finance; and 
• Integrated Chaco.
Factors working against continuation of the Alliance beyond the life of the Project include the following: 
(1) confidence building amongst parties is an on-going, slow process, (2) Alliance is still in its infancy and 
its functions/communications have never been consolidated, and (3) there is a lack of other key 
stakeholders (GOP ministries, indigenous communities, and small- to medium-scale producers not 
affiliated with a cooperative). Conversely, the many advantages listed on page 23 for individual parties to 
26
be a part of the Alliance far outweigh the listed disadvantages; this demonstrates the many positive 
aspects to the Alliance and provides an impetus to reformulate/invigorate the Alliance to live up to its 
potential.
CONCLUSIONS:
The original vision for the Alliance stated a focus on reducing carbon emissions. Many conservative 
cattle ranchers in the Chaco region do not embrace the scientific consensus on GCC, and if they do, 
they see the solution in the hands of developed countries which produce the majority of carbon 
emissions. As a result, the original vision regarding carbon emissions takes away from the important 
message of sustainable cattle management that conserves Chaco forests. While the overall goal of the 
Project should remain unchanged, a new vision for the Alliance specifically is needed, and it should focus 
on Chaco sustainable cattle development and forest conservation. Recommend USAID/Paraguay work 
to improve the existing indicators to better measure advances made in this area of work and document 
the linkages between forest conservation and GHG emissions reductions.
All people interviewed stated that the Alliance has gone a long way to significantly improve the 
relationship, trust, and levels of dialogue between the broader Paraguay environmental NGO 
community, Chaco cattle producers, and municipal governments, moving from a toxic to a productive 
environment. Cattle producers interviewed stated until recently, they would not have sat down at the 
table with WWF/Paraguay for discussions, but the implementing partner’s willingness to understand the 
perspectives of the cattle producers has led to increased dialogue among the groups. In many ways, this 
is a real, significant success story of the FCAA-founded Alliance, albeit one not reflected in FCAA official 
accomplishments to USAID/Paraguay.
From conversations with numerous people directly involved with the Alliance, and to a lesser extent
those people not directly involved in the Alliance, there is much doubt the Alliance will survive as an 
organization without the direct support/leadership of the FCAA implementing partner. At this time, the 
FCAA implementing partner is the glue that binds the organization together, and without that “glue”, 
the organization is unlikely to survive. At the outset of FCAA, a well-organized body with a solid 
governance structure was not established, resulting in the unconsolidated Alliance seen today.
It is important to note that the ET heard that some cattle/beef producers interviewed see a positive 
marketing link to working with a USAID sustainable beef project because of USAID’s worldwide name 
brand recognition, although it is unclear if they see said linkage as helping to facilitate beef exports to the 
USA.
Important to note that the listing of advantages to being in the Alliance (reference page 23) is much 
longer that the listing of disadvantages (reference page 23). Recommend FCAA work with the Alliance 
to reinforce and further develop the many important advantages to being an Alliance member, thereby 
strengthening the Alliance and improving its outlook for a life beyond the timeframe of FCAA.
3) Is the current governance, management, and staffing structure for the project effective to ensure the 
achievement of the project's objectives?
Question three editorial note – This question was only posed to people representing organizations 
that had a knowledge of the FCAA management structure. Surprisingly, numerous people still 
discussed the “Alliance” structure versus the FCAA management structure. It is believed that 
confusion arises from FCAA’s name in Spanish (Alianza [Alliance in English]) versus the word 
“Alliance” that refers to the multi-stakeholder organization.
27
Numerous people mentioned that one area needing attention is the lack of field-going range technicians 
in the Chaco region. Currently FCAA has a range technician for each of the two broad implementation 
regions, the Chaco Central and Alto Paraguay. These two individuals are the face of FCAA on the 
ground and the ET was informed both individuals are doing excellent work. But as FCAA moves from 
baseline monitoring on the 20 Model Farms to on-the-ground BMP implementation, two range 
technicians will be insufficient. Producers would like to see a permanent presence in the Project work 
areas of Project field technicians. Since both technical staff are based in Asuncion, they spend a lot of 
their time traveling to reach their areas of work when they could be spending more time actually 
working on the ground.
Due to numerous communication issues heard by the ET, the fact that FCAA’s primary communication 
specialist is part-time becomes an issue. 
3.1) What are the external communication agreements between members?
Most people interviewed mentioned the less than adequate external communications as a point of 
contention. Communication is key to establishing and maintaining identities for FCAA and for the 
Alliance, external communications were identified by interviewees as neither consistent nor effective.
An exception to the overall poorly perceived external communication efforts is the FCAA plan 
developed to inform Chaco cattle ranchers of the benefits of BMP implementation; that initiative has 
been successful. The two BMP Manuals developed were well-communicated to a broad audience. 
Another successful external communication initiative were FCAA radio and audiovisual efforts, including 
a well-attended meeting in Filadelfia to recognize outstanding cattle farmers participating with FCAA, 
were well-received by Chaco cattle ranchers.
Many of the implementing partner decisions directly impacting the Alliance’s functioning are neither well 
communicated nor transparent to Alliance members. External communications have often not occurred 
in a timely manner leading FCAA and Alliance members feeling “in the dark”.
Transparency is very important to FCAA; good external communications foster needed transparency, 
but communications have not been effective leading to FCAA being viewed as less than fully transparent. 
The implementing partner has done a poor job of sharing information (reports, procedural changes, etc.) 
with Alliance partners.
To an extent, perceptions have changed as a result of the presence of two implementing partner range
specialists being in the field on a routine basis; both have ranching backgrounds and both speak the 
language of rural cattle ranchers. Over time, Alliance members and Chaco cattle rancher partners have 
come to see the implementing partner not as the “enemy” they were once seen as, but rather as a 
partner working toward the same goals of sustainable cattle ranching and forest conservation.
Implementing partner has communicated information of Life of Agreement document with 
partners/stakeholders, but has not shared as much information as they should have at each step of the 
Project. The Alliance does not have a clear governance structure, therefore, implementing partner has 
made decisions regarding communications that were not strategic; their approach was more reactive 
than proactive.
28
A higher-level communication issue is the ability of the implementing partner to communicate the 
importance of reduction of greenhouse gases in the Chaco, and its connection to sustainable cattle 
production. There is a reluctance of many Chaco cattle ranchers to fully embrace GCC and the need to 
reduce GHG emissions, as GHG emission reductions are seen more as a developed nation issue, not an 
issue for rural cattle farmers in the Chaco. While prioritization of reduction of GHG emissions 
resonates well with USAID, it does not resonate well with Chaco cattle ranchers. However, forest 
conservation does resonate well with the ranchers and implementing partner should work to convey 
message through this scope.
3.2) Is the current governance and management structure effective to ensure the achievement of the Alliance's 
objectives beyond the life of the project?
Similar to the responses to question 2.2, Alliance members stated that a lack of a solid governance 
structure has impeded its operations to date and does not bode well for the Alliance surviving as an 
independent body after the FCAA Project terminates. Alliance partners who brought their own money 
to the table to further the Alliance goals/objectives stated they would be very reluctant to do so without 
implementing partner support/direction. There is no clear strategic goal of the Alliance perceived by its 
members; nor is there a clear “road map” for the Alliance’s future direction.
CONCLUSIONS:
From a staffing structure standpoint, any increase in the number of field-going technicians would have to 
be offset by a reduction of implementing partner personnel in Asuncion because of availability of Project 
funds.
In general, external communications are seen as poor to minimally effective by FCAA partners, although 
there have been discrete, effective initiatives. As example of a discrete, but effective initiative was the
2018 FCAA field trip to Argentina with some Alliance members/partners to visit a novel silvo-pastoral 
system leaving 200 trees/hectare. Participants of the field visit felt the initiative visited was an effective 
learning methodology. After the field trip, what was seen and discussions held in Argentina were not 
effectively communicated with a wider audience. Market access should be driven by a strong 
communication focus; to date it appears that has not occurred.
Effective external communications with the very conservative and insular Chaco Mennonite community 
are not easy, it took time for Central Chaco cooperatives and the implementing partner to build 
trust/confidence through effective communications to ensure successful BMP implementation. 
Cooperative members of the Central Chaco region have seen much trust/confidence building since the 
inception of FCAA.
To improve external communications, the implementing partner needs to improve sharing annual 
reports and other relevant information with Project stakeholders as well as select non-Project 
stakeholders, such as the MADES, MAG, and INFONA. GOP ministries may or may not read 
reports/updates sent to them, but through sharing of information, goodwill and inclusion are built, thus 
furthering effective external communications into the future.
The responses to Question 3.2 paint a clear picture regarding the sustainability of the Alliance as 
currently configured. If the implementing partner wishes to see the Alliance continue beyond the life of 
29
FCAA as a “stand alone” entity, then they must devote significant time/energy to address concerns 
Alliance members have regarding a lack of formal governance.
4) Does WWF's management and staffing structure address the personnel requirements of the project?
Question four editorial note - By design, this question was posed only to a small sub-set of 
interviewees: WWF and WCS. The rationale is that Question #4 addresses the internal 
structure of the implementing partner, hence the very limited people/organizations familiar with 
that structure.
There needs to be more of a full-time presence in the Chaco, specifically with respect to range 
management specialists. For the Chaco Central region, a Mennonite range specialist would instill a lot of 
credibility and the ability to more easily open doors. Two additional on-the-ground range specialists 
would go a long way towards BMP implementation on Model Ranches and beyond, especially with small￾to medium-scale ranchers. Note that most large-scale cattle producers can fund their own technical 
experts for on-ranch work.
The current implementing partner team is talented, with a lot of motivation and synergy. Implementing 
partner staff take pride in working toward sustainable beef production in Paraguay. A relatively young 
implementing partner team brings in new ideas and energy. There are currently five full-time staff 
members (100% paid for by FCAA). Due to of the communication issues heard by the ET, FCAA’s 
employment of a 100% Project-funded, part-time communications specialist is less than ideal.
4.1) With respect to the organizational chart, clear decision of the roles and responsibilities, and internal 
communications process?
Internal communications amongst FCAA staff appear good; weekly FCAA staff meetings play an 
important role in facilitating those communications. FCAA’s governance structure is acceptable at this 
time, apart from the staffing issues mentioned above.
4.2) Is there a clear strategy for coordination between the different programs that WWF implements and the 
roles of the teams and the personnel assigned to them?
FCAA’s implementing partner, WWF/Paraguay, manages several other projects in the Chaco region, all 
with non-USAID funding. Several of those projects work within the Chaco and Pantanal (eastern Alto 
Paraguay) regions. Implementing partner noted there exists a synergy among their various Chaco 
projects, and that there is learning among projects that is mutually beneficial. Conversely, the ET heard 
that it can be difficult for implementing partner to coordinate and prioritize work among the various 
projects. It is important to note that FCAA staff within the WWF/Paraguay building have segregated 
office spaces, in an effort to work toward maintaining a clear demarcation of FCAA staff. FCAA has five 
staff that are 100% FCAA paid; of those five, three are part-time employees (monitoring and evaluation 
specialist, communications specialist, and one range management technician). The remainder of the 
FCAA staff are not 100% funded by FCAA and their salaries come from FCAA and other 
WWF/Paraguay projects. ET heard that a “push-pull” dynamic exists with each part-time FCAA 
employee’s time between FCAA and other assigned projects, sometimes distracting from FCAA work.
30
Below is a summary of non-USAID funded WWF/Paraguay projects working in the Chaco region (not all 
inclusive):
(a) Pantanal – Chaco Initiative (PaCha); WWF/Paraguay and Bolivia: Promotion of BMPs through 
capacity building (similar goals/objectives to FCAA).
(b) “Collaboration for Forests and Agriculture” with Moore Foundation funding: Promotion of 
sustainable cattle ranching and reduced deforestation in Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay (similar 
goals/objectives to FCAA).
(c) SuLu – Pantanal focused Project to promote climate change resilient planning within the region, 
inclusive of sustainable agricultural/range production.
CONCLUSIONS:
Overall, the implementing partner’s current team is very qualified and motivated. However, the existing 
range technicians are stretched too thinly to cover a lot of territory and many cattle producers,
highlighting the need for additional field-going range management staff. Now that the compilation of 
baseline data is nearing completion on model ranches, the next phase is BMP implementation, a more 
robust field-going team is necessary to work with rural ranchers to assist in BMP implementation. The 
existing part-time, lead communications specialist (qualified individual in the eyes of the ET) is unable to 
devote the time/resources to FCAA that the position requires; highlighting the need for a full-time, lead 
communications specialist. Overall, there appears to be a lack of a coherent, up-to-date external 
communication strategy that allows FCAA to effectively share its messages and project successes with 
specific sectors of Paraguayan society. FCAA is accomplishing many positive tasks, the lack of a coherent 
communications strategy is hampering its overall mission.
By virtue that most of the partially USAID-funded FCAA staff in Asuncion are financed from various 
funding sources, competing priorities amongst non-USAID funded WWF projects working in the Chaco 
will dictate how personnel are worked on any given day. A clear picture of this division of labor 
amongst WWF project staff did not emerge to the ET. Although difficult to quantify, the ET believes 
that the various Chaco forest conservation/sustainable range management projects operated by 
WWF/Paraguay in the Chaco are having a synergistic impact. Implementation partner needs to clearly 
demonstrate to USAID/Paraguay how their Paraguay staff that is partially FCAA funded is working on 
other Chaco projects and how those efforts are working towards overall Chaco forest conservation and 
sustainable development; and how non-FCAA funded implementation partner staff are having positive 
benefits to FCAA.
5) Are pilot projects scalable, replicable, and feasible examples of sustainable practices that can be required by 
the Paraguayan Government to approve environmental licenses and land use plans?
Question five editorial note - Unlike the other four questions posed by the ET to people inside and 
outside of FCAA, responses to this question were much more diverse/divided. Note that 
Question #5 was posed to people directly involved with FCAA and/or Alliance, plus GOP 
Ministry personnel.
Of the three sub-questions inherent in Question #5 (scalable, replicable, feasible), there was a more 
divided opinion on “scalable” and “replicable” and more agreement on “feasible”. The consensus 
response to “feasible” was yes, that pilot projects are feasible both now and into the short-term future. 
Moving beyond “feasible” pilot projects includes the considerations of “scalable” and “replicable”.
Numerous respondents stated the replicable and scalable question cannot be answered at this time due 
to a lack of hard data (currently, there are natural resource and productivity baselines being compiled at 
31
this time). The implementing partner has compiled, and continues to compile, much baseline data on 
each model farm so that the scalable and replicable question can be answered in a verifiable/scientific 
manner. If the effectiveness of any given BMP is to be accurately measured at some point in the future, 
an adequate baseline must exist. Other interviewees stated the pilot project work is neither scalable 
nor replicable at this time based on the effectiveness of pilot project implementation to date. There are 
many variables and complexities to understanding if the pilot projects are scalable, replicable, and/or 
feasible. A large-scale Alliance beef producer stated that in the absence of hard baseline data from GOP 
ministries, the producers rely on Guyra Paraguay (Paraguay environmental NGO) GIS data layers in the 
absence of verifiable national-level GIS data within GOP ministries.
GOP ministry personnel were not well versed on pilot projects in general, which links back to the
communication issues highlighted earlier in this report. MADES personnel have not yet identified the 
connection between FCAA pilot projects and the implementation of BMPs and Ministry re-issuance of 
Environmental Licenses (Licencias Ambientales in Spanish). It is important to note that all 20 model 
ranches have valid Environmental Licenses in place. A respondent stated that pilot projects are neither 
scalable nor replicable at this time since changes must be made to Environmental Licenses for the pilot 
projects to be viable.
Another important consideration introduced by some people interviewed is the status of financial 
incentives. In the absence of financial incentives, the pilot projects are not easily replicated. 
Implementing partner desires for pilot farms to be replicated, but doubt exists if they can be replicated 
at this time.
Model Ranch cooperating ranchers – 10% of producers (more informed/affluent producers) - can scale￾up and replicate BMP work done on their ranches due to adequate, or more than adequate, financial 
resources. 90% of ranchers do not have that potential due their inability to secure financing to 
implement BMPs. Some BMPs that lead to productivity increases (increased number of cattle per 
hectare) can take significant financial resources to implement. It is important that pilot project ranches 
share their learning experiences with neighboring ranches.
CONCLUSIONS:
Ranchers not involved with FCAA are moving ahead independently to implement aspects of BMPs, 
which addresses the issue of replicability to some degree. An example is neighbors of FCAA Model 
Farms noting whatever BMP work and replicating it on their own farms with zero assistance from 
FCAA. Chaco cattle farmers are coming to realize that sustainable production and forest conservation 
are not mutually exclusive goals.
In summary, ET heard a consensus that pilot projects are feasible, but insufficient data exists today to 
credibly/scientifically state that pilot projects are either scalable or replicable. ET believes that more 
thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the pilot projects that already exist could show that pilot 
projects are both scalable and replicable.
32
CONCLUSIONS – Beyond Scope of Five SOW Questions:
This section looks back at the original design assumptions that were formulated at the time of the FCAA 
development. This section answers the question - How have FCAA original project design assumptions 
changed over time? The following points respond to this relevant question:
• Growing international demand of green commodities and a focus on "green beef" markets –
There is little doubt that this is a legitimate, on-going trend in developed countries. A beef 
industry executive informed the ET that his company is targeting the rising middle class in China 
who are desirous of higher quality, grass-fed beef. Based on much information the ET heard, it 
appears that in Paraguay, FCAA was a little ahead of its time regarding the “green”/sustainable 
beef paradigm shift; since the design of the Project, the Paraguay cattle/beef industry is looking 
to international “green” beef markets and embracing sustainable cattle production. Paraguay’s 
Sustainable Beef Roundtable and the Roundtable for Sustainable Finances are two prominent 
examples of Paraguay’s embrace of sustainable/”green” beef concepts. Emblematic of this trend 
is Cooperative working towards ISO 14,000 (socially and environmentally responsible producer) 
certification. ET believes this design assumption proved to be on target.
• REDD+ payments for forest conservation – Although this is a great idea that has been around 
for over 10 years, it has not caught on to any significant degree on a world-wide basis, even with 
much pushing by international conservation NGOs, USAID (world-wide), and other donors. 
While there are working, discrete examples world-wide, the international financial community in 
general has been reticent to embrace REDD+ to date. It is unclear if Paraguay’s National 
REDD+ strategy serves as an incentive to apply sustainable practices. ET believes this design 
assumption proved to be premature, unrealistic.
• Increasing beef demand in the USA and Europe – The following 2018 data from various sources
depict an uneven picture of beef consumption. The data depicts recent rises and falls in per 
capita beef consumption the USA. Overall beef consumption per capita is increasing Europe￾wide, although decreasing in the five most populous countries (Germany, UK, Spain, France, and 
Italy). Grass-fed beef is a definite trend in both the USA and the European Union (EU), but it is 
not a dominant factor in either international market. ET believes this design assumption proved 
to be partially (+/- 50%) correct.
o World Resources Institute (24 January 2018): “The USDA sparked stories by predicting 
that Americans will eat a record amount of beef, pork and poultry during 2018. The 
meaty headlines aren’t necessarily wrong, but they don’t tell the whole story. Even while 
total US per capita consumption of meat has crept up over the past five decades, the 
mix of meats Americans eat has shifted dramatically, with the share of beef declining.” 
[underlining by report author]
o USDA/Economic Research Service (4 June 2018): “Per capita red meat and poultry 
disappearance (amount used in domestic markets) is expected to reach record highs in 
2018, eclipsing the previous high in 2004. Based on USDA forecasts, in 2018 Americans 
will have access to 222.4 pounds of red meat and poultry on a per capita. Average 
annual per capita disappearance of beef decreased 0.3 percent annually from 2000 to 
2015 but has increased since 2016 and is expected to grow by 3.7 percent in 2018.”
o Statista [ https://www.statista.com/statistics/679528/per-capita-meat-consumption￾european-union-eu/ ]: “Per capita consumption of meat is expected to increase in the 
33
EU overall to 65.75 kilograms by 2020, whereas the individual big 5 countries (Germany, 
UK, Spain, France, and Italy) are predicted to experience a decrease in consumption.”
• UNDP's Green Commodities Program working to complement FCAA – ET spoke with the 
UNDP manager of the Green Commodities Program regarding their work with the GOP to 
build capacity to promote more sustainable cattle production. From general understanding of 
the UNDP Program, the ET believes that this original design assumption was well founded and 
proven to be on target.
• GOP committed to the objectives of the Project – The ET spoke with representatives of MAG, 
MADES, and INFONA regarding FCAA. One clear example of MADES’s commitment to 
sustainable cattle production is the creation of an office within MADES directly working toward 
sustainable cattle production – this is 100% in line with FCAA goals/objectives. GOP ministries 
may not be too familiar with specifics of FCAA implementation, but their policies are in line with 
FCAA objectives; in sum, this design assumption has proved true.
• Beef and soybeans continue to be the principle drivers of deforestation – ET did not gather any 
information directly regarding FCAA’s soy certification work in the eastern region of Paraguay; 
hence, no conclusions can be drawn. From discussions with people inside and outside of FCAA, 
it appears that land clearing for cattle production continues to put pressure on Chaco forests. 
ET learned that soy expansion in the Chaco region (not a FCAA work area) may be a looming 
concern regarding an increase in land clearing/deforestation. On a per hectare basis, soy 
production yields much higher annual returns than cattle production. Extensive Chaco grazing 
requires less than one animal per hectare, which is not a high financial return enterprise. ET 
believes this original design assumption proved to be on target.
• Markets are willing to pay premium prices for “green” beef – ET heard directly from numerous 
people interviewed regarding this design assumption. The current answer is decidedly “no”. ET
heard that some beef exporters can access specific niche European (Germany and Switzerland 
named) markets paying premium prices, but only for smaller volumes of select cuts. Paraguay 
beef markets are working in this direction; the hope is that FCAA’s sustainable beef BMPs are 
moving the market in the right direction. ET believes this original design assumption proved to 
be premature.
• International companies are committed to taking deforestation out of their supply chains to 
minimize environmental, economic, and social risks, and improve their brand images. ET 
discussions with one, large international beef exporter affirmed that the above statement is 
exactly what that firm is doing at this time; said company is working hard to demonstrate to 
international purchasers that their beef is sustainably produced and respects international social 
and environmental standards. ET believes this original design assumption proved to be on 
target.
34
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following listing is prioritized, with number one being the highest priority. There exists a direct 
correlation between these recommendations and the FCAA “weaknesses” noted earlier in this report. 
All recommendations are made with one goal in mind – to improve the overall performance and 
effectiveness of FCAA so that Chaco cattle can be produced sustainably, forest conservation can be 
improved, and international markets for cattle producers can be improved/expanded. Beef product 
traceability is a hallmark of sustainably produced Chaco beef.
1) Multi-Stakeholder Alliance (separate from FCAA): A multi-stakeholder Alliance exists in theory, 
but the Alliance has no formal structure, poor communications (amongst members and the 
broader Chaco cattle producing community), and no defined roles/responsibilities. To use an 
analogy from protected area management, the Alliance exists at this time as a “paper park”. A 
“paper park” is a national protected area that exists on maps and within official documents at 
the national-level of a country, but the reality of a protected area on-the-ground is another 
matter. Recommendations to address this issue include the following:
a. Develop/implement a governance plan (bylaws, roles/responsibilities, membership, etc.) 
that addresses how to add new members, how members can depart the Alliance, 
frequency of meetings, and other internal business matters.
b. Investigate the best manner to involve GOP ministries (MAG, MADES, and INFONA) 
within the Alliance - perhaps in a role of less than full membership (“associate” 
members).
c. Develop a communication plan for the Alliance, addressing both internal and external 
communications.
d. Above actions will, to no guarantee, improve the likelihood that the Alliance has a life 
beyond FCAA.
2) Project needs to develop an overall communications strategy. ET recommends contracting with 
a third-party Paraguayan entity to do a thorough analysis of FCAA’s current communication 
operations. Follow up with recommendations; if necessary, it may be beneficial to consider how 
to re-structure FCAA’s overall communication operation, addressing both internal and external 
communications. Note that currently, the primary communication specialist works part-time. 
Recommendations to address this issue include the following:
a. As part of that analysis, investigate the need for a full-time communication specialist;
b. Conduct analysis to address communication needs and deficiencies in the areas of 
outreach, information dissemination, and all aspects of an effective communication 
strategy.
c. Implementing partner to continue the important communication task of 
maintaining/improving the relationship between Chaco cattle producers and the 
Paraguayan environmental NGO community. External communications are key to the 
maintenance/improvement of trust amongst non-traditional partners for implementing 
partner.
3) Implementing partner staffing:
a. The two current field, range management specialists are very effective, but the required 
work to be accomplished is more than either individual can accomplish in an effective 
manner. Investigate the employment of up to two additional range technicians to 
35
provide quality services to Chaco cattle producers. These additional personnel will be 
needed as FCAA moves from baseline data collection of private ranches to BMP 
implementation. The final number of additional range technicians to be determined via 
the next FCAA Work Plan; the Work Plan should consider both full- and part-time 
range technician personnel.
b. Communications – Communications emerged as a significant weakness/issue by most of
the people interviewed; while both internal and external communications were of 
concern, there was more focus on external communications. At this time the 
implementing partner has one part time (100% FCAA funded) communications 
specialist; a part-time person is not capable of meeting the communications demands of 
the FCAA Project. A recommendation is to employ one full-time communications 
specialist to be better able to improve work in this important area.
c. By employing additional technical range personnel, FCAA should make corresponding 
cuts to less than 100% FCAA-funded staff. Positions to consider for a significant
reduction of level of effort: climate change mitigation specialist, finance and 
administrative personnel, and secondary monitoring and evaluation personnel.
d. At this stage of FCAA implementation, there are part-time positions that are no longer 
necessary; those positions should be eliminated and resulting cost savings reassigned to 
other resource areas, including market development, incentives, and working with the 
financial sector to improve access to rancher credit.
e. Implementation partner to undertake a thorough review of their organizational chart to
align it with where the Project is at this stage of implementation.
f. Implementation partner to develop a concise chart, or some other methodology, that 
clearly and transparently shows all the linkages between FCAA, its staff, all other 
implementation partner projects (and staff [non-USAID funded]) working in the Chaco 
with the aim of demonstrating potential synergistic effects of multiple projects.
4) FCAA has produced two high quality, comprehensive BMP Manuals (Alto Paraguay and Chaco 
Central regions); each Manual is more than 130 pages. While the overall length and 
thoroughness of each Manual is deemed appropriate, a significant impediment to their 
adoption/use by field-level cattle producers is their length. The manuals include much valid 
information that does not directly address the field implementation of BMPs. FCAA should 
produce a pocket-sized version of the BMP Manuals that only focuses on practical, field-level 
BMP implementation. Additionally, only one pocket-size manual/guidebook should be produced 
that will cover both geographic regions. The overall “tone” of the pocket-sized handbook 
should be 100% practical with emphasis on how BMPs are installed in the field. BMP 
implementation should be coupled with hands-on technical assistance by Project range 
technicians to ensure that the BMPs are being successfully implemented in the field.
Develop a “user-friendly” training package to disseminate important elements of BMP Manuals
to Chaco cattle ranchers; geared to on-the-ground personnel; meaning practical, easy-to￾understand concepts/practices. Training to encompass field exercises and visits to 
demonstration ranches.
5) Re-focus the Project’s geographic foci from two broad ecoregions (Atlantic forest and Chaco) 
to focus on the Chaco region (+/- 95% current level of effort), working exclusively in sustainable 
cattle production. The rationale for this shift is that during the implementation to date of 
36
FCAA, the role sustainable soy plays in FCAA has gone from initially significant, to minimal as of 
March 2018. The Project should focus its efforts in one area for the remainder of the time said 
area being all that implies for sustainable cattle production in the Chaco. Additionally, forest 
conservation, and attendant reduction in GHG emissions, is a focus of FCAA. The amount of 
Atlantic Forest coverage in the eastern part of Paraguay is minimal when compared to the 
Chaco region, which is a case for focusing on where the most remaining intact forests are 
located.
This recommendation is not for a wholesale “walking away” from the eastern/soy region of 
Paraguay, FCAA to continue with any contractual obligations with soy producers and 
purchasers, but undertake no new soy initiatives. If a “phase two” of FCAA should result, 
recommend the project solely focus on sustainable cattle ranching in the Chaco region.
6) Sub-Purpose 3 addresses the topic of “increased demand for more sustainably produced 
Paraguayan beef and soy,” which is a well-conceived objective. FCAA has expended much work 
in this area, but with minimal results due to conditions (criteria for sustainable beef: social and 
environmental) not being in place at this time to effect an increase in demand for sustainable 
beef. FCAA is working diligently toward this goal, but on a relatively small-scale with 20 model 
farms. Conditions are not currently in place for Chaco cattle producers to enter demanding 
international markets (Japan, EU for example) due to a lack of widespread BMP implementation. 
Recommend the same level of effort in this area, but the implementation partner should change 
their strategic approach; consider utilization of a “jurisdictional approach”.
7) FCAA partner WCS has done very good work in identifying biodiversity/mammals located on 
Chaco ranch lands, inclusive of both pastures and forest lands. Land owners have responded 
very positively to the monitoring work done by WCS. Their bio-monitoring results have been 
widely disseminated. Two recommendations:
a. From now forward, deemphasize WCS monitoring work; FCAA to place more 
emphasis on on-the-ground BMP implementation;
b. WCS should undertake a survey of Alto Paraguay and Chaco Central cattle 
farmer/model farms and farms receiving no FCAA assistance, to determine if cattle 
farmers discern a linkage between biodiversity conservation and forest reserves (25% 
reserve, wind breaks, and riparian forests). Such a survey would help determine if a 
hard linkage exists between the biodiversity monitoring accomplished to date and forest 
conservation (FCAA “Purpose). ET heard much positive feedback of WCS’s 
biodiversity monitoring work (not directly related to reducing GHG emissions); ET did 
not hear from interviewees, nor background documentation, that WCS has made the 
clear linkage between their solid “biodiversity monitoring” work (camera traps, etc.) and 
forest conservation/reduction of GHG emissions; hence the need for the survey.
8) Replicate cadaster strengthening work done for the Municipality of Filadelfia with the other 
three municipal governments of the Central Chaco region: (1) Mariscal Estigarriba, (2) Loma 
Plata, and (3) Primer Teniente Manuel Irala Fernandez. Such an initiative would mesh well with 
the Chaco Integrado partnership formed by the same four municipalities. If this initiative were to 
be undertaken, it would be beneficial to replicate the same successful process used with 
Municipality of Filadelfia (analysis of each municipalities existing capabilities, staffing, cadaster 
equipment, etc.). A municipal government challenge in Loma Plata is that the boundaries of the 
37
Chrotitzer Cooperative overlap to a large extent with the municipal boundary, which creates
administrative challenges. By strengthening the cadaster capabilities of each municipal 
government, indigenous communities will be included in the work as well, which would be
beneficial. It is important to note that there are significant differences between the three 
municipalities: size (Loma Plata is small compared to the large size of Mariscal Estigarriba), 
existing capabilities, and primary populations served (Mennonite, indigenous, mestizo).
9) By all accounts, the March 2019 Pause and Reflect workshop was well received by all 
participants. However, most participants stated the workshop would have been much more 
beneficial earlier in the life of FCAA. Recommended a Pause and Reflect workshop late this 
fiscal year, just prior to implementation partner preparation of their FY2020 Work-Plan, so that 
the Work Plan better reflects partner needs. For any potential future projects of this nature, 
conduct a Pause and Reflect workshop at the end of year one of implementation and again in 
two years’ time. The use of professional facilitators helps to best manage workshop time.
10) Increase work in the area of “input 1.2.1 – financial instruments” that focuses on Chaco cattle 
producers who find it challenging to obtain financial institution credit. Chaco cattle producers 
not connected to a cooperative face significant obstacles obtaining credit to implement more 
costly BMPs. Credit for on-ranch BMP installation is not an issue for two categories of cattle 
producers: (1) Chaco cooperative members who have ample lines of credit available to them, 
and (2) large-scale/well-off cattle ranchers who have access to bank credit. It would be 
opportune to collaborate with the Paraguayan Roundtable for Sustainable Finance to investigate 
financial incentives for BMP implementation at the field-level.
11) PES is an “input” of Sub-Purpose 2; implementing partner has worked in fulfilling this input, but 
has been met with minimal results, especially when tied to forests controlled by Chaco 
indigenous groups. ET understands the implementing partner has an on-going study in this area, 
but it is believed PES is not currently a viable solution to Chaco forest conservation. At a 
reduced level of effort, continue to explore discrete opportunities, but without expending
significant resources.
12) Prior to the inception of FCAA, USAID/Paraguay produced a well-crafted Logical Framework. 
Critical assumptions and conditions changed over time through the implementation of the 
project. The FCAA Goal and Purpose should remain unchanged. Sub-Purpose 1 and 2 remain 
equally valid and should not be modified, except for the focus on cattle production at the 
expense of soy. Sub-Purpose 3 (increased demand) was originally well conceived and 
implemented by the implementing partner. Many results from Sub-Purpose 3 have not met 
expectations. It takes time to implement the needed BMPs (social and environment) so that 
Chaco beef can meet demanding criteria of niche markets that pay premium prices. 
Recommend the Logical Framework be reviewed/modified prior to August 2019 so that a 
modified Framework can inform development of the Fiscal Year 2020 Work-Plan.
13) Immediately begin to investigate opportunities to best involve GOP ministries within the 
Alliance. Their involvement is key for several reasons: (1) obtain their support for Alliance 
goals/objectives, and (2) to improve their capacities to incorporate sustainable development 
standards promoted by FCAA into their environmental management policies and environmental 
licenses/permits. If a “Jurisdictional Approach is adopted by FCAA, then the support of GOP 
38
ministries will be necessary. Recommend they not be given the same status of existing Alliance 
members, but rather participate in some nature of “associate, non-voting” member. The 
footprint of GOP ministries doing actual work in the Chaco region is very small and their 
influence over the Chaco is via their policy making and regulation drafting work in Asuncion. 
Include those GOP ministries that have a direct role in cattle management, Environmental 
License issuance, and forest management/conservation, including:
a. Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development;
b. Ministry of Agriculture and Cattle;
c. National Institute of Forests.
d. Note that GOP ministries have relatively good laws/regulations in place to address 
cattle management, forest conservation and environmental licensing; weaknesses occur 
at the field-level due to a paucity of field-going personnel in the Chaco. Forthcoming 
satellite monitoring software that INFONA is testing will enable the agency to do a 
better job of enforcing forest regulations with real-time satellite imaging data.
14) The Goal of FCAA is very clear and well designed, but the message of GCC and reduction of 
carbon emissions does not resonate well amongst conservative Mennonite cooperatives in the 
Central Chaco region (GCC is not a shared significant concern for them). It is understood the 
FCAA Goal meshes with GHG/Sustainable Landscape funding. Nonetheless, the ET 
recommends this FCAA Goal not be in the principle message to Alliance members, Chaco 
cooperatives, or rural cattle farmers. Rather, the public message for FCAA should focus on the 
Project’s “Purpose”, the conservation of Chaco forests.
15) FCAA to work with Alliance to create a process to seek a shared common vision of a 
sustainable future for Chaco cattle producers. The vision would be to incorporate many 
elements of municipal Land Use Plans (Planes de Ordamiento in Spanish) and beyond.
16) FCAA conclude the important work of establishing baseline data for the 20 model farms and 
then move into the important work of implementing BMPs on-the-ground. In the case of small￾to medium-scale ranchers who lack the financial means currently to undertake the more 
expensive BMPs, begin with the implementation of those BMPs that do not require significant 
expenditures of capital. Concurrently, continue the important work of collaborating with the 
Paraguay financial sector to obtain needed financing for BMP implementation for small- to 
medium-sized producers.
17) As noted elsewhere in this Report, the life of the Alliance beyond the life of the project is 
uncertain. Recommend the Alliance develop a vision apart from FCAA goals/objectives that 
work to support sustainable cattle production in the Chaco. Additionally, continue working with 
these entities that FCAA has spawned and/or supported:
a. Integrated Chaco – a four municipality government partnership; its mission includes 
environmental sustainability, health of local populations, education, potable water, and 
other governmental functions;
b. Paraguayan Sustainable Finance Roundtable;
c. Paraguayan Sustainable Beef Roundtable.
18) FCAA’s implementing partner has several other projects operating in the broader Chaco region 
(inclusive of Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina) that are financed by the Moore Foundation, 
39
Government of The Netherlands, and others. In any potential future USAID/Paraguay initiative 
similar to FCAA, it would be very effective for all entities to come to the table during project 
development to prevent a duplication of activities.
19) Model rancher visits/interchanges (information and sharing of experiences) at three levels: (1) 
between cattle farmers in Alto Paraguay and Chaco Central regions, (2) between FCAA Project 
ranches and sustainably managed Paraguay ranches beyond the Chaco region, and (3) between 
FCAA project ranchers and sustainably managed ranchers in adjoining countries with Chaco or 
Chaco-like ecosystems (i.e. nearby Argentina or Brazil). 
40
ANNEXES
41
ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
STATEMENT OF WORK
Midterm Performance Evaluation of
The Forest Conservation and Agriculture Alliance
I. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to assess the performance of The Forest Conservation and Agriculture 
Alliance (FCAA) Activity, implemented by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to evaluate the activity’s progress to 
date and to determine whether activity interventions are properly oriented to achieve the stated goals. 
Specifically, this performance evaluation is expected to (1) fill in evidence and learning gaps on activity performance 
and progress to date not available through regular monitoring efforts; (2) to recommend mid-course corrective 
actions necessary to improve activity effectiveness and (3) to identify opportunities for possible future 
interventions in the sector. 
Audience and Intended Uses 
The findings and recommendations from this evaluation will help to make necessary adjustments during the second 
half of the ongoing Activity (through September 2020) and will also help to identify new or expanded interventions 
in the case that USAID decides to continue supporting this sector in Paraguay. 
The primary evaluation audiences are: 
• USAID’s Mission in Paraguay and the Environment Team in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) 
Bureau’s Regional and Sustainable Development Office (LAC/RSD) 
• FCAA partners: WWF, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Minerva Foods Inc., Neuland 
Cooperative, the Association of Municipalities in the Central Chaco, and the International Finance 
Corporation (IFC)
• Paraguayan Government (Ministry for the Environment and Sustainable Development, National Forestry 
Institute), environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), private sector companies working in 
beef production
USAID will also disseminate the evaluation findings to secondary audiences, such as other USAID Missions working 
on related programming, E3’s Global Climate Change (GCC) Office’s Sustainable Landscapes team and the Forest 
and Biodiversity Team, and USAID’s Office of Land and Urban. Other donor partners such as the United Nations 
Development Programme’s “Green Commodities Program” and the Paraguayan chapter of the Roundtable on 
Sustainable Beef would also be interested in the findings, as would global partnerships such as the Tropical Forest 
Alliance 2020. 
II. SUMMARY INFORMATION 
Activity Name Forest Conservation and Agriculture Alliance
USAID Office LAC Regional and Sustainable Development 
Office (LAC/RSD) 
Implementer(s) World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
Cooperative Agreement # AID-OAA-A-15-00065
Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Activity (TEC) $4,000,000
Life of Activity 09/30/2015 - 09/29/2020
Active Geographic Regions Chaco and Oriental Regions 
42
Development Objective(s) (DOs) Transition to climate-resilient, low-emission, 
sustainable economic growth accelerated 
Required evaluation? Required
External or internal evaluation? External
III. BACKGROUND 
A. Description of the Problem and Context
Agricultural commodities play an important role in contributing to deforestation and the associated greenhouse 
gas emissions throughout the Latin America region. Commodities such as beef, coffee, cocoa, palm oil, and 
soybeans are some of the principle drivers of deforestation globally and throughout the region. Until recently, 
most deforestation was thought to be driven by small-scale producers seeking to provide for their families. 
However, this perception has changed due to increasingly affluent nations consuming more, particularly meat, and 
the resources required for meat production (e.g., soybean meal).
In Paraguay, these issues are of critical importance. Paraguay has one of the highest deforestation rates in the 
world, which is driven almost entirely by agriculture. Nearly a quarter of the Paraguayan workforce is employed by 
the agricultural sector, which accounted for nearly 18 percent of the country’s overall GDP in 2017. Paraguay is 
now ranked among the top global producers for both soy and beef exports and has plans to expand both. 
Paraguay is split into two agriculturally distinct regions: the Occidental or “Chaco” in the west (which includes the 
Chaco tropical dry forest, the Pantanal savannas and wetlands, and part of the Cerrado); and the Oriental Region 
in the east (which includes the Atlantic Forest and portions of the Cerrado and the Humid Chaco). For the past 
two decades, soy production has primarily taken place in the Oriental region. In the Chaco, cattle ranching is the 
predominant land use. 
There is an urgent need to ensure that the rapid expansion of the agricultural frontier, which continues to be 
fueled by a growing global demand for soy and beef, will be implemented under a sustainable development strategy. 
According to Paraguay’s Ministry for the Environment and Sustainable Development (MADES), 1,057,888 hectares 
were cleared in the Chaco region between January 2014 and January 2018. In the Atlantic Forest region, where 90 
percent of forested lands have already been converted to agriculture, the 2005 Zero Deforestation Law has 
reduced deforestation rates by 80-90 percent, but it is still experiencing an average rate of deforestation of 12,000 
hectares per year. In this region, the main need is to stop conversion, effectively manage remaining forests, and 
restore corridors between important remaining forest blocks. 
Under a business as usual scenario, deforestation in Paraguay will continue to grow, along with associated 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Land use change and conversion of forests to agriculture represents the 
majority of Paraguay’s GHG emissions1
. 
B. Description of the Intervention to be Evaluated and Theory of Change
In response to these challenges, USAID’s Forest Conservation and Agriculture Alliance (FCAA) Activity seeks to 
reduce GHG emissions in the production of beef and soy in Paraguay by increasing investments in climate change 
mitigation with the participation of the private and public sectors. In addition, it aims to improve productivity in the 
beef sector and promote the development of sustainable landscapes (see Figure 1 for the FCAA logical 
framework).
 
1
http://cait.wri.org/profile/Paraguay
43
The Alliance brings together a range of actors uniquely positioned to make this happen. Two private sector 
partners — Minerva (Paraguay’s second largest beef exporter) and the Neuland Cooperative in the Chaco— have 
joined FCAA. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is also partnering with FCAA, to develop and increase 
access to favorable financial products for producers who adopt more sustainable practices. The Association of 
Municipalities in the Central Chaco is the public sector partner participating in the Alliance. Finally, the World 
Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) are serving as the FCAA’s primary 
implementing partners – providing expertise on how to build environmental sustainability into agricultural 
operations.
Given the organizations that are participating as partners in the Alliance, most of the Activity focus thus far has 
been in the Chaco region working on the beef sector. However, there have been a limited number of activities 
focusing on the drivers of deforestation from the soy sector in the eastern region of the country. The Alliance 
works together with the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), an international multi-stakeholder initiative to 
promote sustainable soy production, to support selected soy farmers to make the final step towards RTRS 
certification. The project is also providing a grant to the local NGO a Todo Pulmon (ATP) to implement 
reforestation components in the soy belt.
The overall purpose of this activity is to avoid deforestation and reduce GHG emissions by incentivizing a shift 
from traditional agricultural expansion (which has been associated with forest loss and degradation, and is fueled by 
the demand for soy and beef) to a landscape of sustainable agricultural production in harmony with protection of 
forest ecosystems. The Forest Conservation Agriculture Alliance is working to achieve this by focusing on three 
main lines of action:
1. Increasing the supply of sustainably produced beef and soy 
Standards for Best Sustainable Practices (BSPs) have been tailored to and are being implemented by producers. 
The FCAA seeks to slow traditional agricultural expansion by providing win-win outcomes for producers through 
their voluntary adoption of BSPs – increasing their productivity and securing access to new markets. FCAA is 
implementing the BSPs that will help producers generate increased income on their farms in a sustainable way, 
without the need to expand into forest areas. At the same time, FCAA is identifying markets and traders that 
recognize this as a key element in their procurement strategy.
In addition, FCAA is promoting incentives for producers to adopt BSPs. A number of issues relating to the supply 
chain need are in play in relation to producers being influenced by demand for sustainable product: 
(i) Generating increased markets for Paraguayan beef and soy provides an incentive for producers to adopt the 
BSPs; 
(ii) ensuring that the product can be traced from the sustainably operated farms – and through the supply 
chain – is the only way buyers can be assured that they get the product they want; 
(iii) positive recognition of producers adopting BSPs provides a reputational incentive; 
(iv) to maintain access to markets, producers must be able to generate an adequate supply – and access to 
finance bolsters producers’ ability to generate that supply. 
Theory of change: If producers are connected to markets via traders demanding sustainability; if their product can 
be successfully traced through the supply chain; if they have the financing to generate enough supply to meet the 
needs of their buyers; and if they are recognized for their efforts, they will be more likely to adopt BSPs. If they adopt 
BSPs, deforestation will be reduced, and along with it, GHG emissions.
2. Increasing the sustainable land use management of key landscapes
FCAA enables policies and sustainable landscapes visions. FCAA is designing and implementing a Sustainability 
Vision for given landscapes, incorporating economic, environmental and social variables. In combination with the 
FCAA’s technical assistance for the implementation of actions towards the vision and strategies, plus mapping and 
monitoring methodologies in place and, the support/strengthening of enforcement agencies, the existing laws will 
more effectively achieve their goal of curtailing the loss of forests.
44
In parallel, FCAA supports improved land use management and forest restoration. FCAA is bolstering the 
implementation of the existing laws (the forest code, the zero-deforestation law, Payment for Ecosystem Services -
PES law, and others) designed to stem forest loss and develop livelihood options for smallholders that are tied to 
healthy forest ecosystems and BSP´s implementation in agriculture. Among other elements, The Forest Law has a 
requirement for reforestation under certain conditions; the FCAA’s technical support for reforestation and 
restoration efforts will make those efforts more successful. Developing forest-dependent alternative livelihoods for 
smallholders is designed to address the following issue: many smallholders are so financially strapped that they are 
renting their lands to agricultural developers. 
Theory of change: If smallholders can make a living that is tied to a healthy forest ecosystem, then they will be 
financially able to withstand the offers to rent their land, and will maintain their forests intact.
3. Increasing demand for more sustainably produced beef and soy.
The supply chains for soy and beef stretch from the producer to the trader to the corporate buyers to the 
retailers to the consumers – and efforts are needed to spur demand all along the chain. Efforts under this 
component are two pronged – the first focuses on demonstrating that there are differentiated markets that are 
interested in paying more for sustainable beef (business case) and the second on promoting and supporting the 
implementation of deforestation free commitments of traders and retailers on a larger scale (in coordination and 
cooperation with the Collaboration for Forest and Agriculture and Green Commodities initiatives):
Theory of change: If importers desiring sustainable products are more aware of the availability of sustainably 
products available from Paraguay, then links can be established with traders, producers will have an incentive to 
adopt BSPs and FCAA can demonstrate that there is a business case for adopting BSPs. If links are established 
between importers desiring sustainable products, through trade fairs, networking events and marketing campaigns; 
then demand will increase, sales contracts can be signed and sustainable products will flow through the supply chain.
Also, if key companies are enabled to be more effective in cleaning their supply chains by strengthening their 
commitments to deforestation-free commodities, and if producers are enabled to adopt practices that yield better 
environmental performance, then it is possible to make a difference using sourcing commitments to drive 
improved practices through the supply chain, as downstream market actors are an increasingly potent leverage 
point for influencing the production of beef and soy and the companies that have made early commitments will spur 
other key companies to implement their own commitments to eliminate any remaining deforestation in their beef and soy 
supply chains.
45
Figure 1. FCAA logical framework
C. Project or Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan
The FCAA monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework includes a plan to evaluate and measure the Activity’s 
long-term impact, as well as short-term-, and medium-term outcomes. The M&E plan is designed to help the 
project team plan, execute, monitor and report progress towards achieving the project results in a consistent and 
routine manner. 
The list of indicators is presented in Table 1, with links to the USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheets 
(PIRS) for each indicator. Annual and life-of-activity targets for each indicator may be found in the above￾referenced M&E framework. 
FCAA identified a total of nine indicators to measure project outcomes and impacts. The identified indicators 
include six standard USAID Economic Growth (EG) category indicators among three areas: 
a) three sustainable landscapes indicators (EG.13-3, EG.13-4 & EG.13-6); 
b) two agriculture indicators (EG.3.2-17 & EG.3.2-18); and 
c) one biodiversity conservation indicator (EG.10.2-2). 
46
In addition, three custom indicators were developed to measure key outcomes. The M&E plan uses a system of 
specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) indicators. The indicators provide gender￾disaggregated data where relevant. 
Table 1. List of indicators
Level of Sub￾purpose/Outputs
Indicator name PIRS page #
GOAL:
GHG emissions reduced 
in Paraguay by increasing 
investment in Climate 
Change mitigation.
PURPOSE:
Reduced deforestation 
related to key 
commodities in the 
project intervention area.
1. USAID Standard Indicator EG.13-6: Greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions, estimated in metric tons of CO2 equivalent, 
reduced, sequestered, or avoided through sustainable 
landscape activities supported by USG assistance.
2. USAID Standard Indicator EG.13-4: Amount of investment 
mobilized (in USD) for sustainable landscapes as supported 
by USG assistance.
● Public, domestic
● Public, international
● Private, domestic
● Private, international
p.12
p.16
SUB-PURPOSE 1:
Increased supply of 
sustainably produced beef 
and soy.
3. Custom Indicator 1: Number of tons of sustainable soy and 
beef produced as a result of USG assistance.
● Commodity (Beef, Soy)
p.20
OUTPUT 1.1: 
Standards for BSPs 
tailored and implemented 
by soy and beef 
producers.
4. USAID Standard Indicator EG.3.2-17: Number of farmers and 
others who have applied improved technologies or 
management practices with USG assistance.
● Value Chain Actor type: Producers
● Sex
● Commodity (Beef, Soy)
5. USAID Standard Indicator EG.3.2-18: Number of hectares 
under improved technologies or management practices with 
USG assistance.
● Technology type
● Commodity (Beef, Soy)
p.22
p.28
OUTPUT 1.2:
Incentives for producers 
to adopt BSPs increased.
SUB-PURPOSE 2:
Sustainable land use 
management of key 
landscapes increased.
6. Custom Indicator 2: Number of indigenous communities in 
the Chaco obtained ecosystem services certificates as a 
result of USG assistance.
7. USAID Standard Indicator EG.10.2-2: Number of hectares of 
biologically significant areas under improved natural 
resource management as a result of USG assistance.
● Ecosystem Category
● Conservation Compliance Law
p.34
p.36
OUTPUT 2.1:
Enabling policies and 
Sustainable landscapes 
8. USAID Standard Indicator EG.13-3: Number of laws, policies, 
regulations or standards addressing sustainable landscapes 
formally proposed, adopted, or implemented as supported 
p.40
47
visions improved. by USG assistance. 
● National, proposed
● National, adopted
● National, implemented
● Sub-national, proposed
● Sub-national, adopted
● Sub-national, implemented
● Regional or international, proposed
● Regional or international, adopted
● Regional or international, implemented
OUTPUT 2.2:
Improved land use 
management and forest 
restoration increased.
SUB-PURPOSE 3:
Increased demand for 
more sustainably 
produced Paraguayan beef 
and soy.
9. Custom Indicator 3: Number of sales inquiries made for 
sustainable soy and beef as a result of USG assistance.
● Commodity
● Domestic / International type
p.43
OUTPUT 3.1:
Foster demand from 
differentiated markets.
OUTPUT 3.2:
Securing large scale 
commitment and private 
sector leadership (CFA 
co-funding). 
IV. EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The evaluation team will review and finalize the questions in collaboration with USAID prior to finalizing the 
evaluation design. Additionally, USAID and FCAA partners will be conducting an internal “Pause & Reflect” 
workshop from February 18-22, 2019 with the purpose of: 1) considering how the activity areas are progressing, 
2) discussing what is working well and not as well, 3) identifying ways to improve the ongoing FCAA activity 
impacts, and 4) identifying activities and strategic approaches through which the greatest impact can be had 
through the end of the current program. As a part of this “Pause and Reflect” workshop, these questions may be 
refined or additional evaluation questions may be identified that should be considered as a part of the evaluation 
design.
In keeping with the evaluation purpose described in Section I, USAID has selected the following preliminary 
questions listed in order of priority and taking into account FCAA’s objectives within the overall Agency priorities 
(see Section III). 
1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the FCAA project approach, according to other key￾stakeholders not directly involved with the project?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being part of the Alliance as experienced by each of its 
members? Is there enough interest and financial commitment to continue working as an Alliance after 
USAID support ends?
3. Does the management and staffing structure address the personnel requirements of the project? Is there 
a clear management strategy that contributes to the achievement of the proposed project, with a clear 
description of the roles and responsibilities, internal and external communication agreements, 
organization chart and focus, etc? Is there a clear strategy for coordination between the different 
programs that WWF implements and the roles of the teams and the personnel assigned to them?
48
4. Are pilot projects scalable, replicable and feasible examples of sustainable practices that can be required 
by the Paraguayan Government to approve environmental licenses?
5. Is the current governance and management structure for the Alliance effective to ensure the achievement 
of common objectives for all its members?
In answering these questions, the evaluator shall explicitly discuss the unexpected conditions or challenges that 
were experienced by the activity during the first period of implementation and how the implementing partner 
adapted to or resolved those challenges. The evaluation team is also expected to provide recommendations based 
on these findings related to:
1. Adjustments needed to ensure continued and growing commitment from members of the Alliance
2. Adjustments to WWF’s management and staffing structure to ensure achievement of project goals
3. Most appropriate governance and management structure for the Alliance to ensure the achievement of 
common objectives for all its members. 
4. Examples of adaptive management practices that could ensure continued relevance, strong performance, 
and learning after USAID support has ended.
5. Based on findings for Evaluation Question 3, provide concrete examples of what could the Paraguayan 
Government include as requirements to approve environmental licenses.
The evaluation contractor shall incorporate gender concerns in the evaluation methodology (including data 
collection and analysis) and disaggregate data by sex, age and geographic location (for example, the Atlantic Forest 
vs. Chaco, or Departments within the Chaco). The evaluation team must integrate this analysis into overall 
evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 
V. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The contractor will submit a preliminary evaluation design matrix for review by USAID. The AOR, in consultation 
with USAID/Paraguay Mission and LAC/RSD, will approve the finalized evaluation design one week after 
submission. 
In line with the USAID Evaluation Policy endorsement of mixed-method approaches, the contractor may use 
multiple designs to draw on both quantitative and qualitative data. Although not a requirement, the use of mixed￾methods is preferable to increase confidence in the validity and reliability of the evaluation results.
Data collection techniques may include surveys, structured observations, key informant interviews, focus groups 
discussions, document review, and/or secondary data analysis. All data collection methods must use sex￾disaggregated data and incorporate attention to gender relations in all relevant areas. 
The evaluation design matrix should include a data analysis plan for each evaluation question. The evaluation team 
should include explicit description of major limitations in data collection and analysis.
USAID expects that, at a minimum, the evaluation team will:
● Upon award, familiarize themselves with documentation about the FCAA activity in Paraguay. USAID will 
ensure that this documentation is available to the team prior to their arrival in Paraguay; 
● At least one member of the evaluation team will participate in the FCAA “Pause & Reflect” workshop 
taking place in Asuncion; 
● Additionally, the evaluation team should spend two more weeks in Paraguay for data collection and initial 
reporting requirements. 
● Review and assess the existing performance and effectiveness information or data (including information 
provided in quarterly and annual reports);
● Meet and interview USAID beneficiaries, partners, and government counterparts at appropriate levels in 
Asuncion and the Chaco region; and
● Interview USAID/Paraguay, Washington staff and a representative number of experts working in the 
sector.
The desk review includes at a minimum:
49
● FCAA Life of Agreement Strategic Plan
● FCAA Governance Structure
● Activity materials: Annual Work Plans, Annual and Quarterly Reports, MEL Plan, sector assessments, trip 
reports, performance reports, activity deliverables, communications materials, and related thematic 
reports from other sources (including other related USAID activities).
VI. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Evaluation Work Plan and Evaluation Design:
Within one week of the award of the contract, the lead evaluator shall complete and present a draft work plan and 
evaluation design to the AOR. 
The work plan will include: 
1. Draft schedule and logistical arrangements (all logistical arrangements will be managed by the 
evaluation team);
2. Members of the evaluation team, delineated by roles and responsibilities;
3. Evaluation milestones; 
4. Anticipated schedule of evaluation team data collection efforts;
5. Locations and dates for piloting data collection efforts, if applicable;
6. Proposed evaluation design matrix that links the proposed Evaluation Questions to data sources, 
methods, and the data analysis plan.
The data analysis plan should clearly describe the evaluation team’s approach for analyzing quantitative and 
qualitative data (as applicable), including proposed sample sizes, specific data analysis tools, and any software 
proposed to be used, with an explanation of how/why these selections will be useful in answering the evaluation 
questions for this task. Qualitative data should be coded as part of the analysis approach, and the coding used 
should be included in the appendix of the final report. Gender, geographic, and role (beneficiary, implementer, 
government official, NGO, etc.) disaggregation must be included in the data analysis where applicable. 
If applicable based on the Disclosure of Conflict of Interests Forms submitted with the awardee’s proposal, the 
evaluation design will include a conflict of interest mitigation plan. 
2. In-briefing:
Within one working day of arrival in Asuncion, the evaluation team will meet with the USAID/Paraguay Mission 
and with FCAA implementing partner for introductions and to discuss the team’s understanding of the assignment, 
initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and/or to adjust the SOW, if necessary. 
3. Exit Briefing:
Before departing Asuncion, he evaluation team is expected to hold an exit briefing with USAID/Paraguay to discuss 
the status of data collection and preliminary findings. This presentation will be scheduled as agreed upon during the 
in-briefing.
4. Final Presentation:
The evaluation team is expected to hold a final presentation either over the phone or using a virtual conferencing 
system to discuss the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations with USAID. This presentation will 
be scheduled as agreed upon between USAID and the consultants. 
5. Draft Evaluation Report:
The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX, Final Report Format. 
The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers to 
50
have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after 
consultation with USAID. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, USAID will have eight working days 
in which to review and comment on the initial draft, after which point USAID/Paraguay will submit the 
consolidated comments to the evaluation team. 
6. Final Evaluation Report: 
The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than five working days to respond to and incorporate final draft 
evaluation report comments. USAID may review and provide comments on draft versions of the report until the 
analysis is considered sufficient and final. The final report should be submitted in English and Spanish. 
7. Submission of Dataset(s) to the Development Data Library:
Per USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579, USAID Development Data), the contractor must also submit to 
USAID/Paraguay and the Development Data Library (DDL), at www.usaid.gov/data, in a machine-readable, non￾proprietary format, a copy of any dataset created or obtained in performance of this award, if applicable. The 
dataset should be organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation. 
Please review ADS 579.3.2.2 Types of Data To Be Submitted to the DDL to determine applicability. 
8. Submission of Final Evaluation Report to the Development Experience Clearinghouse:
Per USAID policy (ADS 201.3.5.18), the contractor must submit the evaluation final report and its summary or 
summaries to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) within three months of final approval by USAID. 
VII. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION 
The contractor must provide information about evaluation team members, including their curricula vitae, and 
explain how they meet the requirements listed below. Submissions of writing samples or links to past evaluation 
reports and related deliverables composed by proposed team members are highly desirable. Per ADS 201.3.5.14, 
all team members must provide to USAID a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing 
an existing conflict of interest relative to the project or activity being evaluated (i.e., a conflict of interest form). 
Required qualifications and skills: 
● Experience in evaluation design, methods, management, and implementation;
● Technical subject matter expertise (Sustainable Landscapes, climate change, and rangeland management);
● Background in USAID’s cross-cutting activity priorities, such as gender equality and women’s 
empowerment, youth, etc.;
● Experience working in Latin America (preferably Paraguay); and
● Professional level Spanish language proficiency.
Proposed key personnel are expected to be the people who execute the work of this contract. Any substitutes to 
the proposed key personnel must be vetted and approved by the AOR in consultation with USAID/Paraguay 
before they may begin to work. USAID may request an interview with any of the proposed evaluation team 
members via conference call or other means.
USAID/Paraguay and LAC/RSD may choose to observe some or all of the data collection efforts. USAID may also 
delegate one or more staff members to work full-time with the evaluation team or to participate in selected 
evaluation activities. USAID will inform the contractor in writing about any full-time or part-time USAID delegates 
upon the submission of an updated evaluation work plan. USAID will pre-define any staff’s level of involvement by 
indicating the purpose of their inclusion, their role on the team and in which components of the evaluation they 
will participate, their expertise in the topic or sector, their expertise in evaluation design or implementation, and 
their anticipated level of effort (LOE). USAID maintains primary responsibility for management of its own staff. 
USAID will outline collaboration, delivery, and performance expectations for its staff as well as reporting lines and 
51
how staff management roles and responsibilities will be coordinated between USAID, the contractor, and the 
evaluation team lead. 
This plan will be finalized in consultation with the evaluation team lead, with final approval by USAID/Paraguay, to 
ensure it is feasible and appropriate to the evaluation objectives and USAID needs and that it addresses mitigation 
of risk of impeding evaluation implementation or biasing findings. All costs associated with the participation of full￾time or part-time USAID delegates in the evaluation will be the responsibility of USAID.
VIII. EVALUATION SCHEDULE
The below evaluation schedule is illustrative and will be updated in collaboration with USAID prior to finalization 
of the work plan. 
Performance Evaluation Schedule
Date or 
Duration Proposed Activities Important Considerations
February 18 -
March 3, 2019
Document review. Preparation of the work 
plan and evaluation design. 
February 18 -
March 3, 2019
Plan travel and preparations for data collection A visa is required for U.S.citizens. 
March 4-8, 2019 Participate in FCAA Pause and Reflect 
workshop.
March 4 - Paraguayan Holiday
March 11-15, 2019 Lead evaluator finalizes work plan and 
evaluation design and receives USAID 
review/approval.
In Asunción
March 18, 2019 Full team in-briefing with USAID/Paraguay
March 19-23, 2019 Data collection & data analysis Key Informants Interviews, Focus 
Groups, Observations in Asuncion and 
the Chaco Region
March 25, 2019 Exit briefing with USAID/Paraguay
March 29, 2019 Final Presentation 
April 5, 2019 Submission of Draft Evaluation Report
April 8 - 17, 2019 USAID and FCAA partners review draft report Provide FCAA partners with an 
opportunity to provide Statement of 
Differences
April 18 - 24, 2019 Incorporate USAID comments and submit final 
report
April 18 & 19 - Paraguayan Holidays 
April 25 - April 30 USAID approval of final report Required reviews: USAID/Paraguay + 
LAC/RSD + AOR
IX. FINAL REPORT FORMAT
1. Abstract
2. Executive Summary 
3. Evaluation Purpose 
4. Background on the Context and the Strategies/Projects/Activities being Evaluated
5. Evaluation Questions
6. Methodology
7. Limitations to the Evaluation
8. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
9. Annexes
52
See the Evaluation Toolkit for the How-To Note on Preparing Evaluation Reports and ADS 201mah, USAID 
Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional Evaluation Report Template is also available in the Evaluation 
Toolkit. 
The evaluation abstract of no more than 250 words should describe what was evaluated, evaluation questions, 
methods, and key findings or conclusions. The executive summary should be 2–5 pages and summarize the 
purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, 
recommendations and lessons learned. The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. 
Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated 
with the evaluation methods (e.g., in sampling; data availability; measurement; analysis; any potential bias such as 
sampling/selection, measurement, interviewer, response, etc.) and their implications for conclusions drawn from 
the evaluation findings.
Annexes to the report must include: 
● Evaluation SOW (updated, not the original, if there were any modifications);
● Evaluation methods;
● All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, 
and discussion guides;
● All sources of information or data, identified and listed; 
● Statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, 
and/or members of the evaluation team, if applicable;
● Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of 
or describing existing conflicts of interest; and
● Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on 
the team.
X. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION 
REPORT
Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be 
evaluated against the following criteria to ensure quality:
● Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively 
evaluate the activity; 
● Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and 
succinctly; 
● The Executive Summary should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of 
the report;
● Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the 
evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID;
● Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information or data properly 
identified; 
● Limitations to the evaluation should be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations 
associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between 
comparator groups, etc.);
● Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, 
hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions; 
● Conclusions should be specific, concise, and include an assessment of quality and strength of evidence to 
support them supported by strong quantitative and/or qualitative evidence;
● If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for 
53
both males and females; and 
● If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be 
action-oriented, practical, and specific. 
See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Checklist and Review 
Template from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance.
XI. OTHER REQUIREMENTS 
All modifications to the required elements of the SOW of the contract/agreement, whether in evaluation 
questions, design and methodology, deliverables and reporting, evaluation team composition, schedule, and/or 
other requirements will be agreed upon in writing by USAID/Paraguay. Any revisions made will be noted in the 
SOW annexed to the final Evaluation Report. 
XII. LIST OF ANNEXES
● FCAA Life of Agreement Strategic Plan
● Annual Work Plans
● Annual Reports
54
ANNEX II: EVALUATION CHRONOGRAM
May
General Tasks Discrete Tasks
2/4 - 2/8
2/11 - 2/15
2/18 - 2/22
2/25 - 3/1
3/4 - 3/8
3/11 - 3/15
3/18 - 3/22
3/25 - 3/29
4/1 - 4/5
4/8 - 4/12
4/15 - 4/19
4/22 - 4/26
4/29 - 5/3
5/6 - 5/10
USAID/Paraguay - 
Finalize SOW
Pre-Evaluatrion 
Preparation USFS/IP - Form Evaluation Team
Data Collection - USA
Review USAID reports
Review WWF reports
Pause & Reflect 
Workshp - 
Filadelfia
Sub-set evaluators - participate in 
workshop
Meet stakeholders; informally 
discuss interviews Understand Alliance stakeholder 
issues, concerns, positive 
outcomes
Data collection/analysis
Matrix 
development Data collection
Develop Evaluatioin Matrix
USAID/Paraguay - approve Matrix 3/13
Work Plan 
development Data collection
Coordinate w/USAID/Paraguay - 
people/entities to interview 3/12
USAID/Paraguay - approve Work 
Plan 3/15
Field Work In-briefing w/Country Rep 3/19
Interview people/organizations - 
Chaco
Interview people/organizations - 
Asuncion
Analysis of informataion collected
Close-out briefing - Country Rep 3/28
Evaluation team departs for USA 3/28
Evaluation Report 
Drafting Develop rought draft report
Submit 1st draft report to USAID 4/16
USAID/Paraguay - review draft 
report
USAID/Paraguay - return Draft 
Report to Lead Evaluator 5/1
Evaluator incorporate 
USAID/Paraguary comments/edits
Submit Final Report to 
USAID/Paraguay 5/10
Phone/video confer. 
w/USAID/Paraguay (Mission 
discretion) TBD
Work Plan (V 1.0, 13 March 2019)
Mid-Term Evaluation - FCAA
Dates
February March April
55
ANNEX III: EVALUATION MATRIX
Evaluation Name: The Forest Conservation and Agriculture Alliance
Evaluation Purpose: Mid-Term Performance Evaluation
Ver 4 - 13 March 2019 (Mission Approved - 13March2019)
General Comments: (1) Evaluation team does not need to ask all 5 principle questions to all interviewees; tailor list 
of questions to ask depending on the person/entity to be interviewed; reference "Who" column. (2) KEY TASK -
Evaluation team to develop a brief verbal pitch about the project & the technical assistance given to explain to 
interviewees; richness (or lack thereof) of overall description to vary per person/entity to be interviewed.
Question Sub-Question Comments Who? -
Data 
Source(s)
Data 
Collectio
n Method
Spanish 
Translation of 
Interview 
Question
1) What are the 
strengths and 
weaknesses of the 
FCAA project 
approach? [According to 
other key-stakeholders not
directly involved with the 
project]
Include 
people’s
perceptions. 
Ask question 
of FCAA 
members & 
non-members. 
Includes: 
strategies, 
technical 
assistance to 
beef 
producers, 
etc.
Non-Alliance 
people/entiti
es (GOP 
ministries, 
etc.), Alliance 
members, 
WWF
Responses 
to 
interview 
questions; 
plus desk 
reviews
¿Cuáles son las 
fortalezas y 
debilidades del 
enfoque del 
proyecto? [De 
acuerdo con 
gente/organizacion
es no directamente 
involucrados en el 
proyecto]
2) What is your vision 
of the Alliance?
Non￾members of 
the Alliance 
may know 
little of the 
Alliance, their 
perceptions 
valid. How 
should it 
function? Qué 
es lo que usted 
cree que la 
visión debería 
ser? Visión 
está 
relacionado a 
lo que piensa 
que debería 
ser.
WWF, 
Alliance 
members, 
non-Alliance 
people/entiti
es (GOP 
ministries, 
etc.)
Responses 
to 
interview 
questions; 
plus desk 
reviews; 
field 
observatio
ns where 
applicable
¿Cuál es su visión 
de la Alianza?
56
2.1) What are the 
advantages and 
disadvantages of 
being part of the 
Alliance? 
[Experienced by 
each of its 
members]
Alliance 
members
Interviews ¿Cuáles son las 
ventajas y 
desventajas de 
ser parte de la 
Alianza? [Según la 
experiencia de 
cada socio de la 
Alianza]
2.2) Is there 
enough interest 
and financial
commitment to 
continue working 
as an Alliance after 
USAID support 
ends?+B13
This is a 
question 
primarily 
geared for the 
evaluator. 
The evaluator 
should 
provide a 
conclusion 
based on the 
interviewees' 
answers. 
Evaluation 
Team, 
Alliance 
members
Interviews ¿Estaría usted 
dispuesto a 
continuar siendo 
parte de la 
Alianza una vez 
que termine el 
apoyo de USAID? 
Estaría dispuesto 
a realizar algún 
aporte financiero
como socio para 
asegurar su 
funcionamiento?
3) Is the current 
governance, 
management and 
staffing structure for 
the project effective to 
ensure the achievement 
of the project's 
objectives? 
Alliance 
members
Responses 
to 
interview 
questions; 
plus desk 
reviews
¿Cree usted que 
la estructura 
actual de 
gobernanza y 
gerenciamiento 
de la Alianza es 
efectiva para 
asegurar el logro 
de los objetivos 
del proyecto? 
3.1) What are the 
external 
communication 
agreements 
between members? 
3.2) Is the current 
governance and 
management 
structure effective 
to ensure the 
achievement of the 
Alliance's 
objectives beyond 
the life of the 
project?
Specify 
"Alliance" as a 
"grupo 
implusor de 
sostenibilidad", 
and not as a 
project.
Alliance 
members + 
Asociación 
de 
Productores 
de Água 
Dulce 
(APAD)
Interviews ¿Cree usted que 
la estructura 
actual de 
gobernanza y 
gerenciamiento 
de la Alianza es 
efectiva para 
asegurar el logro 
de los objetivos 
de la Alianza 
(grupo impulsor
de sostenibilidad) 
más allá del 
proyecto? 
57
4) Does WWF's 
management and staffing 
structure address the 
personnel requirements 
of the project? 
WWF & 
WCSs
Primarily 
Desk 
Review, 
coupled 
with select 
interviews
¿Considera que la 
estructura 
gerencial y el 
personal del 
Proyecto son 
suficientes para la 
implementación 
del proyecto? 
4.1) With respect 
to the 
organizational 
chart, clear 
decision of the 
roles and 
responsibilities, and 
internal 
communications 
process?
WWF & 
WCS
Desk 
reviews 
(MOU); 
interviews
¿Tiene esta 
estrategia una 
clara plan de 
comunicación 
externa entre 
miembros?
4.2) Is there a clear 
strategy for 
coordination 
between the 
different programs 
that WWF 
implements and 
the roles of the 
teams and the 
personnel assigned 
to them?
WWF & 
WCS
Primarily 
interviews
¿Cuenta WWF 
con una clara 
estrategia de 
coordinación 
entre los 
diferentes 
programas que 
implementa, con 
roles y de 
dedicación de 
personal bien 
definidos?
5) Are pilot projects 
scalable, replicable and 
feasible examples of 
sustainable practices 
that can be required by 
the Paraguayan 
Government to approve 
environmental licenses 
and land use plans?
WWF sees 
the 20 Pilot 
Projects as an 
end in 
themselves. 
Pilot Projects 
greater than 
the basic 
criteria 
required in a 
Licencia 
Ambiental.
Producers/ 
Cooperatives
; National 
Government 
ministries
Responses 
to 
interview 
questions; 
plus desk 
reviews; 
field 
observatio
ns
¿Cree que los 
proyectos pilotos
son modelos 
suficientemente 
viables, escalables 
y replicables 
como para que el 
Gobierno 
paraguayo los 
pueda exigir 
como requisito 
para la 
aprobación de 
licencias 
ambientales y 
planes del use del 
suelo?
58
ANNEX IV: PERSONS INTERVIEWED
PEOPLE INTERVIEWED
FCAA MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT
Name Title Organization Relationship to 
Project
1 Dr. Marcelo Gonzalez Deputy Minister of 
Livestock
Ministerio de 
Agricultura y Ganaderia
Not directly affiliated
2 Claudia M. Gonzalez Chief, Dept. of Sustainable 
Cattle Mgmt.
Ministerio de 
Agricultura y Ganaderia
Not directly affiliated
3 Dalma Domingues Cattle Management Tech. 
Specialist
Ministerio de 
Agricultura y Ganaderia
Not directly affiliated
4 Blas Courirat Cattle Management Tech. 
Specialist
Ministerio de 
Agricultura y Ganaderia
Not directly affiliated
5 Taciano Custodio Sustainability Director Minerva Foods FCAA affiliated
6 Nicolas Burro S. Vice President Asociacion Rural del 
Paraguay
FCAA affiliated
7 Jose Luis Cartes Executive Directcor Guyra Paraguay Not directly affiliated
8 Lucy Aquino Director WWF/Paraguay FCAA affiliated
9 Marcelo Insaurralde Program Director Solidaridad Not directly affiliated
10 Hugo Sanchez Aguero Director Mesa Paraguaya de 
Carne Sostenible
Not directly affiliated
11 Oscar Ferreiro National Coordinator for 
Green Commodities
UN Development 
Program (UNDP)
Not directly affiliated
12 Maria del Carmen 
Fleytas
Director Wildlife Conservation 
Society/Paraguay
FCAA affiliated
13 Angel Brusquetti Operations Manager Wildlife Conservation 
Society/Paraguay
FCAA affiliated
14 Laura Villalba Species Conservation 
Coordinator
Wildlife Conservation 
Society/Paraguay
FCAA affiliated
15 Guillermo Terol Program Manager International Finance 
Corporation (IFC)
FCAA affiliated
16 Lorena Ramirez Project Manager International Finance 
Corporation (IFC)
FCAA affiliated
17 Karem Elizche Program Manager Ministerio de Ambiente y 
Desarrollo Sostenible
(MADES)
Not directly affiliated
18 Ariel Oviedo Minister - MADES Ministerio de Ambiente y 
Desarrollo Sostenible
(MADES)
Not directly affiliated
19 Graciela Soledad M. 
Martinez
Director – Direccion de 
Planificacion Estrategica
Ministerio de Ambiente y 
Desarrollo Sostenible
Not directly affiliated
20 Yan Speranza Executive Director Fundacion Moises Bertoni FCAA affiliated
21 Martin Mongelos Range Management 
Technician
WWF/Paraguay FCAA affiliated
59
22 Cristina Goralewski President Instituto Nacional 
Forestal (INFONA)
Not directly affiliated
23 Carlos Irrazabal Chief – Forest Management 
Division
Instituto Nacional 
Forestal (INFONA)
Not directly affiliated
24 Damiana Mann Forest Planning Instituto Nacional 
Forestal (INFONA)
Not directly affiliated
25 Silvana Sosa INFONA Auditing & 
Internal Controls Unit
Instituto Nacional 
Forestal (INFONA)
Not directly affiliated
Following interviews took place in the Chaco region
26 Gustav Sawatsky President Cooperativa Chortitzer Not directly affiliated
27 Wilfried Giesbrecht Vice-President Cooperativa Chortitzer Not directly affiliated
28 Rudolf Hilderbrandt Promoter Chaco Integrado Not directly affiliated
29 Dr. Egon Neufeld Director Agropecuario Faro 
Norte, SA
FCAA affiliated
30 Fernando Toews Cooperative Social Affairs 
Coordinator
Fernhiem Cooperative Not directly affiliated
31 Holger Bergen Superintendent Municipality of Filadelfia FCAA affiliated
32 Walter Stockl Superintendent Municipality of Loma 
Plata
Not directly affiliated
33 Rosalia Goerzen Technical Assistance 
Manager
Cooperative of 
Fernheim; Filadelfia
Not directly affiliated
34 Natalia Escobar 
Decoud
Technical Assistance 
Specialist
Cooperative of 
Fernheim; Filadelfia
Not directly affiliated
35 Alfred Fast President Mesa de Carne 
Sostenible
Not directly affiliated
36 Victor Diaz First Secretary Municipality of Mariscal 
Estigarriba
Not directly affiliated
37 Heinz Alfred Bartel President Neuland Cooperative FCAA affiliated
60
ANNEX V: DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Documents Reviewed - Mid-Term Evaluation Process
Forest Conservation and Agricultural Alliance
Ordered Alphabetically:
• Cooperative Agreement – AID-OAA-15-00065
• Environmental Analysis – Soybean and Meat Production in Paraguay, WWF, 2016
• FCAA Reports:
o Annual Reports – FY2018, FY2017
o Best Management Plan for Cattle Production, Alto Paraguay, Paraguay
o Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, November 2018
o Quarterly Reports – FY2018, 2017, 2016
o Work Plan – Year Four
• International Finance Corporation – Implementation Plan, Paraguay – Beef, 2016
• Life of Agreement Strategic Plan, Final
• Pause and Reflect Workshop Notes, March 2019
• Trip Report, USAID/REA Schmidtke, FECOPROD & WWF, December 2017
• USAID:
o Biodiversity and Forest Conservation Assessment, GEMS, December 2017
o Land Rights, Beef Commodity Chains, and Deforestation Dynamics in the Paraguayan Chaco; 
April 2017
o Monitoring Report – International Finance Corporation and Minerva Beef Project –
Brazil/Paraguay, May 2013
61
ANNEX VI: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
Name Bruce A. Bayle
Title Evaluation Team Leader
Organization Environmental Consultant
Evaluation Position? X Team Leader Team member
Evaluation Award Number
(contract or other instrument)
USAID/Paraguay PASA agreement with US Forest 
Service
USAID Project(s) Evaluated
(Include project name(s), implementer 
name(s) and award number(s), if 
applicable)
Forest Conservation and Agricultural Alliance; 
Cooperative Agreement to World Wildlife 
Fund/Paraguay
I have real or potential conflicts of 
interest to disclose.
 Yes X No
If yes answered above, I disclose 
the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but 
are not limited to:
1. Close family member who is an employee of the 
USAID operating unit managing the project(s) 
being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant 
though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated 
or in the outcome of the evaluation.
3. Current or previous direct or significant though 
indirect experience with the project(s) being 
evaluated, including involvement in the project 
design or previous iterations of the project.
4. Current or previous work experience or seeking 
employment with the USAID operating unit 
managing the evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
5. Current or previous work experience with an 
organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing organization(s) 
whose project(s) are being evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives of the particular 
projects and organizations being evaluated that 
could bias the evaluation. 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update 
this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.
Signature
Date May 9, 2019
62
Name Rebecca Ciciretti
Title Evaluation Team Member
Organization US Forest Service/International Programs
Evaluation Position? Team Leader X Team member
Evaluation Award Number
(contract or other instrument)
USAID/Paraguay PASA agreement with US Forest 
Service
USAID Project(s) Evaluated
(Include project name(s), implementer 
name(s) and award number(s), if 
applicable)
Forest Conservation and Agricultural Alliance; 
Cooperative Agreement to World Wildlife 
Fund/Paraguay
I have real or potential conflicts of 
interest to disclose.
 Yes X No
If yes answered above, I disclose 
the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but 
are not limited to:
7. Close family member who is an employee of the 
USAID operating unit managing the project(s) 
being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
8. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant 
though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated 
or in the outcome of the evaluation.
9. Current or previous direct or significant though 
indirect experience with the project(s) being 
evaluated, including involvement in the project 
design or previous iterations of the project.
10. Current or previous work experience or 
seeking employment with the USAID operating 
unit managing the evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
11. Current or previous work experience with 
an organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing organization(s) 
whose project(s) are being evaluated.
12. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, 
groups, organizations, or objectives of the 
particular projects and organizations being 
evaluated that could bias the evaluation. 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update 
this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.
Signature
Date May 9, 2019
63
Name Lydia LaBelle de Rios
Title Evaluation Team Member
Organization US Forest Service, White River National Forest
Evaluation Position? Team Leader X Team member
Evaluation Award Number
(contract or other instrument)
USAID/Paraguay PASA agreement with US Forest 
Service
USAID Project(s) Evaluated
(Include project name(s), implementer 
name(s) and award number(s), if 
applicable)
Forest Conservation and Agricultural Alliance; 
Cooperative Agreement to World Wildlife 
Fund/Paraguay
I have real or potential conflicts of 
interest to disclose.
 Yes X No
If yes answered above, I disclose 
the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but 
are not limited to:
13. Close family member who is an employee 
of the USAID operating unit managing the 
project(s) being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
14. Financial interest that is direct, or is 
significant though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated 
or in the outcome of the evaluation.
15. Current or previous direct or significant 
though indirect experience with the project(s) 
being evaluated, including involvement in the 
project design or previous iterations of the project.
16. Current or previous work experience or 
seeking employment with the USAID operating 
unit managing the evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
17. Current or previous work experience with 
an organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing organization(s) 
whose project(s) are being evaluated.
18. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, 
groups, organizations, or objectives of the 
particular projects and organizations being 
evaluated that could bias the evaluation. 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update 
this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.
Signature
Date May 9, 2019
64
ANNEX VII: EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS
Bruce Bayle, Environmental Consultant, Fletcher, NC, USA
Bruce is a retired natural resource manager with a 35-year career with the US Government. He worked many 
years for the US Forest Service in positions on rural Ranger Districts doing on-the-ground natural resource 
management (recreation, fire, timber, special uses, wildlife, range, and watershed management) and in the Regional 
Office of the Southern Region, serving as both a watershed management specialist and in analyzing the impacts of 
air pollutants on terrestrial ecosystems. Bruce served as USAID/Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Regional 
Environmental Advisor: three years for the Caribbean and later, five years in Bogota, Colombia for South America 
and subsequently in the LAC/RSD office in Washington as their biodiversity and forestry advisor. Since 
retirement, Bruce has worked numerous consultancies on USAID projects in LAC and West Africa. Prior to the 
start of his Government career, Bruce served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala.
Bruce has a B.S. in Forest Management and Environmental Studies from North Carolina State University.
Rebecca Ciciretti, U.S Forest Service International Programs, Washington, DC, USA
Rebecca joined the U.S. Forest Service Office of International Programs in 2016, working with the Latin America 
and Caribbean team as the Program Manager for the Chile, Haiti, and Dominican Republic programs. Most 
recently, her work with these programs has focused on managing technical experts on the topics of disaster 
mitigation, natural resource management, and protected area management.
Rebecca served as an Environmental Education Peace Corps Volunteer in El Salvador. As a Peace Corps Volunteer, 
she completed a fuel-efficient stove project for approximately 50 households in her community, taught 
environmental education classes at the local K-9 school, organized a women’s small business group, and taught 
English classes throughout the community. Rebecca’s experience with the fuel-efficient stove project sparked her 
interest in children’s environmental health issues. As a result, Rebecca completed summer internships during 
graduate school at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Children’s Health Protection and the 
Children’s Environmental Health Network. Both internships inspired Rebecca’s research as a Fulbright student 
grantee at the Universidad Catolica de Chile in Santiago, Chile. During her time in Chile, she researched the effect 
of air pollution from forest fires on children’s respiratory health.
Rebecca has a B.A. in Environmental Studies and B.A. in Sociology from Case Western Reserve University, and an 
M.S. in Environmental Science and M.A. in Public Affairs from Indiana University.
Lydia LaBelle de Rios, Rangeland Management Specialist, US Forest Service
Lydia is responsible for the largest rangeland program of 35 permittees on the White River National Forest in 
Colorado. She studied and traveled extensively including study in countries of Southern Africa with Colorado 
State and work with Peace Corps in South America. Lydia’s work is primarily in agriculture, international 
development, and rangeland management, currently focusing on practical rangeland monitoring techniques and 
people management/facilitation with the U.S. Forest Service. She has worked with the U.S. Forest Service Office of 
International Programs in Ethiopia and recently returned from a sabbatical in Mongolia which included range 
management consultation. Lydia’s successes include leading teams in inventory on-the-ground, team lead through 
environmental policy process, and facilitation for work prioritization. Lydia lives with her husband and two sons as 
a bilingual household in Rifle, CO where they strive to keep foreign culture, heritage, and language in their 
everyday lives. Lydia has a B.S. in Rangeland Ecology and an M.S. in Watershed Science, with a focus on 
International development.
65
ANNEX VIII: STATEMENT OF DIFFERENCES
Implementation Partner Responses to select passages of Final Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report 
& Evaluation Team responses to each point/concern raised by Implementation Partner
Implementation Partner Specific Concerns Evaluation Team (ET) Responses
Finding #1 (page 19 of Draft Report):
The structure was developed with the partners and
the responsibilities were established in the work
plan that was shared and/or developed with them.
The responsibilities have been adapted as the 
project advances and are established in yearly 
work plans. There are some members of the
alliance thatreceive more benefitsthan othersin this
phase, however the overall benefits will be seen in 
the medium to long-term. Membership is formal; 
all members signed a multi-partner MoU.
In this MoU, the original project structure was set 
describing the roles and commitments of each 
partner, and defining each point of contact. In 
addition, the MoU establishes the collaboration
norms: "The parties will seek, to the possible extent but
subject to the sole discretion of each party,to share their
respective strengths, experiences, technologies,
methodologies and resources with the aim of achieving 
these objectives... "
Also, the agreement creates a "Board of 
Directors", establishing its objectives and its 
communication channels: "The board of directors 
will be integrated by a representative of each of
the parties and willmeet periodically analyze the
FCAAactivities, progress and results, and address
and resolve the problems and preoccupations
related to the program, including but not limited 
to the execution and the communication strategy.
According to the project commitments, the main 
partners (Neuland, WCS, Association of
Municipalities of Central Chaco) have received
financial and other benefitsrelated to the good 
positioning of their organizations.
The draft report text for “Findings – Project 
Weaknesses”, number 1 modified based on 
implementation partner’s new/clarifying narrative. ET 
appreciative of new implementation partner narrative 
specific to Finding #1.
Finding #3 (page 19 of draft report): The draft report text for “Findings – Project 
Weaknesses”, number 3 modified based on 
66
These technicians were hired to supervise 
Minerva's and Neuland's extension work. Minerva
hasits own technicians and so does Neuland. Also,
WCS has one technician appointed to this project 
to supervise other extension work. To avoid long 
road travel WWF has rented a house in the 
Chaco. This hasfacilitated the work as several of
the technicians and the manager of the project can 
thus spend extensive time in the Central Chaco.
If there is a future phase of the project, WWF is 
willing to hire more technicians to scale up and 
replicate.
implementation partner’s new/clarifying narrative. ET 
appreciative of new implementation partner narrative 
specific to Finding #3.
Finding #7 (page 20 of draft report):
The work in the Municipality of Filadelfia began 
first, due to the leadership of Mr. Holger Bergen. 
Holger and his team promoted several initiatives
with in the FCAA project. Additionally, in the 
MoU and the original "Life of Agreement" 
document, the centralization of activities with the
Municipality of Filadelfia was strategically defined
as a pilot exercise that could be scaled up to other 
districts with additional funds. No activities or 
funds were specifically defined for the other 
municipalities in neither of the mentioned
documents.
Nonetheless, scaling up good results of the 
Filadelfia Municipality has always been on the 
horizon. In fact, on May 2th, 2019, WWF signed a
MoU to work with theMunicipality of Mariscal 
Estigarribia. In the ongoing fiscal year, the project 
will focus on working with this Municipality with
FCAA funds and leverage funding from WWF.
Currently, planning and meetings are also being 
held to work with the Municipality of lrala 
Fernandez. As a contribution to the project, 
WWF is also working with several other partners 
- NGOs, the Technical Planning Secretariat (STP), 
local producers, the Ministry of Environment 
(MADES), among others - to develop Land Use 
Plans for the Municipalities of Bahia Negra and 
Puerto Casado.
The draft report text for “Findings – Project 
Weaknesses”, number 7 was not modified based on 
implementation partner’s new/clarifying narrative. ET 
appreciative of new implementation partner narrative 
specific to Finding #7. The May 2, 2019 MOU signed 
by the implementation partner and the Municipality of 
Mariscal Estigarriba is an excellent undertaking, but is 
beyond the scope (due to a time limitation) of the 
Mid-Term Evaluation.
Finding #12 (now #13 - page 21 of draft report): The draft report text for “Findings – Project 
67
The laws have numerous weaknesses; some are
conflicting and confusing, contradictions exist, and 
the lack of regulation (implementation) is evident 
in both regions of the country. Gaps in the 
legislation and the lack of legal distinction 
between two very distinct regions (Western and 
Eastern) urgently needs to be addressed. The 
FCAA project is addressing legislation 
improvement not only within the project but also 
within the general focus of WW F's organization
goals.
In the previous administration it was very difficult 
to work with SEAM (Secretary of the 
Environment, now MADES). However, since the 
new administration was inaugurated members of 
the core team, along with USAID representatives, 
visited the Minister of MADES establishing a 
sound relationship. WWF is meeting often with 
the Minister of MADES and other high-level 
members within the Ministry. Moreover, the 
Minister has expressed his satisfaction with the 
work about construction of an Alliance in the 
Chaco.
In the previous administration WWF had worked 
with the Secretary of Planning (STP), INFONA 
and the Ministry of Public Works (MOPC). In this 
new administration we are working very closely 
with MADES (a new MoU was signed chis year), 
INFONA (a specific MoU was signed chis year), 
with STP (continuing land use planning in Alto 
Paraguay), and with MOPC (a general MoU was 
signed during the previous administration and a 
specific one was signed this year). We are also
beginning a collaboration with the Consumer 
Defense Secretariat (Secretaria de Defensa al 
Consumidor- SeDeCo) as well as with the Ministry 
of Industry and Trade.
ARP participated during the early stages of the 
FCAA project. However, they became vociferous 
in expressing their disagreement on the major 
goal of the project: "Reduction of deforestation and
mitigation ofclimate change". Several times WWF
tried to bring them back to the Alliance: several
presentations, letters, one-on-one meetings and
even supporting some of their initiative regarding
the promotion of their goals, but these efforts
were not successful. Yet, some of the producers 
Weaknesses”, number 12 (#13) modified based on 
implementation partner’s new/clarifying narrative. ET 
appreciative of new implementation partner narrative 
specific to Finding #12 (13).
Much of the implementation partner’s response deals 
with FCAA; whereas the thrust of Finding #12 (new 
#13) focuses on the Alliance.
68
we are working closely with, are part of the ARP. 
We do understand the importance of chi s 
association co be part of the Alliance. WWF as 
one of the implementers of FCAA will continue 
encouraging ARP to be part of theAlliance.
Finding #13 (now #14 - page 21 of draft report):
This is basically part of the story of production 
and conservation. However, this project has made
considerable progress in gathering these
communities together at the same table and 
working toward a common goal. In fact, this has
been a major achievement of the project. In this 
way our project is also gaining the respect of large
corporations such as McDonald's, retailers and the
industries. We are aware that we still have much
to do, and chat much work is needed to develop 
and maintain chis momentum and increase our 
presence in the production, market and industry 
sectors, and among the consumers in the world. It 
is important co understand this issue not as a
finding, but as part of an ongoing process of 
building trust between organizations that were 
historically antagonistic.
As an aside, it is important to mention that 
several times this trust building process was 
disrupted by staff changes made by the partners.
The draft report text for “Findings – Project 
Weaknesses”, number 13 (#14) modified based on 
implementation partner’s new/clarifying narrative 
relative to stating their implementation progress to 
date. ET appreciative of new implementation partner 
narrative specific to Finding #13 (14).
Finding #16 (now #17 - page 21 of draft report):
This project has goals, objectives, sub-objectives, and 
activities that are suited for adaptive management 
according to opportunities and threats that arise 
during the implementation of the project. Sound 
planning following different methodologies and tools 
such as Miradi, the Open Standards and an inclusive 
Logical Frame work have been implemented. The 
internal and external communication in the Alliance 
needs improvement both on the part of the project 
managers as well as by each of the partners. While 
the communication should improve, pro1ect 
indicators are being accomplished, in some cases,
exceeding the established values. Those that haven't
been reached yet will be completed at the end of
the project(see table below).
Regarding the GHG goal this was not recognized 
as relevant by several producers, especially by 
some members at the ARP. Some of these 
The draft report text for “Findings – Project 
Weaknesses”, number 16 (#17) modified based on 
implementation partner’s new/clarifying narrative. ET 
appreciative of new implementation partner narrative 
specific to Finding #16 (17).
69
members do not acknowledge that GHG is a
problem, perhaps due to a traditional mind-set or
financial motives, or perhaps because they really 
do not believe anthropogenic act1vit1es are 
responsible for climate change.This project has
always been focused on an ambitious goal:
conservation and sustainable use of natural 
resources for future generations.
Note that implementation partner inserted a chart in their 
response that included 3 columns: (1) indicator, (2) goal, & 
(3) percent accomplishment; due to formatting issues, the 
table could not be inserted here. 
Finding #18 (now combined within #17 - page 21 of 
draft report):
(a) Some work projects where the municipal 
government was peripherally involved; no final 
results seen - It is difficult to reply to this 
statement without more information being 
provided. However, it is important to note that 
both planning and activities are well underway, 
leading toward the expected results. Three of the 
four activities planned with the Filadelfia 
Municipality were accomplished: I) The 
Sustainability Vision; 2) First steps towards the 
development of a rural cadaster; and 3) 
Transparency systems. The fourth, which is in 
process and expected to be completed by the end 
of the project, relates to the support for the 
development of a land use monitoring system (or 
a "multi-purpose cadaster system").
(b) “High overhead costs” - Overhead has been 
agreed to between WW F-US and USAID in the 
Washington office, not only for this Project but in 
all Projects where WWF and USAID work 
together.
The draft report text for “Findings – Project 
Weaknesses”, number 18 (now part of modified #17) 
modified based on implementation partner’s 
new/clarifying narrative. ET appreciative of new 
implementation partner narrative specific to Finding 
#18 (now #17).
Finding as originally drafted was vague, text modified.
The statement regarding overhead costs has been 
modified as well.
70
ANNEX IX: WCS & NEWLAND COOPERATIVE COMMENTARIES
This brief annex relates to thoughts reached by (1) Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and (2) Neuland 
Cooperative after reviewing the final draft report. Their respective narratives appear below (translated from the 
original Spanish language). This annex does not represent a Statement of Differences. The authors of this final 
report view each of the following two narratives as providing valid, supplementary information to the readers of 
this report. The authors of this report thank WCS and Neuland Cooperative for their additional, clarifying 
narratives.
WCS: WCS encountered no factual errors in the final draft report. WCS noted they felt insufficient attention was 
provided in the final draft to their work with pilot sites; the report noted the 20 pilots that WWF monitors but 
not work WCS has done on those sites over the previous four years; field work includes: wildlife photos taken 
with camera traps, final reports prepared, conclusions reached, etc. The final draft report mentions the WCS 
wildlife monitoring, but it is not identified as pilot work; not encountered is work done on the pilot sites dealing 
with native forest management, forest carbon measurements, ongoing work addressing pasture rotations, etc. 
WCS presumes these points were not addressed in the final draft report because WCS staff were not consulted. 
In light that the above points did not surface during the interview process, we suppose it is not now possible to 
unilaterally add these points to the final report.
[Original Spanish language narrative – “No hemos encontrado errores resaltantes. Lo que sí nos llama un poco la 
atención que no hay mención al trabajo de WCS en los pilotos, mencionándose como tales solamente los 20 
“pilotos” que WWF monitorea y no los que hemos venido implementando nosotros desde hace 4 años, con 
trabajos de campo, fotos, informes finales, conclusiones, etc. Se menciona el trabajo de monitoreo de fauna, pero 
no está identificado como piloto, y no encontramos referencias al piloto de manejo del bosque nativo, al de 
medición de carbono en sistemas productivos, al que está en marcha de pastoreo rotativo, etc. Entiendo que será 
porque ese aspecto no fue consultado/identificado por los evaluadores? Como ya no se consultó/identificó en las 
entrevistas, supongo que ya no se puede agregar unilateralmente. Aguardaremos el informe final.”]
Editorial note by report authors – WCS staff were interviewed at their offices in Asuncion and WCS reports were 
read as part of the report preparation process. Due to time constraints, USFS consultants were unable to visit any 
field sites, especially those where WCS has ongoing work. Details of WCS field work would have surely been 
better highlighted in the final draft report if field visits had been possible.
Neuland Cooperative - In general, we do not have any specific observations to make relevant to the final draft 
report. I do not agree with some statements and situations described. We understand that this evaluation is just 
one way of assessing what the Alliance has achieved. However, it should be taken into consideration that each 
Alliance member has and will continue having its own perspective regarding the evaluated issues. The Evaluation 
should focus on the important fact that members have reached a basic consensus on fundamental elements of the 
Alliance. It would have been very useful to have had a Spanish language version of the final draft report since not 
all Alliance members have the ability to read English.
[Original Spanish language narrative – “En principio no tengo observaciones de relevancia que hacer, respecto al 
documento. No me identifico con algunas expresiones y realidades descriptas. Entiendo que es una forma de 
valorar y evaluar lo hecho por la Alianza, pero que a la hora de opinar, no se debe olvidar que cada integrante de 
la mencionada Alianza tiene y tendrá su visión y enfoque particular sobre los ejes temáticos tratados y que la 
valoración se debería concentrar en el logro de haber conseguido consensos básicos en los puntos fundamentales. 
Además me hubiese sido de suma utilidad, tener la versión en español del documento, ya que no podemos 
suponer que todos los involucrados manejemos un ingles fluido.”]
Editorial note by report authors – The authors of this report thank the president of Neuland Cooperative for 
expressing his thoughts; report authors are in complete agreement with Neuland’s additional narrative. Note that 
a Spanish language version of this report will soon be forthcoming (this new annex dated June 2019).
71
Contact information regarding this report can be obtained from:
U.S. Agency for International Development
Juan de Salazar 364 c/ Avenida Artigas
Asuncion, Paraguay