evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

SIRSD-S — Chile's Agro-Environmental Soil Sustainability Incentive System

Chile · Concepcion · See the Chile profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 90% 27/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2010, Chile's Law 20.412 has paid smallholder and family farmers via INDAP/SAG competitive rounds to restore degraded agricultural soils; 2025 Biobío-region rounds alone approved 561 management plans covering over 1,000 ha for roughly 676 million pesos.

561 plans
Management plans approved (Biobío region, 2025, two rounds) (2025)
1,000+ hectares
Degraded agricultural land treated (Biobío, 2025) (2025)
676 million CLP (~US$700,000)
Incentive investment (Biobío, 2025, two rounds) (2025)
90 %
INDAP financing share of eligible costs
SIRSD-S — Chile's Agro-Environmental Soil Sustainability Incentive System

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario (INDAP), Chile
Period
2010-present
Keywords
soil restoration, agri-environmental payments, smallholder agriculture, erosion control

Context

Chile's Sistema de Incentivos para la Sustentabilidad Agroambiental de los Suelos Agropecuarios (SIRSD-S) was established by Law 20.412 in 2010, consolidating an earlier soil-recovery incentive scheme. The programme is coordinated by the Undersecretariat of Agriculture and jointly implemented by SAG and INDAP, which serves small-scale family farmers.

Activities

Farmers submit management plans through regional competitive 'concursos' and, if approved, receive incentive payments — INDAP finances up to 90% of eligible costs for its clients — covering practices such as re-establishing vegetation cover on bare or degraded soils, correcting soil acidity or salinity with lime or amendments, applying phosphorus fertilisers, and erosion-control works.

Results

In the Biobío region alone, two concurso rounds reported in 2025 approved a combined 561 management plans, treating just over 1,000 hectares of degraded agricultural land, for a combined incentive investment of approximately 676 million pesos (roughly US$700,000), administered through INDAP area offices across eight localities.

Conclusions

As a nationwide, statutory programme running continuously since 2010, SIRSD-S represents one of Latin America's longer-running agri-environmental payment schemes for smallholder soil restoration. Its evidence base is mainly administrative rather than independently measured soil-quality or yield outcomes; no peer-reviewed impact evaluation of its effect on erosion rates, water infiltration or long-term productivity was identified.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Regional example: ~676 million CLP (~US$700,000) for 561 plans/1,000+ ha in Biobío alone (two 2025 rounds); INDAP covers up to 90% of eligible costs for its smallholder clients — the national aggregate spend across all regions would be considerably higher.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Established by Law 20.412 in 2010 (building on an older SIRSD predecessor); operates via continuous annual/regional competitive rounds through the present.
Staffing & skills
INDAP (Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario) regional area offices, SAG (Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero), Undersecretariat of Agriculture (coordination)

Conditions for success

  • Statutory basis (Law 20.412) ensuring continuous national budget allocation
  • Competitive regional 'concurso' rounds allowing decentralised targeting
  • High cost-share (up to 90%) lowering barriers for smallholder/family-farmer participation

Common failure modes

  • No peer-reviewed impact evaluation of erosion, water infiltration or productivity outcomes exists, despite over a decade of continuous operation
  • Evidence is limited to administrative outputs (contracts, hectares, pesos) rather than measured ecological outcomes

Where it fits

Governance type
national statutory agri-environmental payment scheme
Scale
national, implemented via regional competitive rounds
Income level
upper-middle-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

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