Mid-term Review of USAID/Paraguay Environmental Strategic Objective
Review and recommendations for current strategy (2001-2005)
March 12, 2004
Safia Aggarwal, Victor Bullen, and Julie Kunen
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 3
Findings and accomplishments:................................................................................................... 3
General findings and accomplishments.................................................................................... 4
Region specific findings and achievements.............................................................................. 5
Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (UPAF).................................................................................... 5
Chaco/Pantanal........................................................................................................................ 6
Recommendations for Current Environment SO...................................................................... 8
General recommendations......................................................................................................... 8
Region Specific Recommendations........................................................................................... 9
Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (UPAF).................................................................................... 9
Chaco/Pantanal........................................................................................................................ 9
Appendix...................................................................................................................................... 11
Acronyms.................................................................................................................................. 11
List of Contacts......................................................................................................................... 12
Scope of work ........................................................................................................................... 13
3
Introduction
This report details the findings and recommendations that emerged from a mid-term review of 
USAID/Paraguay’s Environmental Strategic Objective 2001-2005, entitled “Management of 
Globally Significant Ecoregions Improved.” The purpose of the review was to assess the mid￾term progress achieved towards the Environmental Strategic Objective, and recommend changes 
for the current strategy. The purpose of the review was also to make recommendations for the 
future strategy (2006-2010). Recommendations for the future strategy are presented in a separate 
document.
Methodology
This review is based on site visits, interviews, and review of existing documents. The review 
team visited two field sites: i) the Chaco region, where the team visited Defensores del Chaco
National Park, Loma Plata and Filadelfia, and ii) the San Rafael Resource Management Reserve 
in the Atlantic Forest region. 
The team conducted interviews with NGOs directly and indirectly supported by 
USAID/Paraguay; the former included WWF, TNC, Fundación DeSdel Chaco and IDEA, and 
the latter included Guyra Paraguay, Alter Vida, FMB, Pro Cosara, ASCIM, and Natural Land 
Trust. Interviews were conducted with central government officials in the Environment 
Secretariat (SEAM) and with local government officials (in the Departments of Alto Paraguay 
and Boquerón). The team also interviewed other donors supporting environmental programs in 
Paraguay as well as the program officers for the Economic Growth and the Democracy and 
Governance Programs at the Mission. Appendix 2 provides a list of individuals interviewed at 
each of the organizations. 
Documents reviewed by the team included earlier evaluations of WWF-Paraguay (November 
2001) and of Fundación DeSdel Chaco (2002). Additional documents reviewed by the team 
included workplans and annual reports received from NGOs directly funded by the Mission as 
well as documents collected at the interviews. 
Findings and accomplishments:
The Mission’s Environment SO “Management of Globally Significant Ecoregions Improved” 
has two Intermediate Results: 
IR 2.1 Ecoregional management capacity of local NGOs strengthened, and 
IR 2.2 Policy, legal, and financial tools for improved ecoregional management 
developed. 
Program accomplishments were evaluated against these IRs, however site visits allowed for a 
general biophysical assessment of the ecoregions. Below, we outline the major accomplishments 
of the program. Since the challenges, program successes, and recommendations are strikingly 
different for the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (UPAF) and the Chaco ecoregions, we provide 
both overall and region-specific findings and recommendations. 
4
I) General findings and accomplishments
1. Accomplishments of the Environmental SO are significant for the amount of funds invested 
(approx. $1,000,000 per year). USAID/Paraguay is filling an important niche in natural resource 
conservation that is not supported by other donors. UNDP/GEF’s Paraguayan Wildlands 
Protection Initiative, a $9 million, seven-year project that began in 1998, is providing support to 
the SEAM for institutional strengthening and support for four protected areas. The program is, 
however, largely ineffective primarily due to SEAM’s lack of capacity and resources. 
2. USAID/Paraguay is making an enormous impact on local NGO strengthening and capacity 
building. This is another niche that is being filled only by USAID and not by other environment 
donors in the country. Other donors are primarily implementing programs through government 
ministries, departments, and municipalities. Progress in working via the central government has 
been extremely slow, and it is not clear whether it is effective. Realizing this, some donors such 
as JICA and GTZ are beginning to shift focus to work directly with NGOs, civil society 
organizations, and local governments. 
3. Many local conservation NGOs have emerged through support from TNC, WWF, and 
USAID’s earlier support to FMB. Capacity building has yielded results in adaptive management 
(shifting focus to new threats and opportunities as they emerge, such as developing alternative 
income generation activities), ability to obtain new sources of funding (from other government 
donors, private foundations, internet campaigns), development of technical expertise (engaging 
in research and publishing and providing a guiding biodiversity vision to the government and 
other conservation NGOs), and coordination of efforts in project implementation (such as
education activities and training to other NGOs, parks guards, and judges). 
4. Partner NGOs are working to strengthen the central government, in particular the Secretariat 
of Environment (SEAM) created in 2000. Partner conservation NGOs are assisting SEAM to 
develop a national environmental strategy, including SINASIP (Strategic Plan for the National 
System of Protected Areas) and ENPAB (National Strategy and Plan of Action for the 
Conservation of Biodiversity). In 2003, IDEA published a comprehensive analysis of 
Paraguay’s environmental laws, as well as analyses and recommendations for necessary reforms 
to the national environmental framework. WWF and TNC are also working closely with 
government authorities to create a national environmental fund, as well as a debt-for-nature swap 
with the United States. Despite this, progress in working with the central government has been 
slow, due to the central government’s lack of resources, technical capacity and political will. 
5. The NGOs are also working to implement SEAM’s directive that environmental management 
be devolved to local governments. Several of the NGOs (WWF, TNC, IDEA, Guyra, DeSdel 
Chaco) have developed good links with departments and municipalities and are engaged in 
capacity building, institutional strengthening, and land use planning. They are providing 
valuable technical support and training to local governments, and assisting them in functions that 
local governments are unable to perform due to lack of funds and technical capacity. For 
instance, IDEA conducted environmental law training workshops for prosecutors and judges in 
four Departments. Other regional examples are provided below. 
5
6. NGOs are developing a variety of environmental education materials to raise awareness and 
build constituency for conservation at the national level. For instance, in 2003 WWF produced 
an environmental education manual for UPAF (described below). TNC provided support to 
FMB to develop conservation and sustainable development awareness campaigns (also funded 
by UNDP/GEF and WWF) that resulted in the national broadcast of four television spots, four 
radio spots, and publishing of several advertisements in a national newspaper. National TV 
stations donated $20,000 of airtime to this campaign. Currently, 73 volunteers are participating
actively in the awareness campaigns. Volunteers also participated in the ECO EXPO 2003, an 
environmental fair and exhibition sponsored by SEAM last year. 
II) Region specific findings and achievements
a) Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (UPAF)
1. WWF is playing a valuable role as an umbrella or coordinating organization and as the 
“keeper of the vision” for the UPAF. Its international work in the ecoregion is successfully 
integrating activities in Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina. WWF is focusing on emerging threats 
in the ecoregion (such as soybean conversion) and is designing creative approaches to address 
these problems (for example, ongoing dialogue with soy cooperatives, and promotion of a 
national moratorium on land conversion). 
2. WWF efforts also led to the completion, publication, and dissemination of the UPAF 
Biodiversity Vision. This document is the result of a tri-national effort of governments and non￾governmental stakeholders. It is grounded in good conservation science and provides the basis 
for focusing on the selected areas of the UPAF for conservation efforts. The Biodiversity Vision 
serves as a planning tool for ecoregional management, based on identification of core protected 
areas, biological corridors, and sustainable use buffers. The Vision incorporates not only 
conservation goals, but also community development and promotion of economic alternatives. 
WWF in collaboration with Peace Corps also developed the Atlantic Forest Manual, a teaching 
manual for environmental education. At least one Peace Corps volunteer near San Rafael 
Reserve is using the manual in education and outreach. 
3. Capacity building of local NGOs has been highly successful in the Atlantic Forest region. 
IDEA, Pro Cosara, Guyra Paraguay, Natural Land Trust, and Alter Vida are highly capable 
partners, each with its own specialty. Each NGO has been able to generate funding, although 
funds generated from non-USAID sources are relatively small. NGOs are also participating in 
alliances and cooperative projects to contribute to enacting the Biological Vision. One example 
is Alter Vida’s work with WWF in boundary delimitation and rapid ecological assessment of 
Yvytyrusu Private Reserve. 
4. In San Rafael, collaboration of local NGOs led to establish the Alianza de Conservación for 
San Rafael Resource Management Reserve. The Alliance among Guyra Paraguay, Natural Land 
Trust, IDEA, Pro Cosara, and Enlace, with support from WWF and TNC, works with the 
environmental prosecutor’s office to prosecute illegal logging, hunting, and land invasions, 
promotes San Rafael through education programs in campesino and indigenous communities, 
conducts community outreach and publicity campaigns, and monitors the actions of the Comité 
de Gestión (stakeholder management committee). 
6
5. Success of the conservation easements is not yet clear. Natural Land Trust conducted 
successful pilot studies in three regions and has several easement contracts ready for signature 
and registration. However, IDEA has not yet completed the work of adapting the civil code to 
codify the agreements, and SEAM is hostile to the use of private conservation mechanisms. No 
conservation easements have yet been officially registered and WWF indicated it is halting 
support to IDEA for this activity. It is too soon to evaluate IDEA’s work in the Northern Block 
of UPAF, begun October 2003. However, the proposed activity is appropriate. 
6. The mechanism of usufructo is being used to protect forests in San Rafael. These agreements 
are protecting several parcels of forest in San Rafael Reserve. Even though it is expensive 
($5/ha/year) and is thus unlikely to be a permanent solution, term purchase of use rights is an 
important stop-gap measure until conservation easements can be established, private reserves 
declared, or funds are found to purchase lands outright. 
7. Land purchase by the Alianza de Conservación in the San Rafael Resource Management 
Reserve is an appropriate and successful part of the overall strategy for countering threats to 
biodiversity. Given the continuing weak GOP presence in the region and the urgency of the 
problem of deforestation, land purchase is a necessary part of the mix of strategies. 
8. Continued emphasis on the creation of private reserves is needed. Given SEAM’s weakness 
and the lack of national political will to create and enforce new national parks, the need for 
private reserves continues. The Alianza de Conservación, through fundraising by TNC, WWF, 
Guyra, and other large NGOs like CI, has purchased several parcels of land in San Rafael 
Reserve totaling approximately 2,400 ha within the reserve that were considered essential to the 
forest’s survival. 
9. TNC and its local partners have developed a good working relationship with IBR (Instituto de 
Bienestar Rural), a government ministry that has in the past sold lands under Protected Areas 
status, and moved campesino communities into Protected Areas. This provides a window of 
opportunity to negotiate a settlement of the problem caused by the La Amistad colony, a 
campesino settlement placed by IBR inside the San Rafael Reserve. 
10. The established mix of forest protection, education, public awareness campaigns, capacity 
building activities for local government officials, research, work with campesino and indigenous 
communities, and work with large soy producers, is an appropriate mix to achieve the SO goals.
b) Chaco/Pantanal
1. Success of the Environment SO in strengthening government and civil society in the Chaco 
and Pantanal regions has been noteworthy. However, progress on the overarching ecoregion 
conservation objective of the SO has been less significant due to inadequate attention being paid 
to the larger ecoregional threats of forest clearing for pasture and fodder production.
2. TNC is providing institutional development and technical training opportunities to local 
NGOs. With USAID support TNC built institutional capacity of DeSdel Chaco, now one of the 
main local NGOs working on natural resource conservation issues in the Paraguayan Chaco, and 
the primary implementer of TNC’s work. Last year, TNC supported IDEA to conduct cross-
7
border conservation planning workshops in conjunction with Bolivia to promote integrated 
conservation of the Chaco ecoregion. Also with TNC support, IDEA conducted training 
certification courses for paralegals in environmental law in the Chaco and Pantanal.
3. DeSdel Chaco has been instrumental in developing a consortium of private land owners in Río 
Yacaré Sur system and for developing management plans for Mennonite cooperative-owned 
areas in the Río Yacaré Sur system. The NGO is developing similar proposals for four other 
areas. 
4. Support from DeSdel Chaco led to an official recognition of the Chaco Lodge Lake, largest 
lake in the Río Yacaré Sur system, as a Ramsar site (Convention on International Wetlands). 
DeSdel Chaco is working to acquire Ramsar recognition for Laguna Roja Silva, Laguna Ganzo, 
and Laguna Campo María. 
5. Significant progress is being made in strengthening of local governments and municipal 
environmental secretariats (SEAMs) in the Chaco. In 2003, DeSdel Chaco conducted two 
workshops in coordination with the Department of Boquerón and Municipality of Mariscal 
Estigarribia) educating local government and youth leaders on biodiversity and national and 
international environmental laws recognized in Paraguay. DeSdel Chaco is developing land use 
and development plans with the Departments of Boquerón and Alto Paraguay to enable the local 
governments to proactively address environmental issues. As part of this activity, DeSdel Chaco 
developed urban cadasters and is beginning to develop rural cadasters for the municipalities of 
Puerto Casado, Fuerte Olimpo, and Mariscal Estigarribía. 
6. Public awareness campaigns on governance, organizational development, and environmental 
issues have formed an important part of the work in the Chaco. DeSdel Chaco developed a 
series of 30 minute weekly radio programs that are being broadcast on the Chaco’s most widely 
received station, Radio Pai Puku. By the end of FY03, DeSdel Chaco will have developed 20 
such radio programs. 
7. DeSdel Chaco is representing Paraguay in the international Convention to Combat 
Desertification. To address the problem of desertification, DeSdel Chaco has promoted the use 
of mesquite among three indigenous communities in Central Chaco. The activity is aimed at 
providing communities incentives to maintain tree cover while providing for food security and 
income generation needs. This activity has benefits for indigenous communities, however, it is a 
small step in addressing desertification in the Chaco. Larger causes of desertification, namely 
deforestation and land conversion to pasture and agriculture remain largely unaddressed. 
8. Under USAID’s Parks in Peril (PiP) program, DeSdel Chaco led conservation efforts in the 
Defensores del Chaco National Park (DChNP). More recently, DeSdel Chaco conducted legal 
delineation of park boundaries and has been successfully working with the central government to 
transfer lands in the National Park from IBR to SEAM. This is an important move towards long￾term sustainability of the Park. However, progress made under the PiP program is being 
undermined due to lack of support from SEAM, and lack of coordination with UNDP/GEF that 
has resulted in the removal of park guards from Defensores del Chaco to GEF-supported 
Medanos National Park. 
8
9. TNC is financing the purchase of a corridor between Defensores delChaco and the Cerro 
Guaraní National Parks. With TNC assistance, DeSdel Chaco has purchased the first 5,300 ha of 
land in this corridor. 
10. Bi-Oceanic corridor roads are likely to accelerate land conversion in the Chaco. Governors of 
Alto Paraguay and Boqueron Departments have expressed concerns and want to ensure that 
mitigation plans as outlined in the environmental impact assessment are put into effect. DeSdel 
Chaco is also interested in addressing environmental and social issues associated with the road 
(such as immigration of Brazilian landless farmers, easy access to forest, and further land 
clearing for agriculture in the region).
11. In the Pantanal, TNC used USAID support to establish a conservation group called the “Eco 
Club Pantanal Paraguayo” that is leading environmental education and outreach activities in 
Bahia Negra. TNC established sustainable small-enterprise activities in Bahia Negra including a 
community bakery, a community pharmacy, school vegetable gardens and beekeeping that seek 
to benefit indigenous groups and decrease their dependence on natural resources. TNC also
supported IDEA in the development of an indigenous handicrafts enterprise project with market 
links in Asuncion. 
Recommendations for Current Environment SO
Overall, the review team suggests that the SO continue its emphases in the Chaco and the 
Atlantic Forest regions. In the Atlantic Forest region, the Mission should continue to focus on 
conserving the remaining forest fragments, while placing greater emphasis on supporting 
alternative income generation and sustainable natural resource enterprise activities. In the 
Chaco, a landscape approach to conservation is needed to address the primary threat to forests in 
the region, namely conversion of forests to pasture and fodder production, and the proposed bi￾oceanic road development. In the Pantanal, the review team recommends phasing out its support 
to activities. Only 15 percent of the Pantanal ecoregion lies in Paraguay, a significant part of 
which is owned by a TNC board member. Paraguayan Pantanal is also considerably less 
threatened than the Chaco ecoregion. 
I) General recommendations
1. Continue supporting NGOs, rather than working directly with national government ministries. 
However, government interest in conservation programs is critical in the long run. NGO partners 
should, therefore, continue to monitor the development of a national environmental policy, and 
work with SEAM to influence its activities and decisions. The Mission Director and/or the U.S. 
Ambassador should communicate with Congressional and Executive Branch leaders directly, to 
strongly encourage the GOP to give more support to SEAM and to promote the importance of 
environmental policies in the national agenda.
2. Implementing partners should continue to work with departments and municipalities and to 
provide technical support and training to strengthen their capacity for decentralized 
environmental management. 
9
3. Donor coordination at the site or regional level should be promoted. The Mission should 
consider bringing together donors and NGO implementing partners working at a particular site or 
region to exchange information, coordinate plans, and avoid duplication of effort. This strategy 
may also help partners access GEF’s funds for protected area management. 
4. WWF and TNC should be encouraged to spend more regional matching funds in Paraguay. 
Currently, large portions of the matching funds are being directed towards neighboring countries 
that share the ecoregions (Brazil and Argentina). The NGOs also should be encouraged to seek 
other sources of funding. 
5. Synergies between the Environment SO and the Democracy and Governance (DG) SO exist 
already and should be further developed in the new strategy. The DG SO and IRs are 
complementary to the Environment SO in terms ofstrengthening capacity of national and local 
governments to better perform their functions. The DG SO is also addressing brown 
environment issues such as drinking water, sanitation, and waste disposal. Greater dialogue with 
the DG sector will greatly benefit the Environment SO. Detailed suggestions on how synergies 
may be developed are provided in the recommendations for future strategy. 
6. Synergies also exist between the Economic Growth (EG) and Environment SO. The EG 
program already gives support to small and medium sized firms producing agricultural and 
natural resource products, and the poverty corridor currently identified as a target of this program 
overlaps with the Atlantic Forest region where the Mission supports conservation work. These 
linkages should be explored under the current strategy for an easier transition into cross-sectoral 
recommendations in the future strategy. 
II) Region Specific Recommendations
a) Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (UPAF)
1. Continue on course with WWF, while pursuing conversion of WWF funding from a Leader’s 
to an Associate’s award. 
2. Continue on course with IDEA. Schedule an evaluation of the Northern Block program two
years into the three year agreement.
3. Implementing partners should place even greater emphasis on alternative income generating 
activities (such as NTFPs, artisan production, or ecotourism) and on economic incentives to 
conserve forests (such as payment for ecological services).
b) Chaco/Pantanal
1. Strengthening of another local NGO, and/or developing strong partnerships with other NGOs 
implementing conservation programs should be a high priority in the Chaco. According to the 
earlier evaluation of DeSdel Chaco, an alliance of NGOs(ESCOCHACO) does exist in the 
Chaco that is coordinating actions of the members to exchange experiences and work jointly in 
implementing activities. However, the alliance appears to be currently inactive. The Mission 
should encourage DeSdel Chaco and TNC to consider activating the alliance, and working in 
partnership with other NGOs working in the region. 
10
2. DeSdel Chaco’s achievements since its inception have been significant, however, its capacity 
is limited. DeSdel Chaco should consider focusing efforts on Paraguayan Chaco rather than 
working in the entire tri-national Chaco ecoregion. Within Paraguay, DeSdel Chaco should stay 
focused on the primary threat to the region: land conversion for pasture, fodder production and 
agriculture. It should assist other NGOs to take on other projects that distract from its core 
strategy and strive for long-term sustainability of its programs. Currently DeSdel Chaco is at 
risk of discontinuing work on initiatives before they become self sustaining. 
3. DeSdel Chaco should develop its technical capacity to address core threats in the ecoregion. 
For instance, to address land conversion for pasture, innovative rotational grazing systems may 
be applied, that will require additional knowledge. In addition, DeSdel Chaco should build its 
capacity in fundraising and seek to become less dependent on USAID funding. Approximately 
ninety percent of funds received by DeSdel Chaco are directly or indirectly (via TNC) from 
USAID.
4. Monitoring mitigation activities relating to the Bi-Oceanic Corridor road development is 
critical. DeSdel Chaco should strengthen local government capacity and/or build capacity of 
another NGO to monitor mitigation activities. USAID/EGAT may be able to assist the Mission 
assess potential impacts of the proposed road and develop a plan of action. 
5. Continued support to the Defensores del Chaco National Park is needed to maintain progress 
made under the PiP program and help move towards long-term sustainability of the Park. 
DeSdel Chaco should actively provide support to the management of the Park. TNC and DeSdel 
Chaco should work with GEF to return park guards to Defensores del Chaco. 
6. The review team recommends phasing out its support to activities in the Pantanal for reasons 
noted above. Funds supporting work in the Pantanal should be redirected to address larger 
landscape level issues of deforestation and desertification in the Chaco. 
11
Appendix 1
Acronyms
ASCIM Association of Indigenous-Mennonite Cooperation Services
CI Conservation International
CICOAM Centro Internacional de Capacitacion para Organizaciones Ambientalistas 
y de Desarrollo
CIDA Canadian International Cooperation Agency
DChNP Defensores del Chaco National Park
DeSdel Chaco Fundacion para el Desarrollo Sustenable del Chaco
DG Democracy and Governance
EG Economic Growth
Enlace Fundacion Enlace
ENPAB National Strategy and Plan of Action for the Conservation of Biodiversity
EU European Union
FMB Foundation Moises Bertoni
GTZ German Technical Cooperation
GOP Government of Paraguay
IBR Instituto de Bienestar Rural (Institute for Rural Welfare)
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IDEA Instituto para el Derecho y Economia Ambiental
IR Intermediate Result
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
PiP Parks in Peril
Pro Cosara Asociacion Pro Cordillera San Rafael
SEAM Environment Secretariat
SINASIP Strategic Plan for the National System of Protected Areas
SO Strategic Objective
TNC The Nature Conservancy 
UNDP/GEF United Nations Development Program/Global Environmental Facility
UPAF Upper Parana Atlantic Forest
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF World Wildlife Fund
12
Appendix 2
List of Contacts
Alberto Yanosky, Guyra Paraguay
Oscar Camé, SEAM - IBD program coordinator
Erasmo Rodriguez, Governor of Alto Paraguay
Lucy Aquino, WWF
Walter Biedermann, WWF
Phil Hazelton (Consultant with WWF)
Alberto Villalba, TNC-Paraguay
Victor Gonzales, SEAM – Protection and conservation of the biodiversity
Frank Fragano, SEAM - GEF Project
Wilfried Giesbrecht, Fundacion para el Desarrollo Sustenable del Chaco
Eduard Boschmann, Asociación de Servicios de Cooperación Indigena – Mennonita (ASCIM)
David Sawatsky, Governor of Boqueron Department
Humberto Ratzlaff, Intendente Municipal, Municipalidad de Mariscal Estigarribia
Christine Hostettler, Pro Cosara
Jeffrey xxx, Peace Corp volunteer
Patricia Abed de Vera, Instituto de Derecho Y Economia Ambiental (IDEA)
Jesus Quintana, IDEA
Nancy Cardozo, Fundacion Moises Bertoni (FMB)
Genoveva Ocampos, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Andres Molina Lopez, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Kenji Yamamoto, JICA
Mikio Tokunaga, JICA
Agnes Bartholomaus, German Cooperation Agency (GTZ)
Daniel Vasconsellos, European Union
Carlos Benitez, UNDP
Victor Benitez, Altervida
Alex Uriate, Economic Growth, USAID
Steve Marma, Democracy and Governance, USAID
Ana Maria Sienra, Natural Land Trust Paraguay
Alex Pryor, Guayaki Rainforest Products
13
Appendix 3
S.O. #2 ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2001-2005
Mid term review
Scope of work
1.) Strategic objective (SO) to be reviewed:
Management of Globally Important Ecoregions Improved.
The intermediate results which contribute to the SO are:
IR 2.1 Ecoregional management capacity of local NGOs strengthened. 
IR 2.2 Policy, legal, and financial tools for improved ecoregional management developed.
2.) Background:
Paraguay contains portions of three critical ecoregions that are shared with its neighboring 
countries and all of which harbor globally important biodiversity: the Upper Parana Interior 
Atlantic rain forest, the Chaco tropical dry forest, and the Pantanal wetlands. All three 
ecoregions face serious environmental threats.
The Environmental SO #2 is part of the USAID/Paraguay Strategic Plan for FY 2001- 2005. 
This SO seeks to develop and implement Ecoregional and sub ecoregional management plans in 
a participatory manner and to coordinate conservation efforts with neighboring countries. 
Ecoregional and sub ecoregional management plans should compile information on the status of 
the ecoregions, identify local and regional actions needed to improve its management and build 
support for its implementation. 
Overall, Environmental SO # 2 seeks to support national, regional and global priorities. The 
national priority is focused on building the capacity of Paraguayan NGO’s and CSO’s in order 
for them to promote and achieve environmental initiatives. Also to assist the GOP and local 
governments in the development and implementation of environmental policies and legal tools 
that will improve management and conservation of the ecoregions. This SO encourages partners 
to identify alternative and sustainable sources of financing so that activities will continue after 
Mission support ends. 
Paraguayan NGOs, CSOs, and departmental and municipal government leaders are the primary 
targets of the Mission’s programming efforts. A Secondary target is the SEAM and related 
institutions such as the National Environmental Council and the Directorate of National Parks.
14
3) Purpose of Review:
The overall objective of this review is to assess the midterm progress achieved towards the 
Environmental Strategic Objective and offer concrete recommendations for future activist in the 
sector over the 2006-2011 period. 
Specific objectives of this mid-term review are to:
A.) Based on the mid-term evaluations of the Environment SO activities, summarizes 
impact of the current program, lessons learned, and recommendations for adjusting the 
results, resources, activities and other parameters during the remainder of the life of the 
current SO. 
B.) Provide recommendation regarding where the Mission should focus activities in this 
sector during the next Strategic Plan period. The recommendations should include ideas 
with regard to the following:
ß Tie-In with Host-Country Development Priorities 
ß Paraguay’s principle environmental problems and challenges in the 
medium term- 2006-2011.
ß illustrative SO and critical assumptions
ß the rationale for USAID’s involvement (predominant 
capability/comparative advantage of USAID in the sector, etc.)
ß some illustrative activities
ß Relationship to other sectors and SOs in next Strategic Plan period 
ß Transition from current program
Basic questions to answer in order to do the above:
Where should the sector be in 2011?
What do you need to get there?
What obstacles exist to achieve this?
What exists already in order to help achieve where you want to get to in 2010?
What trends should you take into account?
What are achievements you would hope for?
4.) Review Methods:
The methodology to be used in this review should include: 
A.) A review of the SO description, results and indicators, project documents, project 
papers and reports, and studies and research papers related to the SO. Review mid-term 
evaluations of DeSdel Chaco, TNC and WWF programs.
B.) Group and individual meetings and interviews conducted with key environmental 
sector experts, representatives of donor-funded environmental projects (USAID and other 
15
donors), environmental NGOs, governmental officials at national, departmental and local. 
Representatives of the private sector with a vision of environmental issues should also be 
contacted.
5.) Team composition and Participation:
The review team will be composed of at least four members with language ability in Spanish: 
2 Environmental specialists (from Washington)
Regional Environmental specialist (V.Bullen), and 
Mission’s environmental team representative.
Others to be involved on the process as a valuable source of information are:
Local national and international organizations implementing the SO
Local organizations working on issues related to the SO
Representatives from all levels of government
6. ) Procedures: Schedule and Logistics:
a) Review existing documents:
ß USAID Strategic Plan 2001-2005
ß L.A. For the interior Atlantic Rainforest (WWF)& mid-term evaluation
ß L.A. for the Chaco and Pantanal (TNC) & mid-term evaluation
ß C.A. for the Chaco and Pantanal (DeSdel Chaco) & mid-term evluation
ß C.A for the Northern Block of and Legal Environmental Reform 
(IDEA), and
ß Donors’ environmental strategies and key program documentation 
including the WB’s CAS, the IDB’s new program strategy
ß Additional reports as appropriate 
Note: Two projects are managed by EGAT through the Leader Associates Award GCP I. 
Semi-annual reports and annual reports are available for these projects. 
b) Individual and group interviews/meetings/teleconference
c) Presentation of the final reports
7.) Reporting and Dissemination Requirements:
The field work will begin on/about 2/9 and continue until on/about 2/25. Three reports will be 
required. The first is a 3-5 page summary of the conclusions and recommendations of the 3 mid￾term evaluations (DesdeChaco, WWF, TNC) which were carried out previously. This will be for 
USAID/W reviewers and will capture progress, lessons, recommendations, mid-course 
corrections and implications beyond the current SP period. 
16
The second is a 3-5 page summary of the findings, conclusions, recommendation for the existing 
program and recommendations for activities beginning in 2006 which will be submitted by 2/26 
with a debrief on 2/27. This summary can largely serve as the executive summary of the final 
report.
The final report will be due on 3/12 and will include the following: The report will include an 
executive summary of no more than 2 pages, single spaced document containing a clear, concise 
summary of the most critical elements of the report. It should be self-contained document that 
can stand alone from the report. The summary should be written in such a way that that 
individuals unfamiliar with this environmental SO can understand its basic elements and how the 
finding from the evaluation are related to it without having to refer to any other document. 
The body of the report should be no more than 15 pages and consist of the following sections 
(please see outline in section 3B):
ß Table of contents,
ß purpose of the review,
ß findings on progress made of current SO,
recommendations for future SO activities in the sector, 
ß discussion of what others donors are doing and planning in the sector
(especially IDB, WB, WB/GEF, UNDP)
ß discussion of most important cross-cutting issues to consider in a strategy
to promote “sustainable development” such as forestry development and 
sustainable forestry management, sustainable agriculture, water resource and 
watershed management, decentralization and the role of local governments in 
promoting sustainable resource management.
ß Recommend the methodology best suited for developing the Mission’s
strategy in the environmental area- focus groups, key informants, type of analysis, 
illustrative kinds of technical expertise and associated SOW for development of 
the proposed concept into an SO.
ß Appendices (list of institutions visited, persons interviewed, other
significant issues, etc.)