Good practices of initiative:
ESP: PDPR: Programa de Desarrollo Productivo Rural - Uruguay
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDB Strategy for Uruguay 2016-2020 | National | Uruguay | Link | |
| IDB Strategy for Uruguay 2010-2015 | National | Uruguay | Link | |
| Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries of Uruguay 2015-2019 | National | Uruguay | Link | |
| NDC: Nationally Determined Contribution of Uruguay | Program to improve the income of small and medium-sized family farmers through technological adoption and institutional strengthening. | National | Uruguay Uruguay | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net farm income | Se reporta el promedio del grupo de control | Impact | US$ | 01-12-2011 | 0 | 15 | 20-07-2022 | |||
| Livestock net income | Se reporta el efecto promedio del tratamiento en la población tratada | Results | US$ | 01-12-2011 | 0 | 15 | 20-07-2022 | 11.1 | 0.74 | Impact evaluation- PSM Treatment Group |
| Livestock net income | Se reporta el promedio del grupo de control | Results | US$ | 02-12-2013 | 0 | 6 | 20-07-2022 | 0 | 0 | Impact evaluation-PSM Control group |
| Households with at least one household member belonging to a community group | Se reporta el efecto promedio del tratamiento en la población tratada | Results | Percentage | 02-12-2013 | 0 | 6 | 20-07-2022 | 20 | 3.33 | Impact evaluation- PSM Treatment Group |
| Households with at least one household member belonging to a community group | Se reporta el promedio del grupo de control | Results | Percentage | 02-12-2013 | 0 | 10 | 20-07-2022 | 9 | 0.9 | Impact evaluation-PSM Control group |
| Milk production per hectare | Results | Liters/hectare | 29-01-2017 | 3,632 litros/ha | Incremento del 10% | 01-01-1970 | 3,632 litros/ha | 100 | Link | |
| Meat production per hectare | Results | Kg/hectare | 29-02-2012 | 93.2 kg/ha | Incremento | 29-12-2017 | 103.45 kg/ha | 100 |
Eficiencia
Efficiency is the assessment of whether a public intervention achieves its objectives while using resources in a way that the costs incurred are proportional to the economic, social, or environmental benefits obtained.
| Indicator | Description | Indicator Type | Measure Unit | Base date | Base | Goal | Measure Date | Measure | Compliance | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | 19.2 | 1.6 | ||||||||
| Efficiency | 28 | 13.5 | ||||||||
| Total project cost | Results | USD 26.2 millones | Cubrir 4,700 productores | USD 5,574 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sustainable management of natural resources | Impact | 2012 | Mejora en prácticas de manejo | Cualitativa | Partial | |||||
| Organizational strengthening | Results | 2012 | 174 organizaciones fortalecidas | 2017 | 100% | |||||
| Productivity increase | Impact | 2012 | Incremento 10% | 2017 | Variable |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Expand Coverage | There is a need to improve the system for allocating support by using productive unit identifiers instead of cédulas. There is also potential to increase coverage from the current 15%. | |
| Differential support | New beneficiaries achieve greater impacts than those with previous support. Likewise, there is a need for differentiated incentives. | |
| Need to improve targeting | Beneficiaries already had better previous performance. There is a need to improve the targeting of producers with greater potential for improvement. | |
| Consider longer maturation time | Consider longer timeframes for impact assessment, especially in livestock farming. Post-intervention follow-up is important. |