+506 2216 0222
opsaa@iica.int
Good practices of initiative:
Buen Vivir in Rural Territories Programme
Relevance
It measures the alignment of the initiative with existing policy frameworks in the country. In addition, the scalability of the initiative to other realities and geographies is valued.
| Marco | Description | Ambit | Country | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ecuadors National Plan for Good Living 2013-2017 | The program was designed and implemented in direct alignment with the plan, particularly with its objectives of fostering equality and social and territorial integration in diversity, guaranteeing the rights of nature and promoting a healthy and sustainable environment, ensuring stable, fair and dignified work, and establishing a social, solidarity-based and sustainable economic system | National | Ecuador | Link |
| Organic Law on the Food Sovereignty Regime | The program was situated within the public policy for food sovereignty developed in the Organic Law of Food Sovereignty with its central proposal: sustainable reconversion of conventional systems towards agroecological models, productive diversification and promotion of non-agricultural employment for landless youth. | National | Ecuador | Link |
Eficacy
This measures how well the objectives and goals set out in the initiative were fulfilled, as well as the extent to which the results achieved are attributable to the actions implemented by the initiative.
| Indicator | Description | Indicator Type | Measure Unit | Base date | Base | Goal | Measure Date | Measure | Compliance | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beneficiary households receiving services from the program | Coverage indicator that measures the number of rural families in poverty and food insecurity who directly access program services in the intervention provinces during the initial phase and additional funding | Effectiveness | Number of households | 01-01-2012 | 0 | 26000 | 01-01-2021 | 17762 | 68 | Link |
| Beneficiary families with a sustainable increase in income of at least 30% | It measures the number of households participating in productive sub-projects that achieved a net and sustainable increase in their family income of at least 30% compared to the baseline, attributable to productive reconversion towards agroecological systems, technical assistance, investments in infrastructure and improved access to markets | Effectiveness | Number of households | 01-01-2012 | 0 | 13000 | 01-01-2021 | 7518 | 58 | Link |
| Stable jobs generated in agricultural and non-agricultural activities | It measures the number of stable jobs created in agricultural (production, processing, post-harvest) and non-agricultural activities as a direct result of the productive sub-projects and infrastructure co-financed by the program during its two phases of implementation. | Effectiveness | Number of jobs | 01-01-2012 | 0 | 14500 | 01-01-2021 | 4053 | 28 | Link |
| Families that have made the transition to agroecological production systems | Number of beneficiary households that adopted agroecological production practices on their plots, including reduced use of agrochemicals, use of bio-inputs, agroforestry, crop diversification and sustainable soil and water management, as a result of technical assistance and sub-projects co-financed by Component 2 of the program | Effectiveness | Number of households | 01-01-2012 | 0 | 8000 | 01-01-2021 | 6889 | 86 | Link |
| Territorial learning networks in operation | Number of functional and active learning networks established between producer organizations from different territories for the systematic exchange of experiences, good agroecological practices, organizational management and territorial management, as a result of the activities of Component 1 of the program | NA | Number of networks | 12-12-2012 | 0 | 5 | 01-01-2021 | 4 | 80 | Link |
| Producers with agroecological practices who access certified domestic and international markets | Number of producers who, having adopted certified agroecological practices, managed to access formal markets with quality certification in domestic markets (supermarkets, state suppliers, fairs) or for export. | Effectiveness | Number of people | 01-01-2012 | 0 | 4000 | 01-01-2021 | 1610 | 40 | Link |
Sustentaibility
It measures the installed capacities or actions identified to maintain or improve the results of the policy initiative.
| Indicator | Description | Indicator Type | Measure Unit | Base date | Base | Goal | Measure Date | Measure | Compliance | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beneficiary families with access to technified irrigation and productive infrastructure as installed capacity | Number of beneficiary families of the program who accessed long-life productive infrastructure as installed capacity to sustain agricultural productivity and value addition beyond the validity period of the financing agreement | Sustainability | Number of families | 2012-01-01 | 0 | 13000 | 6218 | It does not comply | Link | |
| Subprojects co-financed with a sustainability plan developed in the economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions | It measures the number of sub-projects co-financed by the program for which a sustainability plan was developed, structured in four dimensions: economic efficiency, social equity, environmental conservation and political-institutional development. | Sustainability | Number of subprojects | 2012-01-01 | 0 | 140 | 140 | It complies | Link |
Learned lessons
Gained knowledge from implementing, evaluating, and managing a policy intervention, including why it was or was not effective and how it could be improved in the future.
| Lesson | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| The continuity of the management team is a necessary condition for the performance of territorial rural development projects | The program results show a direct correlation between the stability of the technical-management team and program performance. The first phase, with stable management and consolidated territorial teams, achieved results rated between moderately satisfactory and satisfactory across all evaluated criteria. The additional funding resulted in five different managers between January and October 2021, high turnover in the monitoring and evaluation teams, and a loss of territorial staff, with direct consequences for the quality of management, the pace of implementation, and the level of disbursement of the additional loan. | Link |
| Decentralized implementation through territorial units improves operational efficiency and local roots | The implementation model using decentralized Territorial Liaison Units (TLUs) proved to be an effective strategy during the first phase of the program. However, the model requires a clear centralization of financial and internal control processes at the national office to maintain administrative consistency. | Link |
| The direct transfer of resources to beneficiary organizations generates co-responsibility, transparency, and lasting management capacities. | The program made direct resource transfers to producer organizations through banking instruments and direct contracts, without institutional intermediation. This approach required the organizations to implement accounting systems, adopt internal and community accountability mechanisms, and manage acquisitions through the public procurement platform. As a result, a greater sense of co-responsibility was observed among the members, along with a greater openness to seeking support from government agencies and improved governance capacities that persisted even after the program's closure. | Link |
| Market access must be integrated as a core component from the design stage to ensure the sustainability of productive investments. | The initial program design did not adequately address marketing dynamics and access to formal markets, which remained the producers' most persistent concern throughout the program's implementation. Market access, value chain development, and partnerships with business buyers must be integrated as cross-cutting components from the outset, with specific outcome indicators, allocated resources, and targets for formalizing commercial contracts from the very beginning of the program. | Link |
| Fiscal crises and cycles of political alternation should be modeled as structural risks in the design of rural development projects | The program was implemented across three distinct macroeconomic periods: an oil boom, a fiscal crisis due to falling oil prices, and a pandemic with a change of government (2019–2021), which exacerbated the fiscal situation and led to high turnover in leadership. These changes in government resulted in the massive replacement of project teams, directly impacting the quality and continuity of implementation. Risk management frameworks for rural development projects must explicitly model these scenarios and include operational safeguards. | Link |