The program Direct Support for the Creation of Agrifood Initiatives (Programa de Apoyos Directos para la Creación de Iniciativas Agroalimentarias Rurales-CRIAR, in Spanish), targeted smallholder rural producers with the objective to improve agricultural income and food security triggered by productivity increases due to technological adoption.
- Intervention: The program provided vouchers to small and medium landholder farmers to exchange for agricultural technologies and technical assistance. The technologies were selected by the farmer based on a predetermined menu of technologies. The vouchers were only exchanged for technologies or inputs.
- Implementation: The program provided non-reimbursable vouchers that financed 90% of the total cost of an agricultural technology chosen by the producer. The voucher also covered group and individual technical assistance.The CRIAR program was implemented in five departments of Bolivia (La Paz, Cochabamba, Chuquisaca, Tarija and Potosí), focusing on 33 municipalities and 1,355 communities. The targeting of the program was based on the following criteria:
- vulnerability to food insecurity measured with the “Vulnerability Assessment Map” (VAM);
- productive agricultural capacity; and
- territorial continuity to simplify program execution.
- The technologies offered by the program could be divided into five groups: greenhouses, planting, harvest, post - harvest and livestock technologies. The most highly demanded were planting technologies (76%) which mainly included irrigation technologies.
- The executing unit implemented technological ferias in the field. In these ferias smallholder producers could approach different technology providers. Overall, 33 ferias were organized – one per benefited municipality - that lasted about three days each. These ferias were located within the municipalities in order to be accessible for the different participant communities. During the ferias, the executing unit verified the eligibility of each producer and provided the vouchers. The implementation of technology ferias aimed to reduce information asymmetries and eliminate problems related to shortage of supply and thin markets by providing a physical space where demand (small farmers) and supply (technology private providers) could carry out the commercial exchange.
- The producers used the vouchers during the feria to sign a contract of purchase with the selected provider for the chosen technology. The private provider selected by the producer had 45 working days to deliver the technology to the producer. The producers were eligible based on the following criteria:
- to present a valid identification card;
- to belong to the community roster;
- to have agriculture as the principal economic activity; and
- to be a smallholder producer with less than 35 hectares of land.
Once the producers received the technology, the executing unit provided a personalized training in the field regarding the use and operation of the purchased technologies. This training aimed to foster an appropriate an effective use of the technology among farmers. Ultimately, an in-situ verification of the process of delivery and technical assistance was conducted by a private company to all benefited producers. The full cost of the technology was paid to the private provider once the verification company certified the process of delivery by the executing unit of the program.
Approximately 69,000 farmers within two phases from 2011 to 2023.
Cost per beneficiary: US$1,200 (including technology and technical assistance).
The implementation included a close collaboration and coordination between the Inter-American Development Bank, the Ministry of Rural Development and Land, the local communities, and the private sector. An executing unit was implemented in the Ministry to execute the project. An operational manual for the program implementation with responsibilities, functions, social and environmental safeguards, etc., was developed prior to the program implementation and updated throughout the execution.
Executing Unit. The program was implemented by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, through the executing agency of the Ministry of Rural and Land Development (MDRyT), through the Deconcentrated Public Institution for Food Sovereignty (IPD-SA), which was legally established under the MDRyT via Supreme Decree 1858. The program coordination and execution unit (PCEU), was part of the IPD-SA. The PCEU carried out program planning, management, and monitoring, develop planning instruments, channel resources for execution, authorize and transfer voucher payments, and consolidate and submit to the Bank financial information and monitoring and evaluation reports, among other responsibilities set forth in the program Operating Regulations.
Operational Manual. Program execution was governed by the Operational Manual, which included the rules and procedures for programming, financial and accounting management, procurement, audits, monitoring, and evaluation of the program. It also covered: (i) responsibilities of the entities under the MDRyT, IPD-SA, and PCEU; (ii) eligibility criteria for municipalities, technologies, and beneficiaries; and (iii) implementation details.
The operation developed a management and monitoring system (SIGESEVA) that contributed to effective and efficient execution. This system served as the foundation for implementing the proposed program, which incorporates technical and operational criteria to strengthen the monitoring of product and results indicators, as well as for information collection during the registration phase. The SIGESEVA included digital information on beneficiaries, technology providers, on the other hand, the proposed operation will include a rigorous impact evaluation design that will measure the effects of the program using an experimental or quasi-experimental methodology to identify a control group.
- Operational Regulation of the Program (ROP): The execution of the program will be governed by the ROP, which establishes the rules and procedures for activity planning, financial-accounting management, procurement, audits, and program monitoring and evaluation. A prior condition for the first disbursement is that the MDRyT must have approved and put into effect the ROP previously agreed upon with the Bank. It also includes:
- procedures and responsibilities of entities attached to the MDRyT, ID-PSA, UCEP;
- eligibility criteria for municipalities, technologies, and beneficiaries;
- execution details of each subcomponent; and
- the PGAS.
- Annual Operational Plan (POA): The POA consolidates all activities to be developed during a specific execution period, categorized by product, and includes a physical-financial schedule. The UCEP will present the POA and the Multi-Year Execution Plan (PEP) as part of the semiannual monitoring reports, covering the next two semesters, including activities, schedules, and estimated budgets for products financed in the previous year and those proposed for the following year. The final POA and PEP for the first year will be included in the initial operational report.
Multi-Year Execution Plan (PEP): The PEP contains the execution schedule for the program, including the disbursement calendar (number and amount of disbursements) based on performance indicators already included in the Results Matrix, as well as the project execution timeline.
Annual Inspection Visits conducted to monitor the program activities. The Team Leader carried out at least one semiannual visit to the program works. Additionally, annual Management Missions will be supported to analyze program progress and address specific identified issues.
A quasi-experimental impact evaluation confirms the positive impacts of CRIAR on productivity, income and food security. The results for show that participation in CRIAR increased annual value of production per hectare by 92%. This represents an increase of US$ 1,870. With respect to net agricultural income, the results show that participation in CRIAR increased net agricultural household income by 36% and per capita income by 19%. This represents an increase of US$ 1,667 in net household income and US$ 257 per capita with respect to the average income of the control group (US$ 4,630 and US$ 1,354). Further, beneficiary households are 20% to 30% more likely to be food secure than their control counterparts.
Scale and Scope
- The impact evaluation developed during the first phase of the program was fundamental for increasing the scope and scale of this intervention in a second phase which is currently under implementation.
Technology Menu
- In defining the technology menu, it is important to consider agri-environmental, socio-cultural, and economic factors. Additionally, the technologies offered should serve as potential adaptation measures to face possible scenarios of climate variability.
Provision of Group Technical Assistance
- Technological change is a key factor in increasing productivity. However, to maximize the benefits of adopted technologies and improve productive efficiency, it is necessary to complement these efforts with technical assistance and training. Group technical assistance reduces logistical costs, generates economies of scale, increases social capital, and encourages collaboration.
- Training of technical assistants on topics such as gender, climate change, digital technologies, others, must be considered when needed.
- Technical assistance is a process that must last for at least two agricultural cycles to provide the knowledge and information needed for an appropriate adoption of technologies.
- Maintain an updated registry of project participants in a digital format with basic characteristics of the producer and the farm.
Gender Approach
- The gender gap in rural areas is still significant. Women are less likely to have access to technology, technical assistance, and credit. The program includes a gender approach that promotes women's participation through actions in the execution framework and in monitoring and evaluation tools.
Demand Analysis
- To ensure the conditions that guarantee the articulation of potential demand with the supply from providers, a demand analysis must conducted to provide relevant information for the sizing of the program.
Exit and Entry Strategies
- The intervention must have clear entry and exit strategies, with specific criteria for program participation.
Evaluation and Monitoring
- Data collection strategy (i.e. baseline, follow up surveys, etc.) and impact evaluation design must be planned during the intervention's design (prior to implementation);
- The implementation of a strong monitoring and evaluation system must be designed to assess the targeting as well as to measure the causal impact on income, food security, climate resilience and productivity.
Encourage participation of the private sector:
- The implementation of technology fairs - where several providers meet with the producers in a specific designated place (ex. school, sport center, etc) can be useful to create to link demand and supply (i.e. farmers and technology providers). The same spaces can be used for the provision and exchange of vouchers.
- Vouchers are cannot be exchange for cash. Vouchers are only exchanged for agricultural technologies and/or inputs.
SDG 2 - Zero hunger
- Target 2.1 - By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round
- Indicator 2.1.1 - Prevalence of undernourishment
- Indicator 2.1.2 - Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)
- Target 2.3 - By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment
- Indicator 2.3.1 - Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size
- Indicator 2.3.2 - Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status
- Target 2.4. - By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality
- Indicator 2.4.1 - Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture
SDG 2 – Zero hunger
- Target 2.1 – By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round
- Indicator 2.1.1 – Prevalence of undernourishment
- Indicator 2.1.2 – Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)
- Target 2.3 – By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment
- Indicator 2.3.1 – Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size
- Indicator 2.3.2 – Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status
- Target 2.4. – By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality
- Indicator 2.4.1 – Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture
The program Direct Support for the Creation of Agrifood Initiatives (Programa de Apoyos Directos para la Creación de Iniciativas Agroalimentarias Rurales-CRIAR, in Spanish), targeted smallholder rural producers with the objective to improve agricultural income and food security triggered by productivity increases due to technological adoption.
- Intervention: The program provided vouchers to small and medium landholder farmers to exchange for agricultural technologies and technical assistance. The technologies were selected by the farmer based on a predetermined menu of technologies. The vouchers were only exchanged for technologies or inputs.
- Implementation: The program provided non-reimbursable vouchers that financed 90% of the total cost of an agricultural technology chosen by the producer. The voucher also covered group and individual technical assistance.The CRIAR program was implemented in five departments of Bolivia (La Paz, Cochabamba, Chuquisaca, Tarija and Potosí), focusing on 33 municipalities and 1,355 communities. The targeting of the program was based on the following criteria:
- vulnerability to food insecurity measured with the “Vulnerability Assessment Map” (VAM);
- productive agricultural capacity; and
- territorial continuity to simplify program execution.
- The technologies offered by the program could be divided into five groups: greenhouses, planting, harvest, post – harvest and livestock technologies. The most highly demanded were planting technologies (76%) which mainly included irrigation technologies.
- The executing unit implemented technological ferias in the field. In these ferias smallholder producers could approach different technology providers. Overall, 33 ferias were organized – one per benefited municipality – that lasted about three days each. These ferias were located within the municipalities in order to be accessible for the different participant communities. During the ferias, the executing unit verified the eligibility of each producer and provided the vouchers. The implementation of technology ferias aimed to reduce information asymmetries and eliminate problems related to shortage of supply and thin markets by providing a physical space where demand (small farmers) and supply (technology private providers) could carry out the commercial exchange.
- The producers used the vouchers during the feria to sign a contract of purchase with the selected provider for the chosen technology. The private provider selected by the producer had 45 working days to deliver the technology to the producer. The producers were eligible based on the following criteria:
- to present a valid identification card;
- to belong to the community roster;
- to have agriculture as the principal economic activity; and
- to be a smallholder producer with less than 35 hectares of land.
Once the producers received the technology, the executing unit provided a personalized training in the field regarding the use and operation of the purchased technologies. This training aimed to foster an appropriate an effective use of the technology among farmers. Ultimately, an in-situ verification of the process of delivery and technical assistance was conducted by a private company to all benefited producers. The full cost of the technology was paid to the private provider once the verification company certified the process of delivery by the executing unit of the program.
Scale and Scope
- The impact evaluation developed during the first phase of the program was fundamental for increasing the scope and scale of this intervention in a second phase which is currently under implementation.
Technology Menu
- In defining the technology menu, it is important to consider agri-environmental, socio-cultural, and economic factors. Additionally, the technologies offered should serve as potential adaptation measures to face possible scenarios of climate variability.
Provision of Group Technical Assistance
- Technological change is a key factor in increasing productivity. However, to maximize the benefits of adopted technologies and improve productive efficiency, it is necessary to complement these efforts with technical assistance and training. Group technical assistance reduces logistical costs, generates economies of scale, increases social capital, and encourages collaboration.
- Training of technical assistants on topics such as gender, climate change, digital technologies, others, must be considered when needed.
- Technical assistance is a process that must last for at least two agricultural cycles to provide the knowledge and information needed for an appropriate adoption of technologies.
- Maintain an updated registry of project participants in a digital format with basic characteristics of the producer and the farm.
Gender Approach
- The gender gap in rural areas is still significant. Women are less likely to have access to technology, technical assistance, and credit. The program includes a gender approach that promotes women’s participation through actions in the execution framework and in monitoring and evaluation tools.
Demand Analysis
- To ensure the conditions that guarantee the articulation of potential demand with the supply from providers, a demand analysis must conducted to provide relevant information for the sizing of the program.
Exit and Entry Strategies
- The intervention must have clear entry and exit strategies, with specific criteria for program participation.
Evaluation and Monitoring
- Data collection strategy (i.e. baseline, follow up surveys, etc.) and impact evaluation design must be planned during the intervention’s design (prior to implementation);
- The implementation of a strong monitoring and evaluation system must be designed to assess the targeting as well as to measure the causal impact on income, food security, climate resilience and productivity.
Encourage participation of the private sector:
- The implementation of technology fairs – where several providers meet with the producers in a specific designated place (ex. school, sport center, etc) can be useful to create to link demand and supply (i.e. farmers and technology providers). The same spaces can be used for the provision and exchange of vouchers.
- Vouchers are cannot be exchange for cash. Vouchers are only exchanged for agricultural technologies and/or inputs.
Promotion and access to healthy diets, including through education and affordable/subsidized prices; Pro-poor access to agricultural inputs, technology and knowledge; Access to irrigation
The implementation included a close collaboration and coordination between the Inter-American Development Bank, the Ministry of Rural Development and Land, the local communities, and the private sector. An executing unit was implemented in the Ministry to execute the project. An operational manual for the program implementation with responsibilities, functions, social and environmental safeguards, etc., was developed prior to the program implementation and updated throughout the execution.
Executing Unit. The program was implemented by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, through the executing agency of the Ministry of Rural and Land Development (MDRyT), through the Deconcentrated Public Institution for Food Sovereignty (IPD-SA), which was legally established under the MDRyT via Supreme Decree 1858. The program coordination and execution unit (PCEU), was part of the IPD-SA. The PCEU carried out program planning, management, and monitoring, develop planning instruments, channel resources for execution, authorize and transfer voucher payments, and consolidate and submit to the Bank financial information and monitoring and evaluation reports, among other responsibilities set forth in the program Operating Regulations.
Operational Manual. Program execution was governed by the Operational Manual, which included the rules and procedures for programming, financial and accounting management, procurement, audits, monitoring, and evaluation of the program. It also covered: (i) responsibilities of the entities under the MDRyT, IPD-SA, and PCEU; (ii) eligibility criteria for municipalities, technologies, and beneficiaries; and (iii) implementation details.
Approximately 69,000 farmers within two phases from 2011 to 2023.
Cost per beneficiary: US$1,200 (including technology and technical assistance).
The operation developed a management and monitoring system (SIGESEVA) that contributed to effective and efficient execution. This system served as the foundation for implementing the proposed program, which incorporates technical and operational criteria to strengthen the monitoring of product and results indicators, as well as for information collection during the registration phase. The SIGESEVA included digital information on beneficiaries, technology providers, on the other hand, the proposed operation will include a rigorous impact evaluation design that will measure the effects of the program using an experimental or quasi-experimental methodology to identify a control group.
- Operational Regulation of the Program (ROP): The execution of the program will be governed by the ROP, which establishes the rules and procedures for activity planning, financial-accounting management, procurement, audits, and program monitoring and evaluation. A prior condition for the first disbursement is that the MDRyT must have approved and put into effect the ROP previously agreed upon with the Bank. It also includes:
- procedures and responsibilities of entities attached to the MDRyT, ID-PSA, UCEP;
- eligibility criteria for municipalities, technologies, and beneficiaries;
- execution details of each subcomponent; and
- the PGAS.
- Annual Operational Plan (POA): The POA consolidates all activities to be developed during a specific execution period, categorized by product, and includes a physical-financial schedule. The UCEP will present the POA and the Multi-Year Execution Plan (PEP) as part of the semiannual monitoring reports, covering the next two semesters, including activities, schedules, and estimated budgets for products financed in the previous year and those proposed for the following year. The final POA and PEP for the first year will be included in the initial operational report.
Multi-Year Execution Plan (PEP): The PEP contains the execution schedule for the program, including the disbursement calendar (number and amount of disbursements) based on performance indicators already included in the Results Matrix, as well as the project execution timeline.
Annual Inspection Visits conducted to monitor the program activities. The Team Leader carried out at least one semiannual visit to the program works. Additionally, annual Management Missions will be supported to analyze program progress and address specific identified issues.