evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

MARENASS / Pachamama Raymi — Prize-Based Competitions for Andean Terrace and Watershed Restoration (Peru)

Peru · Abancay · See the Peru profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 58% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Peru's IFAD-financed MARENASS project used the Pachamama Raymi methodology — cash-prize contests between Andean farming communities — to fund community-directed rehabilitation of pre-Columbian agricultural terraces and irrigation, reaching 360 communities and roughly 52,800 famil

15.14 million USD
Total project financing (1995-2004)
360 communities
Communities reached (1995-2004)
52,800 families
Families reached (estimated) (1995-2004)
440 hectares
New agricultural terraces built (1995-2004)
1,740 km
Irrigation channels built (1995-2004)
2,475 hectares
Improved irrigation area (1995-2004)
MARENASS / Pachamama Raymi — Prize-Based Competitions for Andean Terrace and Watershed Restoration (Peru)

Details

Promoter
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) / Government of Peru
Period
1995-2004 (MARENASS project), methodology continued afterward
Keywords
terraced agriculture, watershed restoration, indigenous Andean farming, results-based incentives, soil and water conservation

Context

Peru's Management of Natural Resources in the Southern Highlands Project (MARENASS), launched with IFAD financing in 1995, worked in the Andean highland departments of Apurimac, Ayacucho and Cusco, where pre-Columbian agricultural terraces (andenes) had fallen into disrepair.

Activities

Rather than a conventional extension-agent model, the project used the Pachamama Raymi ('Mother Earth Festival') methodology: cash-prize competitions in which families and then whole communities competed on the quality of resource-management practices they adopted, with communities controlling the resulting investment funds and hiring their own local technical specialists (yachachiq).

Results

Total financing was about US$15.14 million (79% IFAD, 19% Government of Peru, the remainder from communities), reaching 360 communities and an estimated 52,800 families. In 260 of those communities the project produced roughly 440 hectares of new agricultural terraces, 1,740 kilometres of irrigation channels and improved irrigation on about 2,475 hectares.

Conclusions

IFAD's evaluation credits the model with building a local market for paid technical assistance and reducing dependence on purchased agrochemical inputs, and the methodology was later adapted for other Andean programmes. However, the 440 hectares of new terracing address only a small fraction of Peru's much larger restoration backlog - of roughly one million pre-Columbian terraces nationally, only about 30% remain usable - and no independent, quantified erosion or yield data beyond the project's self-reported figures was found.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Approximately US$15.14 million total, 79% IFAD, 19% Government of Peru, remainder from participating communities.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — Project ran 1995-2004; the Pachamama Raymi methodology was subsequently adapted for other Andean natural-resource programmes.
Staffing & skills
Community-hired local technical specialists (yachachiq) contracted directly by communities rather than centrally assigned extension agents, Community-controlled investment funds administered by participating communities themselves

Conditions for success

  • Prize-based competition structure (Pachamama Raymi) motivating adoption of resource-management practices
  • Community control over disbursement and hiring, building a local market for paid technical assistance
  • Combined IFAD (79%) and Government of Peru (19%) co-financing with a community contribution

Common failure modes

  • Terracing gains (440 ha) were modest relative to Peru's estimated backlog of about one million pre-Columbian terraces nationally, of which only about 30% remain usable
  • No independent, quantified erosion or yield data was found beyond the project's own self-reported production diversification

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful