| Indicator | Description | Indicator Type | Measure Unit | Base date | Base | Goal | Measure Date | Measure | Compliance | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of farmers who apply adequate irrigation practices | Farmers with irrigated plots who apply at least one adequate practice (irrigating with the water volume required, measuring the water delivered, or operating and maintaining irrigation infrastructure) | Effectiveness | % of farmers with irrigated plots | 01-01-2013 | 56% | 75% | 31-12-2015 | 57% | 75.87 | Link |
| Percentage of farmers who apply modernized irrigation | Farmers with land under modernized irrigation (improved gravity or pressurized). | Effectiveness | % of farmers with irrigated land | 01-01-2013 | %9.52 | 31-12-2015 | N/D | Link | ||
| Percentage of water user organizations that operate and maintain irrigation infrastructure | Water User Organizations (OUA) that issue measurement reports of water flows delivered. | Effectiveness | % of OUA with program intervention | 01-01-2013 | 62% | 31-12-2015 | N/D | Link | ||
| Percentage of farmers who use groundwater measurement mechanisms | Farmers using groundwater measurement mechanisms. | Effectiveness | % of farmers who use groundwater | 01-01-2013 | 0 | 12% | 31-12-2015 | N/D | Link | |
| Number of trainings delivered | Trainings for farmers on the use of water resources | Effectiveness | No. of trainings | 01-01-2013 | 0 | 7785 | 31-12-2015 | N/D | Link | |
| Number of technical assistance visits delivered | Technical assistance visits on irrigation practices for trained farmers | Effectiveness | No. of technical assistance visits | 01-01-2013 | 0 | 8488 | 31-12-2015 | N/D | Link |
| Indicator | Description | Indicator Type | Measure Unit | Base date | Base | Goal | Measure Date | Measure | Compliance | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training manuals for water user organizations and farmers | Manuals by the General Directorate of Agrarian and Irrigation Infrastructure (DGIAR): user organization, operation, maintenance, plot-level irrigation and water measurement. They are used in training for water user organizations. | Sustainability | No. of manuals | 2013-01-01 | 0 | 5 | Met | Link | ||
| Diagnostic tools by intervention area | Tools of the Irrigation Subsector Project (PSI) and the Rural Agrarian Productive Development Program (AGRORURAL) sharing three dimensions: irrigation infrastructure, social organization and agricultural production variables. | Sustainability | No. of tools | 2013-01-01 | 0 | 2 | Met | Link |
| Lesson | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Financing and financial sustainability | Access to financing and the high costs of organic certification are the main challenges. Lack of working capital limits long-term sustainability, although the organizations learned to manage resources better and plan investments. | Link |
| Formal feedback to regional offices | The Water Administrative Authorities and Local Water Administrations (ANA) received a formal reply to their reports within 30 days and used it to adjust their annual programming. The panel called it a good practice to be encouraged and extended, also formalizing it at PSI and AGRORURAL. | Link |
| Water user organizations as strategic actors | Water user organizations are the State’s first point of entry in the basin, but the logical framework treated their participation as an assumption. The panel recommended making it a Product 1 task, with communication plans adapted to their cultural diversity and institutional capacity. | Link |
| Modern irrigation and pressure on water resources | In valleys with available land but overexploited aquifers, modernizing irrigation can intensify water demand and lead to water stress. The panel recommended sustainability criteria, water balance studies and then aquifer conservation activities. | Link |
| Programming with common criteria | Without common criteria, each executing unit prioritized on its own (ANA history or public investment project areas). This hindered service coordination within each region. | Link |
| Single beneficiary registry | Without a registry, the National Agrarian Survey (ENA) cannot identify who received the program, so the indicator measures a gap, not effectiveness. The panel recommended a registry with beneficiary, location, plots and services received, cross-referenced with the ENA. | Link |