Ratings for the Parana Biodiversity Project for Brazil were as follows: outcomes were moderately satisfactory, the risk to global environment outcome was moderate, the Bank performance was moderately satisfactory, and the Borrower performance was also moderately satisfactory. Some lessons learned included: the success of the project, even considering the difficulties that emerged along its development, strongly suggests that there is an added value in trying to promote this innovative approach. Moreover, it could be further expanded by including more government agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) with different, complementary profiles, the academic and research, as well as other relevant sectors of the civil society. Even if challenging and difficult to implement, developing a better and wider coordination and integration between government sectors and other non-governmental institutions is becoming an urgent need in face of the growing environmental problems that affect the whole planet. Given its innovative and somewhat experimental nature, it is important to bear in mind that even errors, difficulties and unexpected outcomes resulting from this project provide very useful experience and insight applicable to future projects of similar intersectoral and transversal nature. Problems related with project administration that emerged along this project suggest that as projects become more complex and intersectoral; conflicts of this nature are more likely to arise. Therefore, it will be important in future projects to resource to all the available mechanisms that may contribute to eliminate beforehand as many potential difficulties of this kind as possible. At the time when the project was planned, the State Government of Parana had showed a strong commitment and support for environmental protection. Accordingly, the project was designed under the assumption that the State authorities will support innovative approaches and their effective implementation. After elections in 2002 the new authorities did not embrace the government commitment with the same emphasis. As a result, project implementation suffered both administrative delays and changes in priorities that affected the normal development of planned activities in several components.