DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for 
International Development or the United States Government.
ARTISANAL GOLD MINING ACTIVITY 
(ORO LEGAL) PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION 
FINAL REPORT
December 2021
MEL ACTIVITY
Contract Title: USAID/Colombia Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning activity
Contract Number: 72051419C00001 
Submitted: December 3, 2021
Contractor: Panagora Group, Inc. 
COR: Omar López
Authors: Manuel Fernando Castro (Evaluation Director), Jairo Herrera (Mining Specialist), Luis F. 
Monroy (Value Chains Specialist), Maria Andrea Rueda (Environmental Specialist), Mauricio Aguilar 
(Evaluation Specialist), Oscar Quiroz (Quantitative Specialist), Camila Chavarria (Qualitative Specialist), 
and Juliana Moreno (Qualitative Analyst). Orlando Gracia, Luisa Fernanda Cardona, Juan Guillermo 
Bedoya, Yazmin Medina and David Doncell.
Panagora Group Contacts:
Ana María Rivera
Chief of Party
Carrera 7 No. 74B-36, Piso 6, Bogotá, Colombia
Email: arivera@panagoracolombia.net
Orlando Gracia
Lead Evaluation Expert
Carrera 7 No. 74B-36, Piso 6, Bogotá, Colombia
Email: ogracia@panagoracolombia.net
Francis Okello, PhD
Director, Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Learning and Adapting Practice
8601 Georgia Avenue, 8th Floor, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Email: francisokello@panagoragroup.net
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS I
ABSTRACT 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
A. EVALUATION PURPOSE 14
B. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY 15
C. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHDOLOGY 18
D. LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION 23
E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 24
F. RECOMMENDATIONS 76
ANNEX 1: METHDOLOGICAL DESIGN APPLIED TO ANSWER 
THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 89
ANNEX II: QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND 
CHALLENGES 104
ANNEX III: SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DATA 114
ANNEX III: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
MATRIX 131
ANNEX IV: DETAILED METHDOLOGY 155
ANNEX V: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 216
ANNEXI VI: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 298
ANNEX VII: SCOPE OF WORK OF THIS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 301
ANNEX VIII: SUMMARY INFORAMTION ABOUT EVALUATION TEAM 
MEMBERSBERS 327
ANNEX IX: SIGNED DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
FROM EVALUATIONTEAM MEMBERS 330
i | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
ACRONYMS
ANM National Mining Agency
ASGM Artisanal and Small Gold Mining
ASM Artisanal and Small-Scale Miners
BGI Better Gold Initiative
BioREDD+ USAID/Colombia Biodiversity-Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and 
Forest Degradation Program
CAR Regional Autonomous Corporation
CC Community Council
CLA Collaboration, Learning, and Adaptation
COR Contracts Officer Representative
CORANTIOQUIA Central Antioquia Regional Autonomous Corporation
CORNARE Negro and Nare Rivers’ Basins’ Regional Autonomous Corporation
CSO Civil Society Organization
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EVA Municipal Agricultural Evaluations
EVOA Evidence of Alluvial Gold Exploitation
FARC Colombian Armed Revolutionary Forces 
GIS Geographic Information System
GOC Government of Colombia
Ha hectare
IP Implementing Partner
MADR Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MADS Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Activity
MFP Mining Formalization Program
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | ii
MME Ministry of Mines and Energy
MPU Mining Production Unit
NAMA National Appropriate Mitigation Actions
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OL Artisanal Gold Mining Activity (Oro Legal)
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets
SENA National Learning Service
SoW Statement of Work
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Analysis
TA Technical Assistance
UPA Agricultural Production Unit
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government
WWF World Wildlife Fund
1 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
ABSTRACT
The Oro Legal (Legal Gold) Activity worked to improve the capacity of the government, local 
communities, and the private sector to address the informality of artisanal and small-scale gold mining 
(ASGM) and reduce and reverse its environmental impacts in 22 municipalities in two departments of 
Colombia (Antioquia and Chocó). The Activity aimed to i) strengthen governmental capacity to facilitate 
compliance with mining regulations; ii) increase the participation of artisanal mining associations and 
community groups in mining formalization; iii) provide training and technical assistance to enable miners 
to formalize their operations; iv) rehabilitate areas that had been degraded by mining; v) identify 
alternative income-generating activities; and vi) improve the quality of potable water in targeted areas. 
This evaluation examines whether the achievements of the intervention are perceived as effective and 
impactful, identifies the factors that influenced its performance, and determines the contextual factors 
that affect the sustainability of the results, with a specific focus on responding to the six evaluation 
questions. The evaluation uses mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) complemented by 
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools and informed by a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting 
(CLA) approach throughout. The qualitative portion of the methodology combined a technique drawn 
from the phenomenology of perception with a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and 
Threats) analysis, drawing on semi-structured interviews with a range of actors involved in the Activity. 
The quantitative approach included descriptive statistics, spatial econometrics, multiple correspondence 
analysis, grouping of observations, and text mining from beneficiary surveys and OL’s Monitor system.
This evaluation found that beneficiaries have a high level of satisfaction with OL, highlight its strengths, 
and perceive its interventions as relevant to the context and needs of the targeted territories. However, 
the evaluation also identified a series of challenges and opportunities for improving implementation, 
design, and operation of this type of intervention. The evaluation proposes 43 recommendations, with 
100 implementation measures to put these recommendations into action. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Small-scale and artisanal gold mining (ASGM) in Colombia is an activity that, besides being highly affected 
by and connected to illegal activities, has a significant negative environmental impact. About 80 percent 
of the gold produced in the country comes from artisanal and small-scale miners. According to a sector 
census between 2010 and 2011, 72 percent of mining production units (MPUs) were small-scale, 63 
percent did not hold title to their mine, and 75.7 percent did not have an environmental license. The 
mining sector, moreover, has little capacity to regulate these issues. This situation is exacerbated by the 
presence of illegal armed groups that control and engage directly in a host of illegal activities, including 
the illicit extraction of minerals, mercury trafficking, cocaine production, illicit logging, and land grabs. 
Mercury is widely used in ASGM, despite being prohibited in mining since 2018, and produces a high 
level of environmental and socio-economic degradation, in addition to enormous risks to human health. 
In 2011 Colombia was estimated to be the largest per capita mercury polluter in the world. The country 
is a signatory to the Minamata Convention on Mercury, and Law 1658 of 2013 lays out a roadmap to 
eliminate mercury use. Nonetheless, enormous challenges in overseeing the chain of control and low 
regulatory capacity persist. The Office of the Comptroller General of Colombia estimates that the 
national government has made progress amounting to 46.72 percent toward totally eliminating mercury, 
with this being about 90 tons per year.1 Reliance on mercury occurs in large part because ASGM is 
often carried out in remote regions under the control of illegal armed groups, by small producers for 
whom stopping the use of mercury is a long-term process that implies accepting behavioral changes in 
their work to achieve economic benefits that are not immediate. In addition, small miners are not 
typically trained in appropriate techniques and lack access to skills and mercury-free technology. 
Oro Legal (OL) aimed to improve the capacity of the government, local communities, and the private 
sector to address informality in ASGM and reduce its environmental impacts. It pursued this goal 
through two core strategic objectives and six results areas. The first objective was to improve the 
governance of gold extractive activities through results areas that included (1.1) strengthening 
government capacity for compliance with mining regulations, (1.2) increasing the participation of mining 
associations and local communities in the formalization program, and (1.3) building the capacity of the 
miners through training and technical assistance. The second objective focused on strengthening the 
capacity of government, communities, and the private sector to manage environmental impacts through 
(2.1) rehabilitation of degraded areas by illegal mining, (2.2) the generation of alternative livelihoods, and 
(2.3) improving the quality of potable water. With a budget of $22.1 million, Oro Legal worked in 22 
municipalities in the departments of Antioquia and Chocó. It continued the work of the mining 
component of BioREDD+, a previous USAID initiative that was active from 2011 to 2015.
Covering five years of implementation (2015-2021), this evaluation of OL responds to specific evaluation 
questions about the Activity’s performance. These questions include: i) evaluate to what extent the 
achievements of the intervention are perceived as effective and as having an impact, ii) identify the 
factors that affect the components and sub-objectives, and iii) determine the contextual factors that 
affect the sustainability of the results achieved. The methodological approach examines the support that 
OL provided to beneficiaries and partners in terms of mining formalization, mining governance and 
1 Contraloría General de la Republica CGR (2020). Evaluación de avances y resultados en la implementación del Plan 
Estratégico Sectorial para la eliminación del uso del mercurio.
3 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
policy, promotion of alternative livelihoods, rehabilitation of degraded areas, and the 
reduction/elimination of mercury in ASGM.
The evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach, which entailed collecting primary and secondary 
qualitative and quantitative data, and a focus on the collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA) approach 
throughout the process. Moreover, the evaluation used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to 
interpret spatial and geostatistical information and georeferenced data for analysis, particularly data on 
the rehabilitation of degraded areas. 
This report presents findings and conclusions2 in response to evaluation questions and suggests targeted 
recommendations. The conclusions on formalization and mining governance respond to the following 
questions: i) To what extent do the formalization processes provide sufficient incentives for miners 
involved in ASGM to remain formal and improve the environmental performance of their mining 
operations? and ii) What have been the main internal and external factors that have contributed to or 
hindered OL’s progress in strengthening Colombian mining and environmental governance? As the 
process of formalization and its incentives have a close relationship with the policies that govern the 
mining sector, these first two questions are combined in the same section. The questions about the 
Activity’s other components are as follows: iii) How do beneficiaries involved in OL´s value chains 
activities perceive the impact of alternative livelihoods on their present and future well-being outside of 
ASGM activities?; iv) the relevance and effectiveness of the different models of land rehabilitation used in 
the program; v) the instruments and approaches that were most effective in reducing the use of mercury 
in ASGM; and, finally, vi) the perceptions of different actors regarding the relevance and effectiveness of 
OL. 
The evaluation findings are synthesized into 37 conclusions, 43 recommendations, and 100 
implementation measures. The conclusions and recommendations seek to identify and disseminate 
lessons learned to inform USAID/Colombia decision-makers in designing and implementing similar 
activities. The principal findings respond to the evaluation questions, corresponding to components of 
the program, as follows: 
MINING FORMALIZATION AND GOVERNANCE
Oro Legal formalized 146 MPUs, 53 in Antioquia and 93 in Chocó reaching an overall score of 108 
percent in its performance target. MPUs with mechanized operations, access to public services, and 
which completed a works and operation plan (PTO), achieved on average, a greater degree of 
formalization. Twenty of the 53 MPUs formalized in Antioquia were in Segovia, five in Remedios and 
Vegachí, eight in Barbosa and Don Matías, three in Zaragoza, four in Tarazá, five in El Bagre and eight in 
Buriticá. Fifty-one of the MPUs formalized in Chocó are in Tadó, 27 in Unión Panamericana, 10 in 
Cértegui, and five in Condoto.3 The econometric models of the determinants of mining formalization 
2 Conclusions are integrated within the findings section as titles under each evaluation question. 3 MELA used the final report of Oro Legal for the total number of MPUs intervened, formalized, and their respective 
departmental breakdown (see "Final Report Artisanal Gold Mining - Environmental Impact Reduction Activity (Oro Legal" July 
2021. https://land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/USAID-Colombia_Oro-Legal_Final-Report.pdf). Unfortunately, the 
numbers included here were not available during this evaluation's data collection and analysis period. Therefore, the evaluation 
team could not triangulate this information with the other sources of data used. However, MELA's evaluation component 
included these numbers in the report following a requirement made by the COR of the Activity.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 4 
found that MPUs with mechanized operations scored on average 14.7 points higher on the formalization 
indicator than MPUs with traditional operations. Location and proximity to groups of formalized MPUs 
created hotspots for formalization. In addition, access to public services and good practices like saving 
receipts and preparing a PTO were associated with higher levels of formalization. MPUs that saved their 
receipts and MPUs that prepared a PTO scored, respectively, 10.4 and 8.2 points higher on the 
formalization indicators than those that did not.4
In general, beneficiaries were highly satisfied with the program and mentioned its strengths. In the 
survey, 72 percent of beneficiaries reported great satisfaction with the work of OL to facilitate 
formalization (beneficiaries particularly highlighted efforts to assist with regulatory compliance and 
cleaner environmental practices). Most mining formalization beneficiaries were satisfied with OL, and 
particularly highlighted the program’s contribution to implementing PTOs and obtaining mining titles. 
They also mentioned OL’s contributions to publicizing the benefits of formality and its assistance in 
overcoming disincentives to formalize. Beneficiaries learned modernized mining techniques and adjusted 
to greater regulatory compliance, which greatly reduced their risk of enforcement actions by authorities. 
OL contributed to improve environmental performance by supporting the impact assessments needed 
for environmental licenses and the labor rights and practices. This was recognized by environmental 
authorities, who consider these documents as critical guidelines to protect the environment. Similarly, 
OL helped implement cleaner and more efficient gold processing techniques. The program helped to 
introduce good business practices that advanced the rights of workers and ethical practices. 
Beneficiaries reported making greater commitments to the health of their workers and to their 
constitutional right to physical integrity, a shift that is considered difficult for ASGM. In addition, 28 
percent of miners surveyed identified protection from work-related risks as one of the main benefits of 
formalization. 
Beneficiaries who obtained their mining title and environmental license improved their incomes. Of the 
beneficiaries surveyed, 39 (34.5 percent)5 out of 113 MPU declared they got a mining title and 
environmental license and also increased their income. According to this survey, average monthly 
incomes for miners who formalized their operations reached $2,377, while the same figure for miners 
who had not formalized their operations stood at $401. Once they met the requirements demanded by 
the Unique Registry of Mineral Sellers (RUCOM) to certify the legal origin of their mineral, miners could
get better prices for their gold and reduce their risk of law enforcement action. Legal miners can obtain 
higher prices for their gold on the legal market than informal miners do with selling to illicit actors, as 
the latter take advantage of the clandestine nature of mining operations and the miners’ consequent fear 
of the authorities to extract a lower price. Still, legal income can only increase once miners hold their 
title and environmental license; without these tools, the gold cannot be sold legally and there are no licit 
profits. This presented a substantial challenge for OL, as it meant that miners needed to have 
considerable economic capacity to sustain themselves during the time between applying for the title and 
license and receiving them. 
4 More details can be found in Annex I. Supplementary data and analysis – See quantitative annex Formalization and mining 
governance – Econometric model of determinants of mining formalization – Table 2, pp. 4 to 8). 5 These figures correspond to the data obtained from the beneficiary survey, which found that 39 out of 113 MPUs had 
obtained mineral title and the environmental license.
5 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
OL was an interlocutor and facilitated linkages between the MPUs and government authorities, but trust 
continues to be affected by weak institutional capacity. The Activity built bridges of understanding 
between different actors involved in formalization, interacting with high officials of the national 
government as well as ASGM miners, and offered small miners a real possibility of achieving legality. Oro 
Legal developed a methodology for scoring formalization of ASGM in Colombia, which facilitated 
concrete policy actions to support miners in formalizing. OL’s work on mining formalization policy is 
widely recognized by gold producers, international mineral marketers, local, regional, and national 
authorities, academics, and researchers on small-scale mining. 
Empowering miners by dignifying their activities contributed to OL’s effectiveness in mining 
formalization. Oro Legal contributed to making visible to the GOC, the mining sector, and the broader 
public the work and dignity of small-scale gold miners. The Activity contributed to making visible miners' 
material and technical deficiencies and to better understanding their operational performance. Miners 
themselves, by being part of Oro Legal, could feel less fear of the justice system and could face the 
formalization process without feeling stigmatized as criminals or socially excluded.
Mining formalization is a process promoted at the ministerial level, rather than being a comprehensive 
and inter-institutional policy, and this status is one of the main obstacles that the formalization policy 
faces. A key finding of this evaluation is that mining formalization is not a whole-of-government policy, 
with an enabling law connecting the different sectors of the GOC concerned with mining regulation. 
This situation impedes inter-institutional coordination for the governance of the sector. Furthermore, 
mining formalization is optional for miners and beneficiaries can withdraw at any time if discouraged 
during the process by the multiple disincentives to formalization such as the length of time it takes to 
complete the process, convoluted procedures, prohibition on selling gold during the process, and 
uncertainty about its cost. 
The evaluation findings also suggest that creating structural changes in miners’ behavior could require 
longer-term sustained support. Interviews for the evaluation found great uncertainty about what the 
future might hold for miners and their upcoming attitudes toward formality. This uncertainty is 
conditioned by the fact that the Activity has concluded, and that many beneficiaries remain in the 
formalization process, but have not yet obtained critical documents like the mining title and the 
environmental license. OL beneficiaries who had not graduated by the time of OL’s closing perceived a 
considerable degree of uncertainty. Some miners interviewed compared the end of OL to the end of the 
BioREDD+ program and expressed fear that they would not receive subsequent support from donors. 
According to the model of determinants of mining formalization, length of time in the program is one of 
the factors that most explains MPUs advances toward formalization. On average each additional quarter 
an MPU participates in the program is associated with 7.8 additional points on the indicator for 
formalization of mining operations. At the same time, the model finds that each point that an MPU had 
at entry was associated with 0.85 additional points, reflecting the importance of the starting point for 
MPUs embarking on the process of formalization.6
VALUE CHAINS AND ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS
6 For more details, see Annex I. Supplemental data and analysis – See quantitative annex Formalization and mining governance – 
Econometric model of determinants of mining formalization -– Table 1, pp. 4 - 6).
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 6 
The income gains from beekeeping and annatto complemented household incomes and may allow for a 
transition toward productive activities that are more attractive and more viable than ASGM for 
beneficiaries. According to the beneficiaries survey, 76.4 percent of annatto producers and 44 percent of 
beekeepers were involved in mining-related activities prior to working with OL. Also, 87.3 percent of 
beekeeping beneficiaries and 43.4 percent of annatto producers agreed or strongly agreed that value 
chain activities had improved their incomes. Ninety-two percent of beekeepers and, 68.5 percent of 
annatto producers said that they consider the value chain projects more viable than mining. 
Nevertheless, Interviewees mentioned that various families continued to carry out mining activities while 
participating in value chain projects, due to insufficient incomes from the value chain projects. It is 
important to note that the beekeeping value chain belongs to a more mature market than annatto. 
Antioquia has been the second-place department in Colombia for honey production for almost a 
decade,7 whereas annatto has been a traditional orchard crop in Chocó, with cultural significance but no 
market development. Moreover, during the past decade, the beekeeping value chain has been supported 
in the Bajo Cauca region by other USAID programs, whereas annatto has not. OL is the first USAID 
program to pilot an annatto value chain initiative. Statistical analysis shows8 that the greatest level of 
satisfaction among beekeepers was positively related with perceived income increases, and that 
beekeepers with more than one year in the program deemed the activity more viable in comparison 
with mining activities. Beneficiaries in the annatto value chain, on the other hand, expressed 
dissatisfaction around income, which was associated with a lower perception of the activity’s viability 
compared with mining. In the same vein, beneficiaries with less than one year in the program declared 
the lowest perceptions of viability. In line with these observations, generating sufficient and stable 
income seems to encourage more producers to move toward involvement in value chains, gradually 
leaving mining activities.
 
OL strengthened the technical capacity of beneficiaries, increased their productive potential, and 
improved yields and quality. With beekeeping, OL established 11,360 hives. Between 2016 and 2019 
there was a nationwide increment of 34,236 hives.9 Taken together, these figures suggest OL supported 
33 percent of nationwide growth in beekeeping over the last four years. Regarding yields, before OL the 
average productivity was 8.4kgs/year/beehive according to a study undertaken by CONIF (2016);10
Beneficiaries surveyed in 2020 declared an average yield per hive of 14.2 kgs/year, which means a 
productive potential of 161,312 kgs/year for the totality of the hives installed by OL. In the case of 
annatto, there were 664 Ha under cultivation across Colombia according to a survey carried out in 
2017.11 Between 2017 and 2019, OL established 661 Ha, becoming the largest agro-industrial 
establishment of annatto in the country. The national yield estimate in 2017 averaged less than 1.5 
tons/Ha of annatto annually. While OL’s supported plots are not yet at full productive capacity-estimates 
of future potential production are roughly four tons/Ha per year. The total productive potential of 
plantations established by OL was estimated by A&ACH at 3,000 tons/year. 
Business models were prepared for Agricultural Production Units, but there were no comprehensive 
business models for the entire value chains. This impeded anticipating all the impacts associated with 
different components of the value chains, including overproduction of annatto and a lack of working 
capital in beekeeping. In the case of annatto, it is worth observing that OL identified soon after the 
beginning of the intervention a particular variety of annatto adapted to the humid conditions and poor 
7 Dirección de cadenas pecuarias, pesqueras y acuícolas del ministerio de agricultura y desarrollo rural, 2020
8 Annex 1 – Supplemental data and analysis – See quantitative annex value chains and alternative livelihoods – Descriptive 
analysis, variable associations and grouping of observations, pp. 6- 7). 9 Ibid.
10 Corporación Nacional De Investigación Y Fomento Forestal – CONIF (2016). Diagnóstico de la actividad apícola en el Bajo 
Cauca Antioqueño para OL. 11 Evaluaciones Agropecuarias Municipales adelantadas por el Ministerio De Agricultura Y Desarrollo Rural
7 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
soils of Chocó and established the foundations of an agro-industrial annatto value chain in the 
department. However, production goals were not calculated with a comprehensive business model that 
considered the cost structure along the productive stages up to commercialization and included demand 
size. The private commercial partner in the annatto value chain could only absorb a third of the actual 
production. This led to a very high risk of desertion of beneficiaries, as by the time of the evaluation 
some producers had already lost up to three harvests. In the beekeeping chain there are greater 
commercialization guarantees. Still, although the commercial partner for honey has managed to secure 
loans for COP $250 million for working capital, that partner cannot yet guarantee cash purchase for the 
entirety of the honey sold by the beekeepers in the region who supply it with honey.
OL was able to improve environmental conditions and avoid increased degradation of land and illegal 
extraction of gold in the targeted areas. Beekeepers and annatto producers surveyed agreed, at 79 
percent and 68 percent levels respectively, that the value chain activities had prevented further negative 
environmental effects in the targeted areas. Producers indicated that they preferred working in 
alternative livelihoods projects to gold mining, and that the alternative productive establishments had 
helped to rehabilitate areas degraded by informal/illegal gold mining operations
OL's value chain activities strengthened beneficiaries’ sense of resilience in the face of a problematic 
public order situation and provided hope for the future. The alternative livelihood projects strengthened 
household resilience by reducing their economic vulnerability, strengthening social networks at the 
family and community level, increasing perceptions of security, and bolstering perceptions of institutional 
support. The percent of beneficiaries who felt that the value chain activities had contributed to 
improving security conditions was 64.6 percent for annatto and 74.7 percent for beekeeping. According 
to a statistical analysis,12 beekeeping- beneficiaries indicated that they would want to continue with the 
value chain activity even when presented with a hypothetical situation in which income from the activity 
decreased by 75 percent.
REHABILITATION OF AREAS DEGRADED BY ILLEGAL MINING
OL undertook rehabilitation in areas of environmental importance, whose recovery contributed to key 
national and international goals. The polygons targeted by OL overlapped with national forest reserves 
(Law 2 of 1956) by 96 percent in Chocó and 33 percent in Antioquia; 36 percent of the areas targeted 
in Chocó and 33 percent in Antioquia were located in priority conservation areas as defined by national 
policy.13 Eight percent of targeted areas in Antioquia corresponds to priority areas for restoration, and 
six percent in each department lies within priority areas for rehabilitation, as determined by the Ministry 
of Environment for the Unique Registry of Ecosystems and Environmental Areas. 
Oro Legal targeted areas with a significant level of degradation and considerable risks for communities. 
The informal and illegal mining activity carried out for decades in these areas has led to biodiversity 
losses and negatively affected environmental goods and services, such as water, air, soil for planting, and 
regulation of local microclimate. These areas have seen deforestation, soil degradation, and increased 
vulnerability to natural disasters and climate change. Various municipalities in Chocó have repeatedly 
12 For more details, see Annex I. Supplemental data and analysis – See Quantitative Analysis Value chains and alternative 
livelihoods - Descriptive analysis, variable associations and grouping observations – Figure 7, pp 9-10). 13 Documento Conpes 3680, 2010. This document set out guidelines for the consolidation of the National System of Protected 
Areas, which aimed to increase the ecological representativeness of the system, through the designation or expansion of 
protected areas in high priority sites. These guidelines also consider elements to improve connectivity and ecological integrity 
and to ensure the generation of environmental services.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 8 
appeared in early alerts for deforestation,14 with changes in land use for mining and the cultivation of 
coca being the two main causes. 
Local actors perceived positive results such as improvements in microclimate, increased biodiversity, 
and soil recovery as a result of the rehabilitation work of the program. Using satellite imagery to analyze 
vegetation cover in a sample of 2,077 Ha where OL rehabilitation took place from 2016 to 2020, (the
assessment) identified a four percent increase in vegetation cover and a 14 percent decrease in 
deforestation. There were also increases in vegetation cover of four percent in Antioquia and nine 
percent in Chocó and a reduction in deforestation of 13 percent for Antioquia and 35 percent for 
Chocó.
The models of rehabilitation developed by Oro Legal in the two targeted departments were appropriate 
from an environmental and social perspective. OL used Acacia mangium trees in Antioquia for its 
rehabilitation model; this species has been used and recognized for decades to restore soils degraded by 
alluvial mining. In Chocó rehabilitation projects used local ecosystems as a reference. The Activity hired 
community members to carry out the labor of transplanting plants from these intact local ecosystems, 
using a landscape approach to promote recovery of the ecosystem as a whole. Both beneficiaries and 
government entities declared that the approach used was appropriate because it was undertaken in 
coordination with the communities. 
OL filled gaps in financing in the absence of public investment for rehabilitation and its model achieved a 
large land extension. Colombian regulations do not have a legal definition for environmental liabilities, 
which makes it difficult for public institutions to dedicate money to rehabilitation. OL took on this issue 
and did so in a cost-effective manner. When compared with similar programs, such as the National 
Restoration Plan (with costs of $1,820/Ha) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ($2,000/Ha), OL has lower 
costs, at $1,700/Ha. The model combined active and passive rehabilitation, employed different species of 
trees based on the features offered by the targeted landscape, and involved local communities 
throughout the process, including in watering, planting, and contributing labor to the nurseries. Oro 
Legal achieved a total extension of 17,028 Ha of rehabilitated lands degraded by illegal and informal gold 
mining, of which 13,421 Ha were under passive rehabilitation. 
The sustainability of rehabilitation efforts is not guaranteed, and it runs the risk of losing the efforts and 
resources that have been invested to date. OL’s implementation contract does not establish an 
obligation to guarantee the sustainability of the rehabilitated areas, and while the program carried out 
activities to try to seek stability, interviews found that attention to conservation has waned with the 
departure of the implementing partner (IP) from these areas.
ELIMINATION / REDUCTION OF MERCURY IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN FOR ASGM
The technical assistance that OL provided to miners, in particular for PTOs, advanced best practices for 
mercury-free gold extraction. Ninety percent of the MPUs surveyed declared that the PTO was vital for 
carrying out processing without mercury, and 88 percent recognized that the program supported access 
to important techniques and technologies for mercury-free extraction. We were able to conclude that 
the technical assistance provided by OL, particularly in carrying out deposit studies, facilitated better 
14 Caracterización de las principales causas y agentes de la deforestación a nivel nacional período 2005-2015. González, J. 
Cubillos, A., Chadid, M., Cubillos, A., Arias, M., Zúñiga, E., Joubert, F. Pérez, I, Berrío, V. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y 
Estudios Ambientales – IDEAM-. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Programa ONU-REDD Colombia. Bogotá, 
2018.IDEAM, 2017
9 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
practices for mercury-free extraction, and that formalization is positively correlated with the elimination 
of mercury in mining operations. 
The most important external factor for the reduction of mercury was the entry into force of Law 1658 
in 2018. Based on monitoring records of the OL program, beneficiaries changed their practices from 
using 7 grams of mercury to produce 1 gram of gold in the second half of 2017, to 0 grams of mercury 
in the first quarter of 2020. This reduction is most notable in alluvial and underground gold mining. 
However, we found that 1.1 percent of beneficiaries declared that they continued to use mercury to 
process gold. Given that a small number of ASGM miners said that they continue to use mercury, 
purchasing it on the black market or in gold shops, an important challenge for relevant GOC authorities 
is to focus on control of the trade and illegal access to the element. 
Education and awareness-raising campaigns have had positive results. Interviews conducted for this 
evaluation with GOC officials from the mining and environmental ministries revealed that they believed 
the development of campaigns to disseminate information are the best strategy for reducing the use of 
mercury. At the same time, more than 70 percent of beneficiaries indicated that health concerns 
motivated them to stop using mercury. 
ORO LEGAL’S PERCEIVED RELEVANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS
In general, beneficiaries had a high level of satisfaction with the program. On a scale of one to five, with 
five being complete satisfaction,15 73 percent of OL’s mining formalization beneficiaries declared that 
they were satisfied or very satisfied with OL, as did 77 percent of beekeeping beneficiaries, 59 percent 
of rehabilitation beneficiaries, and 40 percent of annatto beneficiaries. Beneficiaries also highlighted 
positive aspects, such as the relevance of OL to the needs of beneficiaries in local context, the positive 
effects on the environment, on mining activity, economic development, quality of life, and the 
participation of women and young people. 
OL contributed to changing the mindset of miners regarding the possibility of carrying out 
environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable gold mining activity. Interviews with different 
stakeholders indicate that awareness raising, and training provided by OL contributed to changing 
miners’ mentalities regarding mining formalization. Only two percent of those surveyed said that there is 
no advantage in formalization. The qualitative evidence shows that OL contributed to reversing the 
skepticism of artisanal miners in the formalization processes and connected them with the mining and 
environmental authorities. The support that OL provided to mining formalization and the reduction of 
mercury use increased awareness among beneficiaries about the importance of legality and taking care of 
the environment, filling knowledge gap of miners in these areas. Quantitative evidence indicates that the 
desire to protect water sources (49 percent) and to protect the air (42 percent) figured among the main 
reasons that miners declared for not using mercury.
OL created job alternatives for women, improved their incomes, promoted their empowerment, and 
helped build community ties that improved their quality of life and that of their families. Up to 37 
percent of the direct beneficiaries of OL are women. Fifty percent of participants benefited from 
beekeeping activities supported by OL are women, while in rehabilitation of areas degraded by illegal 
mining this percentage was 44. Women represent 29 percent of beneficiaries in the annatto initiative as 
an alternative activity to informal gold mining. Although mining is an activity dominated historically by 
men, 14 percent of the participants in mining formalization were women. The actors interviewed noted 
15 The scale of satisfaction for beneficiaries to rank the program was as follows: (1) Very dissatisfied, (2) Dissatisfied, (3) 
Neutral, (4) Satisfied, (5) Very satisfied. The reported percentages reference the total for (4) Satisfied and (5) Very satisfied.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 10
that the women who participated had the opportunity to work in different activities, gaining 
independence and empowerment. 
Beneficiaries (both men and women) declared that they felt a greater sense of security and peace of 
mind. This evaluation found that beneficiaries of OL from all the initiatives and both departments felt 
closer to government institutions; they also highlighted that OL had contributed to the reduction of 
illicit activities in the targeted areas in favor of alternative sources of income. 
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATION
MINING FORMALIZATION AND MINING POLICY AND GOVERNANCE
• Continue to emphasize among miners and authorities alike, the improvements in the 
environmental, social, and economic performance of MPUs that is gained through the 
formalization process, and which contributes to dignify the ASGM miners.
• Maintain and/or reinforce the adaptive approach of activities like OL working on ASGM to be able 
to respond to regulatory changes and turnover of officials in government entities. 
• Increase USAID’s participation in establishing the relationship between the implementing partner 
and government institutions, to lend official status to the implementer’s proposals and requests. 
• Strengthen the technical entry criteria and the minimum stage that beneficiaries must reach within 
the formalization process to guarantee the compliance with the intervention cycle and define what 
happens for beneficiaries who do not reach the minimum stage set by the program. 
• Ensure that the design of OL-type programs include, from the beginning, actions to create new 
channels for the commercialization of gold and associated minerals and to establish partnerships 
with organizations that promote fair trade, ethical markets, and price differentials that support 
environmental and social responsibility. 
• Verify the achievements of BioREDD+ and OL, to determine the most appropriate duration of time 
for these programs to satisfy the expectations of USAID. This includes coordinating activities with 
other training providers to streamline, maximize resources, and reduce pressure on miners.
• More actively use the position of USAID to promote obligatory mining formalization as an official 
state policy, drawing on the experiences of OL.
• Continue the practice of hiring technical personnel native from the targeted regions.
VALUE CHAINS AND ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS
• Continue to incentivize the development of agricultural value chains, selected through a 
comprehensive analysis of vocations and suitability across the selected territory, to advance gradual 
transitions from mining into new economic activities. 
• Continue to develop technical capacity in the targeted territories and to design strategies that 
promote the sustainability of technical assistance over time.
11 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
• Manage support for the continuity of technical assistance from COLTAPICOLA and the technical 
specialists from the community councils to the producers that participated in OL.
• Focus interventions on the development of local and regional production chains that add value and 
connect with markets in a competitive way.
• Guarantee that the incentives for establishments with small producers, especially on a large scale, 
are supported by a commercial chain of the volumes to be produced and the design of an associative 
business model that ensures its viability.
• Ensure the continuity of financial, technical, and business support to complete the consolidation of 
the annatto value chain in Chocó.
• Strengthen incentives for the participation of women and young people in agricultural value chains 
and for the active involvement of families and their way of life in the productive activities. 
• Strengthen strategies for cultural and community ownership of projects, facilitating the 
empowerment of local agribusinesses and the participation of youth leadership in the community. 
• Continue to promote value chains that incorporate the agroecological systems in the targeted areas.
REHABILITATION OF AREAS DEGRADED BY ILLEGAL MINING
• Incorporate environmental criteria into the design of activities like OL, in order to allow target 
areas to be selected in a way that is aligned with the goals of national and local policy and that 
increases the impact of the rehabilitation activity. 
• Include soil analysis, measuring pollution and degradation, in the design of activities like OL. 
• Activities like OL should widely disseminate their results and the effects of rehabilitation of quality 
of life and society at large to generate community ownership and greater care of the rehabilitated 
zones by local populations. 
• Connect rehabilitation interventions of activities like OL with the ethnic development plans of the 
community councils, to strengthen environmental governance among Afro-Colombian communities. 
• Connect rehabilitation efforts of activities like OL to local environmental movements and leaders in 
order to work jointly with them and encourage their work in these areas.
• Promote Payment for Environmental Services and/or the sustainable exploitation of acacia wood.
• In activities like OL, manage Acacia planting in a way that advances towards ecological succession 
making use of endemic species that contribute to the rehabilitation of the soil (applies to Antioquia).
• In activities like OL, which include passive rehabilitation components, establish alliances with local 
authorities and grassroots communities to increase local ownership and ensure achieving the results 
of rehabilitation (applies to Chocó). 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 12
• Document the costs of rehabilitation to contribute to the planning of subsequent projects with a 
similar scope.
• Activities that include passive rehabilitation within collective territories should include the 
development of a strategy for territorial control in concert with the community councils to 
contribute to the maintenance of the managed areas.
• Support the alignment of plantations on private lands to exercise better control of the planted areas 
and not allow the actions promoted by activities such as OL to be lost through degradation as new 
pressure factors enter the ecosystem.
• Implement plans to connect mayors’ offices, autonomous regional corporations, and IIAP to ensure 
continuity of the activities carried out by these institutions (e.g., knowledge transfer).
ELIMINATION/REDUCTION OF MERCURY IN THE ASGM SUPPLY CHAIN
• Continue to deliver training to miners on issues related to the prohibition on mercury usage.
• Include a component of support for government entities in the design of activities like OL to help 
them advance geological studies to look for mineral deposits.
• Carry out a technological reconversion program for ASGM miners who have received the training 
and know how to make use of the new practices.
• Increase monitoring of mercury use in the targeted areas.
• Carry out campaigns to raise awareness of the consequences for the use of mercury and expand 
these to encompass other mining-related contaminants, such as cyanide.
• Work with local, regional, and national government entities to develop a strategy to commercialize 
and market mercury-free gold. 
• Continue to support the formalization subcontracts and monitor their conditions to promote a fair 
distribution of the benefits of gold mining activity.
PERCEPTIONS OF OL’S RELEVANCE, EFFECTIVENESS, AND IMPACT
• Improve processes of information management and deepen descriptions of beneficiaries’ conditions 
to improve monitoring and measurement of interventions’ effectiveness.
• Strengthen coordination among USAID, the implementing partner, the national government, and 
local government entities for better planning, complementarity of work, follow-up, and sustainability. 
• Strengthen the training and activities that promote improved environmental conditions in the 
different interventions of the Activity. 
• Continue and increase the dissemination of information on the benefits and changes in quality of life 
associated with legal mining and the value chain initiatives.
13 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
• Ensure continuity in the hiring of technical personnel from the targeted areas to mitigate security 
issues. Moreover, include ¿to who? in the training and in the spaces to address self-care protocols 
with vulnerable individuals and communities. 
• Broaden the gender focus in the Activity, increasing the participation of women. 
• Incorporate generational renewal strategies in value chain interventions to increase young people’s 
desire to stay in these areas, prevent their involvement in illicit activities, and contribute to the 
Activity’s sustainability.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 14
A. EVALUATION PURPOSE 
This evaluation of the Oro Legal activity (Legal Gold, or OL) aims to evaluate the final performance of 
the Activity on its various components. As part of this objective, the evaluation seeks to: i) Evaluate to 
what extent the achievements of the Activity are perceived as effective and as having an impact; ii) 
Identify the factors that affect the performance of the Activity’s components and sub-objectives and iii) 
Identify the contextual factors that could affect the sustainability of the Activity’s results. 
The evaluation analyzes the contributions of OL to achieving four main goals. These are: 1) Reducing 
illegal activity and the environmental devastation stemming from illegal mining, ii) Generating economic 
alternatives to illegal mining (beekeeping and the production of honey in Antioquia, and annatto in 
Chocó), iii) Rehabilitating highly degraded lands through planting of Acacia mangium in Antioquia and 
assisted natural regeneration in Chocó, and iv) Introducing technologies and practices to eliminate the 
use of mercury in ASGM.
The evaluation methodology examines OL’s support to formalization of small mines; governance in the 
mining sector; promotion of alternative livelihoods; rehabilitation of degraded lands; and the reduction 
or elimination of mercury use in ASGM. This analysis centers on reviewing if the Activity presents 
sufficient incentives for artisan and small-scale miners to formalize their operations and improve their 
environmental practices. In addition, we analyzed the external and internal factors with positive and 
negative impacts on the progress made by OL toward strengthening governance of the mining sector, 
environmental governance, and associated policies. In addition, we explored beneficiaries’ perceptions of 
the impact of value chain projects (beekeeping and annatto) for the current and future wellbeing of their 
households outside of mining. It investigates the effectiveness and relevance, from environmental, social, 
and economic perspectives, of the different models developed in Antioquia and Chocó. The evaluation 
complements this investigation by examining what combination of instruments and approaches to reduce 
the use of mercury in ASGM has proved most effective. Finally, it identifies the principal perceptions of 
the relevance and efficacy of the different interventions supported by OL among actors directly and 
indirectly involved in the Activity.
A central goal of the evaluation is to produce recommendations that will contribute to improving the 
implementation of programs like Oro Legal in priority zones. In this aspect, the evaluation seeks to 
present USAID decision-makers with concrete recommendations and practical options for 
implementation measures, enabling them to consider possible courses of action with regards to 
continuing, redesigning, or strengthening OL-type activities in the future.
15 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
B. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY16
Small-scale mining in Colombia presents a strong presence of illicit activity. A significant amount of this 
production is carried out by illegal and informal operators. It is estimated that close to 80 percent of 
gold produced in Colombia comes from illegal artisanal and small-scale miners. According to a study 
carried out by the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), between 2010 and 2011, 72 percent of Mining 
Production Units (MPUs) surveyed were small-scale mines, while 63 percent had no title, and 75.7 
percent did not have any kind of environmental permit to operate. This situation persists despite 
programs of formalization and despite regulatory advances, such as Law 99 of 1993, which mandates that 
mining projects must obtain an environmental license to operate. 
ASGM is surrounded by illicit activities. The National Tax and Customs Directorate (DIAN) first 
sounded the alarm about money laundering in this sector in 2012, indicating at the time that illicit groups 
laundered at least $10 billion a year through the gold market. It bears noting that artisanal and small￾scale mining is centered in regions where armed groups control a host of illegal activities, including illicit 
extraction of minerals, mercury trafficking, cocaine production, illegal logging, and land grabbing.
The use of mercury in the amalgamation of gold in artisanal mining is a serious issue in Colombia. 
Colombia is a signatory to the Minamata Convention on Mercury and issued Law 1658 of 2013, which 
set a deadline of July 2018 to eliminate this element from gold mining. Nonetheless, gaps remain 
throughout the chain of control, impeding full compliance with this goal.
The consequences of artisanal mining practices in Colombia include environmental and socio-economic 
deterioration, as well as grave risks to human health. Illegal miners and small producers do not have 
appropriate training in extraction techniques, which causes deforestation and pollution, and consequent 
increases in environmental liabilities, threats to biodiversity, and risks to watersheds (e.g., Bajo Cauca in 
Antioquia, and throughout Chocó). Moreover, mining tends to discourage other rural income-generating 
activities, as residents move into mining projects, seeking higher returns for their work. The ultimate 
impact, however, is often to leave communities impoverished, with fewer legal economic alternatives, 
and under pressure from illegal armed groups.
To address this situation, the MME developed a Policy for Mining Formalization in 2014, which was 
modified through the 2014-2018 National Development Plan. To bolster this policy, the Ministry of 
Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS) prepared an environmental guide, which laid out 
terms of reference for environmental impact assessments (EIA) required for the process of licensing 
small mining projects, and for the process of seeking a temporary environmental license for mine 
formalization. Oro Legal, in coordination with Swiss development cooperation, prepared and presented 
to the MME a white paper with suggested policy modifications. 
In this context, and in alignment with its strategic objectives in the country, USAID promoted and put 
into practice the OL Activity, with Chemonics International as the implementing partner. The Activity 
16 The following data is relevant to the Activity: 
Contract No: AID-514-C-15-00003
Contracting Mechanism: Cost plus fixed fee contract. 
Period of Performance: September 2015 - April 2021
Total Estimated Cost (TEC): $22,122,365
Implementing Partner: Chemonics Inc.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 16
proposed to contribute to improving the capacity of the government, local communities, and the private 
sector to address informality in the ASGM sector and reduce its environmental impact through two 
strategic objectives: (i) improving the governance of the mining sector, and (ii) increasing the capacity of 
government entities, communities, and the private sector to manage the environmental impact of illegal 
mining. These strategic objectives were implemented across six results areas, as shown below:
• Strengthening government capacity to govern gold mining activities: 
− ER 1.1. Strengthening government capacity to enforce compliance with the laws governing the 
mining sector. 
− ER 1.2. Increasing the participation of associations of artisanal mining associations, and of Afro￾Colombian and Indigenous communities in the formalization program. 
− ER 1.3. Increasing training and technical assistance for artisanal miners. 
• Strengthening the capacity of government entities, communities, and the private sector to 
confront the environmental impact of illegal mining:
− ER 2.1. Rehabilitation of degraded areas. 
− ER 2.2. Generation of alternative livelihoods for communities involved in ASGM. 
− ER 2.3. Improving the quality of potable water in the areas of the intervention.
OL worked with a diverse group of interested parties in 22 municipalities in the departments of 
Antioquia and Chocó (Table I). The actors involved included the national and regional governments, 
municipal administrations, Autonomous Regional Corporations, associations of miners and producers, 
private mining businesses, and other initiatives working in the area of the intervention. 
TABLE 1. MUNICIPALITIES TARGETED BY OL
DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY
Antioquia
Barbosa
Buriticá
Cáceres
Caucasia
Don Matías
El Bagre
Nechí
Remedios
San Roque
Segovia
Tarazá
Zaragoza
Chocó Atrato
17 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Cértegui
Condoto
El Cantón del San Pablo
Istmina
Nóvita
Quibdó
Rio Quito
Tadó
Unión Panamericana
Source: Prepared by Evaluation Team (2021)
OL systematically incorporated gender equality and social inclusion, and the communication and 
diffusion of related methodologies and good practices across OL’s activities. In particular, the Activity 
prioritized supporting and expanding economic activities for women with high exposure to 
environmental health risks stemming from mining activities.
OL included a total allocation of $22.1 million, and continued the mining component of BioREDD+, with 
a greater scope. This activity was also undertaken by USAID and implemented by Chemonics from July 
2013 to May 2015.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 18
C. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHDOLOGY
USAID/Colombia designed this evaluation to respond to three objectives: i) to establish to what extent 
the achievements of the intervention are perceived as effective and as having an impact; ii) to identify the 
factors that affect the performance of the objectives and results areas; and iii) to determine the 
contextual factors that affect the sustainability of the Activity’s results. 
3.1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS17
The evaluation responds to six (6) evaluation questions, each one of which has its own framework. The 
questions address the following thematic areas: 
A. Mining Formalization: To what extent do the application by Mining Production Units (MPU) of 
the formalization standards, improved operational efficiency, and access to legal markets gained 
through Oro Legal’s intervention provide sufficient incentives for miners involved in ASGM to 
remain legal/formal and improve the environmental performance of their mining operations? 
Context and guidelines to answer the question: This is a follow-on to question #3 from the mid-term 
evaluation, adjusted to capture the outcome of the contribution of mining formalization towards one of 
the main goals of the Activity. Given a national context marked by a steady increase in international gold 
prices, local pressure from illegal actors, and a widespread culture of unlawfulness, have formalized gold 
miners been able to change their behavior in ways that demonstrate USAID´s contribution in this sector 
to the Journey to Self-Reliance (J2SR)? If the benefits of formalization cited above have not provided 
sufficient incentives for ASGM miners to change mining and environmental behavior in most cases, what 
underlying factors are preventing uptake of formalization and what other approaches can be 
identified/suggested to increase interest/uptake and under what requisite conditions?
B. Mining Governance and Policy: What have been the main factors (internal to Oro Legal or 
external arising from the sector context, stakeholder attitudes/behaviors, or existing 
government policy and capacity) that have contributed to or hindered OL’s progress in 
strengthening Colombian mining and environmental governance, and policies at national,
regional, and municipal levels? 
Context and guidelines to answer the question: This is a follow-on to question #2 from the Mid-term 
Evaluation. OL’s Theory of Change (TOC) proposes that the Activity will strengthen mining governance 
and policy, including at the municipal level. However, mining policy is a national purview, which is a flaw 
in the TOC not identified during the Mid-term Evaluation. Municipal authorities are only responsible for 
the administration of the mining registry (RUCOM), have limited environmental authority, and lack the 
budget and means to enforce the mining and other laws against illicit armed groups linked to gold 
mining. Also, Antioquia is the only department with a Mining Secretariat with delegated mining authority 
by the Ministry of Energy (ME), whereas the department of Chocó does not enjoy similar status. 
Additionally, central government capacity to facilitate formalization is limited because of the sheer 
number of ASGM and other informal/illegal mining operations in Colombia, difficulties experienced in 
transferring operational responsibility for ASGM formalization from the ME to the National Mining 
Agency (ANM), and hesitant political will for effective mining policy reform. Given this context, it is 
17 We based this section on the scope of work for the final performance evaluation of USAID/Colombia Artisanal Gold Mining 
Activity (Oro Legal).
19 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
critical to understand how effective OL’s approaches (both formal and informal) have been to policy and 
institutional capacity strengthening and what factors supported or hindered the Activity’s effectiveness in 
this area. The evaluation will suggest or recommend other approaches where it is relevant to do so.
C. Value Chain Development and Alternative Livelihoods: How do beneficiaries involved in OL´s 
value chains activities perceive the impact of alternative livelihoods on their present and future 
well-being outside the ASGM activities? 
Context and guidelines to answer the question: This is a follow-on to question from the Mid-term 
Evaluation. The economic (not simply financial) and/or environmental rationale for offering alternative 
livelihoods to ASGM families is to: (i) provide an alternative licit source of income; (ii) reduce the 
disproportionate environmental impact of ASGM in tropical ecosystems; (iii) reduce the pressure on 
vulnerable populations from illegal armed groups linked to illicit gold mining; and (iv) consolidate 
broader regional security. Economic reconversion includes a set of real and perceived values, benefits, 
and costs beyond investment in time and inputs and income generation from the economic activity per 
se, such as peace of mind, quality of life, more time to devote to the family (particularly relevant for 
single women heads of household), personal health and safety, higher productivity, participation in a legal 
marketplaces, etc., which are often hard to quantify, but are paramount for stakeholders and contribute 
to broader Government of Colombia (GOC) and USAID/Colombia development goals, objectives and 
priorities and, therefore, should be considered in answering this question.
D. Rehabilitation of Areas Degraded by Illegal Mining: From the environmental, social, and 
economic point of view, how appropriate and effective have been the differentiated 
rehabilitation models developed by Oro Legal in Antioquia and Chocó in areas previously 
degraded by illegal mining?
Context and guidelines to answer the question: Rehabilitation initiatives are one of the most visible and 
potentially valuable USAID contributions under Oro Legal that were not properly addressed during the 
Mid-term Evaluation. Large-scale degradation of land and water resources by unregulated alluvial mining 
and river dredging is one of the most significant environmental problems in Antioquia and Chocó, with 
particularly serious impacts to critical and fragile ecosystems along the Cauca and Atrato and Quito 
rivers and tributaries, respectively. Most rehabilitation or reclamation models are complex and costly, 
and not suitable or economically viable for remedying impacts in degraded areas considered 
“environmental orphans” by the state, communities, and landowners. The Oro Legal models were 
purposely designed to be low-cost, practical approaches that are appropriate for private landowners and 
collective communities, and particularly relevant for global and national initiatives in forest restoration 
and climate change mitigation. Are the models cost-effective in comparison to other approaches 
employed in Colombia and elsewhere? Are they good for each regional reality? How robust are the 
models in quickly reestablishing vegetative cover, reversing degradation, and recovering biodiversity? 
How committed are beneficiaries to future maintenance of the models over the medium to long term? 
What conditions are required and/or what changes could be made to the models to make them more 
effective and replicable? 
E. Elimination/Reduction of Mercury from the ASGM Supply Chain: What combination of 
instruments and approaches employed in the effort to reduce mercury usage in the ASGM have 
proven to be most effective and why?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 20
Context and guidelines to answer the question: Mercury has historically been used in ASGM, particularly by 
small-scale alluvial miners and river dredgers, as a cheap and effective amalgam to recover fine gold. 
Exposure to mercury is extremely harmful to humans and one of the major public health and 
environmental risks both in and downstream from areas where gold mining and processing are 
concentrated. Colombia is a signatory to the MINAMATA Convention on Mercury, a global treaty to 
protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury. Colombia also 
promulgated its own Mercury Law that bans all use of mercury in mining as of July 2018 and mandates 
financial support to mining operators for the transition to non-mercury processing, a provision of the 
law that has not been implemented. Through rigorous monitoring methods and documentation, Oro 
Legal beneficiary MPUs have eliminated or significantly reduced the amount of mercury used per gram of 
gold produced. How was this achieved and what were the motivations of beneficiary MPUs? What 
combination of instruments/approaches employed was most impactful? To what extent did external 
factors contribute to or hinder the Activity’s initiatives to reduce or eliminate the use of mercury? 
F. Perceived Relevance and Impact of the Activity: What are the main perceptions of the relevance 
and effectiveness of the USAID - Oro Legal’s intervention among direct and indirect 
stakeholders - ASGM operators, gold mining private sector, academia, international donors, 
USG agencies, GOC agencies, etc.?
Context and guidelines to answer the question: The end of Oro Legal is an appropriate time for objective 
reflection and to seek honest feedback from all key stakeholders on the Activity’s contribution to 
ASGM, impact on the environment, and the socio-economic development in its two main geographies 
and in Colombia more generally. Stakeholders’ perceptions are influenced by three factors: (i) their 
personal circumstances and world view; (ii) their interests and expectations; and (iii) how well informed 
and knowledgeable they are about the Activity’s objectives, implementation, and outcomes. Assessment 
of key stakeholder opinions and feedback on specific components or activities, as well as incorporating 
broader cross-cutting considerations may uncover needs, expectations, and ideas that are otherwise 
hard to capture, which, in turn, could trigger awareness, adaption, recognition, innovation, and learning 
for improvement in the future.
3.2 METHDOLOGY18
To respond to the evaluation questions, we used a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative and 
qualitative instruments. This approach entailed collecting primary and secondary qualitative and 
quantitative data, with a focus on collaboration, learning, and adaptation (CLA) throughout the process.
We also used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to analyze and interpret spatial and geostatistical 
information to perform analysis, particularly data on rehabilitation of degraded areas. 
A. QUANTITATIVE METHOD
The quantitative component of the methodology enabled a detailed inferential analysis of the data 
gathered and the relationships between data from different sources. This approach included multiple 
correspondence analysis, text mining, analysis of determinants, spatial econometrics, and other 
18 A detailed explanation of the evaluation methodology can be found in Annex III, pp. 42 - 63 (work plan) and 64 - 100 
(evaluation design).
21 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
instruments applied to information drawn from a survey of 669 beneficiaries (see Table 2) and from the 
available administrative registries.19
Source: Prepared by evaluation team (2021)
To evaluate the mining formalization component of Oro Legal, we used a quantitative approach to 
explore the dynamics of formalization over time and across departments. We used primary and 
secondary information to develop econometric models to analyze the determinants of formalization. 
Concerning governance and mining policy, we analyzed strategic messages related to the adoption of 
good practices in mining to control, mitigate, and prevent environmental impacts. This was carried out 
through text mining analysis, which detected the most frequently used words and word associations. 
This analysis drew on the qualitative data from interview transcripts related with this area, as well as 
relevant official documents.
For Value Chain Development and Alternative Livelihoods, we examined the relevant relationships and 
beneficiaries’ perceptions of effects for generating legal incomes and the sustainability of the alternative 
livelihoods created by the value chains. We carried out a descriptive analysis, complementing this with 
an analysis of variables and grouped observations to identify relationships between the sources of legal 
incomes, the sustainability of these alternatives, reduction in environmental impact, and the well-being 
and livelihoods of the beneficiaries. In addition, an econometric model was used to understand the 
perceived effect of the value chains and alternative livelihoods. 
For rehabilitation of degraded areas targeted by OL, we examined the state of the targeted areas, 
beneficiaries’ perception of relevance, and alternative strategies. This investigation was carried out 
through descriptive analysis that used primary and secondary information, examining a sample of 
polygons derived from satellite images taken from 2016 to 2020 in Antioquia and Chocó. 
Concerning mercury elimination, we confirmed differences among municipalities and the variables 
associated with greater or lesser use of mercury in ASGM. This part used descriptive analysis that 
detailed the use of mercury between 2017 and 2020 by all MPUs supported by the Activity. 
19 The totals in Table 2 correspond to effective surveys conducted with beneficiaries. However, the sampling design provided 
for the calculation of expansion factors to expand the sample values to values of the reference universe. The totals reported in 
the descriptive and graphical analysis presented in this evaluation correspond to totals using the expansion factors. In the 
analyses where additional validation was necessary to confirm that the respondent appeared in the databases sent by USAID 
and confirm his/her participation in a specific activity through the survey, the expanded totals correspond to a: Mining=113, 
Beekeeping=281, Annatto=346, and Rehabilitation=318. In cases where it was necessary to estimate general indicators for the 
program independent of activity, the expanded totals correspond to: Mining=128, Beekeeping=297, Annatto=381, and 
Rehabilitation=377. These last totals reflect the fact that during fieldwork some beneficiaries indicated that they had been 
beneficiaries of activities other than those that had been reported by USAID.
TABLE 2. SURVEYS CARRIED OUT FOR THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
COMPONENT
TYPE OF 
ACTOR
MINING ANNATTO BEEKEEPING REHABILITATION TOTAL
Effective Sample 97 212 159 201 669
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 22
Concerning the perceived relevance and impact of the Activity, we examined the perceptions of 
different actors involved with OL. Using descriptive analysis, we compared the perceptions of 
beneficiaries and institutional actors associated with the Activity and identified differences in how they 
rate the Activity for the same cluster of variables.
B. QUALITATIVE METHOD
The qualitative portion of the methodology combined an approach drawn from the phenomenology of 
perception with a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis. This approach 
enabled us to focus on the narratives and perspectives that beneficiaries used to understand OL, as well 
as examining the Activity’s bottlenecks, success factors, opportunities, and threats. Using a strict 
protocol for the protection of personal information, we carried out 120 semi-structured interviews with 
actors at the national (15), departmental (23), and municipal (82) levels. The evaluation also draws on 
secondary information from OL’s documentation, including strategic documents, diagnostics, and annual 
and quarterly reports.
The qualitative analysis followed the principles of grounded theory, which aims to draw concepts from 
qualitative data. Once information was collected, it was processed and analyzed using the text analysis 
program NVivo. A variety of visualization tools and analyses were used, including word frequency 
analysis, text mining, comparison diagrams, maps, and cluster analysis (which was used to identify 
associations between analytical categories and thematic components of the Activity).
TABLE 3. INTERVIEWS CARRIED OUT FOR THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL OF THE ACTOR
TYPE OF ACTOR NATIONAL DEPARTMENTAL MUNICIPAL TOTAL
Institutional Actors 5 10 7 22
Implementer and Partners 10 7 17
Grantees, local partners, 
and direct beneficiaries
6 75 81
Total 15 23 82 120
Source: Prepared by the evaluation team (2021)
C. TRIANGULATION OF FINDINGS
Finally, we carried out a systematic triangulation of the methods, sources, and actors in the evaluation 
design matrix to validate, interrogate, or broaden the findings of the evaluation. This approach 
contrasted different perspectives and information sources, which helped reduce bias and increase the 
validity of results obtained from different methods. We used comparison across methods to establish if 
the quantitative results are consistent, and why this might be the case. Triangulation of actors, 
meanwhile, served to contrast the visions of different actors involved in the Activity, and triangulation 
among sources reinforced the results and conclusions of the evaluation.
23 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
D. LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION
The most important limitation to this evaluation was the restrictions imposed because of the COVID-19 
pandemic. Restrictions on movement and on gatherings of people impeded us from carrying out full in￾person collection of primary data. To mitigate the risks of contagion for participants in interviews and 
focus groups, we carried out early reports and desk research from Bogotá, revisiting the evolution of 
the public health situation on a weekly basis. Considering this situation, we carried out meetings and 
interviews using video chat tools, including Google Meets, Microsoft Teams, Skype, and Zoom. In a few 
cases when video chat did not prove feasible, we conducted meetings and interviews via telephone. 
Another salient limitation was the difficulty with establishing contact with OL beneficiaries. There were 
difficulties reaching beneficiaries because in many cases (66 percent) the database either did not contain 
contact information or contained erroneous or duplicated telephone numbers. This meant that 
fieldwork carried out for the evaluation by the National Consulting Center (CNC) was able to reach 95 
percent of the originally planned sample. Moreover, during fieldwork, we found that the effective 
universe of the mining formalization component was smaller than initially contemplated, which impacted 
our sample estimates. 
The collection of environmental information also posed challenges. Persistent cloud cover limited the 
use of satellite images to examine the rehabilitation of targeted zones that the mining activity had 
degraded, especially in areas corresponding to passive rehabilitation in Chocó. We used GIS tools to 
address this problem and reviewed the program’s effectiveness on this component for a sample of 13 
polygons corresponding to 2,108 Ha of 17,028 Ha targeted by OL.
The evaluation faced some obstacles for data analysis. The databases accessed had a structure that 
facilitated tracking of program indicators, but not statistical analysis, and the monitoring and evaluation 
system presented some challenges with understanding the information20. The number of beneficiaries 
fluctuated considerably over the life of the program, placing additional demands on the analysis. 
The evaluation also addressed some limitations associated with the methodology applied. While the 
beneficiary survey employed a sample of 159 beneficiaries from the beekeeping project and 212 from 
the annatto project, responses to the questions about income were voluntary and a significant portion 
of the beneficiaries surveyed did not respond to these questions. This meant that the analysis of incomes 
only included a lower sample than anticipated (98 beneficiaries from the beekeeping project and 57 from 
the annatto project). Moreover, few of the UPAs involved in the annatto project reported income, as 
the plantations had not yet reached a point of maturity that would allow for regular income generation. 
In addition, while the econometric models allowed for the isolation of the contribution of observable 
factors in the response variables, the models did not have the objective of finding causal effects, although 
the models do give a sense of associations and relationships among the variables of interest.
Finally, given that the Activity was in its closing stages, we had little interaction with the implementing 
partner. Nevertheless, we held meetings and a workshop with the implementing partner to discuss the 
progress of the evaluation, as well as to discuss questions, bottlenecks, and follow-up steps. 
20 In the database submitted by OL for analysis in this evaluation, the field (type report) was highlighted, which included 
information on baseline and follow-ups, where inconsistencies were found (e.g., follow-up dates placed prior to the baseline 
dates).
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 24
E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This section presents findings and conclusions, responding specifically to the six evaluation questions. 
The quantitative and qualitative evidence that supports these findings draws on the performance data of 
Oro Legal collected by USAID Colombia, and statistics and figures from official government databases. 
Primary information comes from a survey carried out by the evaluation team and from a review of 
official documents produced during the execution of OL activities, as well as conversations and 
interviews with actors involved in OL. 
The findings and conclusions related to the area of formalization and governance of the mining sector 
make up the first sub-section of this section, and respond to the following questions:
1. To what extent does formalization provide sufficient incentives for miners involved in ASGM to 
remain legal/formal and improve the environmental performance of their mining operations?
2. What main internal and external factors have contributed to or hindered OL’s progress in 
strengthening Colombian mining and environmental governance? Given the relationship between 
incentives to pursue formalization and governance in the mining sector, the responses to these 
questions and the findings and conclusions drawn from them are combined in this section. 
The next four parts of this section lay out the findings and conclusions associated with the other 
program interventions, which focus on the following aspects: iii) beneficiaries’ perceptions of the impact 
of alternative livelihoods on their present and future well-being; iv) the relevance and effectiveness of 
different models of rehabilitation; v) what instruments and approaches proved most effective in reducing 
the use of mercury in ASGM; and, finally, vi) different actors’ perception of OL’s relevance and 
effectiveness. 
5.1 INCENTIVES FOR ASGM MINERS TO REMAIN LEGAL/FORMAL AND TO IMPROVE THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OPERATIONS, AND (II) FACTORS (INTERNAL 
OR EXTERNAL) THAT CONTRIBUTED TO OR HINDERED STRENGTHENING MINING AND 
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
Evaluation 
Question 1
To what extent does the application by Mining Production Units (MPU) of the 
formalization standards, improved operational efficiency, and access to legal markets 
gained through Oro Legal’s intervention provide sufficient incentives for miners involved 
in ASGM to remain legal/formal and improve the environmental performance of their 
mining operations?
Evaluation 
Question 2
What have been the main factors (internal to Oro Legal or external arising from the 
sector context, stakeholder attitudes/behaviors, or existing government policy and 
capacity) that have contributed to or hindered OL’s progress in strengthening 
Colombian mining and environmental governance, and policies at national, regional, 
and municipal levels?
25 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Since 2014 the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) has promoted a mindset shift about legalization/
formalization of mining operations, aiming to modernize the ASGM sector. Following the passage of Law 
20 of 1969, the focus of the GOC had been exclusively on mines titling. The recent conceptual shift 
toward formalization has sought to develop mining activity in compliance with mining, environmental, 
social, labor, and tax regulations. The sectoral focus thus has shifted from a narrow business compliance 
approach to one with a broader and more entrepreneurial bent. 
In line with this vision of mining formalization, OL contacted more than 640 MPUs; of these, it 
supported 334 and formalized 146 (53 in Antioquia and 93 in Chocó) reaching an overall score of 108 
percent in its performance target.21 The MPUs involved in OL represented a total gold production of 
around 194 million dollars and contributed over $14 million to the state in royalties, taxes, and 
payments into social security for their employees. 
OL provided support on regulatory and governance issues in the mining sector. Oro Legal supported 
preparation of regulations to implement articles 12, 22, and 326 of Law 1955 of 2019 (National 
Development Plan). OL also provided support to various local authorities to prepare their own 
municipal development plans, as they related to ASGM. According to one implementer: 
“Seven or eight articles were proposed for their National Development Plan that sought to 
moderate a bit the chaos of mining formalization.” In the same vein, a high-placed official in the 
GOC expressed that “OL allowed us to identify different barriers to continue advancing based 
on that experience” and “OL helped us to identify conditions that could allow us to improve the 
regulations and the application of the regulations” (KII with IP). 
Among Oro Legal’s main contributions to strengthening mining governance was to create links among 
miners, local communities, and mining and environmental authorities. These efforts were enhanced by 
OL staff’s participation in over 200 forums, congresses, talks, meetings, and other events related to 
mining activity. In addition, OL provided significant support to mining formalization through an E￾Learning platform for miners who were interested in formalizing their operations and for government 
officials. 
A. WITH 72 PERCENT OF BENEFICIARIES REPORTING THAT THEY ARE SATISFIED OR VERY 
SATISFIED WITH OL, A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM IS IN OVERCOMING 
ARTISAN AND SMALL-SCALE MINERS’ SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE MINING FORMALIZATION 
PROCESS. 
21 MELA used the final report of Oro Legal for the total number of MPUs intervened, formalized, and their respective 
departmental breakdown (see "Final Report Artisanal Gold Mining - Environmental Impact Reduction Activity (Oro Legal" July 
2021. https://land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/USAID-Colombia_Oro-Legal_Final-Report.pdf). Unfortunately, the 
numbers included here were not available during this evaluation's data collection and analysis period. Therefore, the evaluation 
team could not triangulate this information with the other sources of data used. However, MELA's evaluation component 
included these numbers in the report following a requirement made by the COR of the Activity.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 26
Exhibit 1: Level of satisfaction among mining formalization participants (n=128)22
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
OL helped to strengthen the desire of miners to remain legal/formal and maintain environmental 
performance by strengthening their sense of dignity. Dignification of ASGM included a growing sense of 
pride among miners in working within legal confines and a greater sense of belonging, which was 
associated with legal certainty and predictability. It also encompassed reduced production costs, use of 
environmentally responsible practices, and enrollment in social security and formal health systems. 
Mining and environmental authorities recognized OL’s work as fundamental to mining formalization 
because of the way it empowered miners and offered a new self-conception: one in which miners were 
not considered criminals or rejected by society. One beneficiary from Antioquia indicated that: 
“They [OL] saw that I wanted to do things in the right way, and I did it, because they were the 
ones that taught me to mine responsibly, I did what they told me to become formalized” (KII 
with beneficiary, Antioquia).
OL demonstrated to beneficiaries the positive aspects of formalization while helping them to overcome 
the multiple disincentives of the formalization process. The training and advice that the Activity provided 
demonstrated how formalization could be achievable for small miners. Beneficiaries declared that they 
learned modernized mining practices that were in line with and abided by the different regulations. 
Following these practices in turn reduced enforcement actions from authorities and contributed to the 
implementation of more environmentally friendly ways of working. With regard to OL support to 
overcoming disincentives to formalization, one OL staff member said that: 
“The Environment Secretariat launched an arbitrary operation that destroyed machinery and 
captured some small miners supported by OL, who were in compliance with every one of the 
legal requirements […] we had to go [to the police precinct] and show the documents [attesting 
that the miners were in compliance] for them to be freed” (KII with OL staff). 
The econometric analysis of mining formalization23 showed that MPUs with mechanized operations 
scored 14.71 points higher on average on the formalization indicator than MPUs with traditional 
exploitation practices. Also, MPUs that had access to any public utility (water, sewerage, energy, gas, or 
internet) scored on average 6.48 points higher than those without access to public services. Finally, we 
found that MPUs gained an additional 0.85 points for every point they had at the outset, reflecting the 
22 “n” refers to the size of the sample. 23 See Annex I. Analysis and complementary data – Quantitative Annex Formalization and mining governance - Econometric 
model of determinants of mining formalization, pp. 3-6).
27 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
importance of the baseline scoring for MPUs embarking in the process of formalization. These findings 
highlight the disincentives to mining formalization faced by the MPUs that began the formalization 
process in unfavorable conditions (Table 4).
The good business practices promoted by OL enabled beneficiaries to make progress toward improved 
job security, respect for the rights of workers and more ethical practices. The MPUs formalized with the 
support of OL, reported greater commitments to the health of their workers and to their constitutional 
right to physical integrity, a shift considered difficult for small-scale mines. GOC authorities recognized 
this change in mentality among this group of beneficiaries, noting that: 
“They reached a level where they saw themselves as entrepreneurs, not [just] as miners, but 
rather with a broader vision of the mining business” (KII with GOC official).
Twenty-eight percent of miners surveyed identified protection from work-related risks as one of the 
main benefits of formalization. The econometric analysis of formalization 24 found that MPUs that saved 
receipts (from sales and purchases of mining inputs) scored on average 10.4 points higher on the 
indicators of formalization than MPUs that did not. Moreover, MPUs that prepared a PTO scored, 8.2 
points higher on the formalization indicators (Table 4).
Beneficiaries that obtained their mining title and environmental license improved their earnings. Thirty￾nine MPUs (34.5 percent) out of 113 beneficiary units surveyed,25 declared that they had obtained their 
mining title and environmental license and that they had increased their incomes. Average monthly 
earnings after discounting production costs of formalized beneficiaries were $2,377, while this figure was 
$401 for respondents who did not achieve formalization. Miners could benefit from better prices for the 
gold sold and a reduced risk of law enforcement action once they were able to certify the origin of the 
gold exploited, by entries in the Unique Registry of Mineral Sellers (RUCOM). Legal mines can obtain 
higher prices for their gold on the legal market than informal mines can sell to illicit actors, who take 
advantage of the clandestine nature of these operations and the miners’ consequent fear of the 
authorities to extract a lower price. Until they received their title and environmental license, miners 
could not sell their products to sustain themselves during the process. In Antioquia, one beneficiary said, 
“the price of gold is high everywhere, and this has helped us a lot economically.” The Activity contributed to 
increasing the incomes of small miners, which was very important for families from a socioeconomic 
standpoint. One government official from a targeted municipality in Antioquia said that: 
“Now we are seeing increased recovery of mineral, generating more incomes, and of course, we 
are formalized, we can sell the mineral legally. This is considerably increasing incomes, and so 
socioeconomic conditions are going to improve” (KII with GOC official, Antioquia).
B. THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS OF ORO LEGAL IN MINING FORMALIZATION AND 
GOVERNANCE WERE BRINGING EFFORT AND RESOURCES TO BEAR ON THE FORMALIZATION 
SUBCONTRACTS AND THE SPECIAL RESERVE AREAS (ARES); ADAPTING TO THE NEEDS, 
24 See Annex I. Analysis and complementary data – See Quantitative Annex Formalization and mining governance - Econometric 
model of determinants of mining formalization Table 1, pp. 3-6). 25 These figures correspond to the data obtained from the beneficiary survey, which found that 39 out of 113 MPUs had 
obtained mineral title and the environmental license. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 28
IDIOSYNCRASIES, AND ADMINISTRATIVE PARTICULARITIES OF THE TARGETED AREAS; 
EMPOWERING BENEFICIARIES THROUGH MEASURES TO DIGNIFY THEIR WORK; AND 
PROVIDING CONTINUOUS SUPPORT TO MINERS IN THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH 
AUTHORITIES. 
OL pursued an approach of working with groups of miners on formalization subcontracts and special 
reserve areas (ARE), which facilitated the implementation of the Activity. OL worked with clusters of 
beneficiaries on gold mining titles, either privately or communally held. This allowed technical and 
logistical staff to focus their efforts in a more efficient way on these clusters, rather than on individual 
miners. In addition, it allowed OL staff to prepare works and construction plans (PTOs) and 
environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for groups of beneficiaries. A GOC public servant, noted in an 
interview that: 
“Many of the traditional mining communities have gotten to the point where they understand 
where the mining formalization policy can get you and the different rules established to be able 
to access the benefits established within the framework of the policy, with different 
formalization and regularization figures existing for the special reserve areas” (KII with GOC 
official). 
The econometric models for the determinants of formalization found significant evidence of a spatial lag 
for the formalization indicator. That is to say, the behavior of an MPU influences individual behavior 
within a 1km radius. Intuitively, this explains the behavior of community councils, which joined together 
to form MPU conglomerates and being part of an MPU conglomerate increases the probability that an 
individual will pursue formalization (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2: Map 1 Location of MPUs included in analysis
29 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON BENEFICIARY SURVEY, INFORMATION FROM PIRS26, AND USAID’S MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN.
To evaluate the consistency of the estimations, we calculated three models for the same set of variables. 
We estimated Model 1 using OLS and included all variables (25 in total). Model 2 restricted the number 
of variables to seven and excluded the variable for time in OL.27 Model 3 used the restricted data set28
of seven variables and was estimated using a spatial lag model.29 The results of the last model had the 
best estimations of the three in terms of bias reduction, because including the spatial effect accounts for 
possible omitted variable bias.30
In Model 3, significant evidence appeared for a spatial lag effect on the formalization indicator (W*Yi), 
implying that the behavior of an MPU has an influence on the formalization of individuals within a one 
km radius. This analysis found that mechanized operations scored on average 14.7 points higher on the 
formalization index than MPUs using traditional techniques. MPUs that had any access to public utilities 
(water, sewerage, energy, gas, or internet) scored 6.48 points higher on average than those without any 
access to utilities. MPUs that saved their receipts and had a PTO scored 10.4 and 8.2 points higher than 
MPUs that did not do this. Beneficiaries with lower levels of education were more likely to formalize 
than those with a higher level of education. MPUs with a direct beneficiary with no formal education, or 
with a basic level of education, scored 11.98 points higher on average than MPUs with beneficiaries with 
higher levels of education. Finally, the model shows the importance of the starting points of individual 
MPUs; each point that an MPU scored on the entry index was associated with an additional 0.85 points 
on the formalization index.
TABLE 4. Results of the econometric model of determinants of mining formalization
 MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3
RESPONSE VARIABLE (Y1: 
FORMALIZATION INDEX)
OLS - 
ALL VARIABLES
OLS - RESTRICTED 
VARIABLES
SPATIAL LAG MODEL – 
RESTRICTED VARIABLES
MPU variables and attributes (X1i) 
Entry Index 0.67* 0.65* 0.85*
Underground operation (dummy) -2.58 
Family Labor (percentage) 0.00 
Association (dummy) -1.82 
Mechanized (dummy) 8.81* 14.62*** 14.71***
Labor -0.02 
26 Performance Indicator Reference Sheets. 27 This variable corresponds to P206 in the questionnaire: How long ago did operations begin at this MPU? 28 Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory Econometrics - A modern approach. Pp. 145 29 Anselin, L., and A. Bera (1998). Spatial dependence in linear regression models with an introduction to spatial econometrics.
In A. Ullah and D.E.A. Giles (eds.) Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics, pp. 237–89. New York: Marcel Dekker. 30 See Annex I. Analysis and complementary data – Quantitative Annex Formalization and mining governance - Econometric 
model of determinants of mining formalization, pp. 4-8.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 30
TABLE 4. Results of the econometric model of determinants of mining formalization
 MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3
RESPONSE VARIABLE (Y1: 
FORMALIZATION INDEX)
OLS - 
ALL VARIABLES
OLS - RESTRICTED 
VARIABLES
SPATIAL LAG MODEL – 
RESTRICTED VARIABLES
Installed Capacity (1-100) -0.06 
Days of Operations (1-30) 0.08 
Mine Age (years) 0.02 
Municipality different for sale (dummy) -0.83 
Public services (dummy) 4.38 12.64*** 6.48*
W*Yi (Spatial Lag) 0.56***
Variables from the formalization 
strategy (X2i) 
Time in the program (quarters) 7.85*** 
Training (dummy) 0.55 
Bills (dummy) 2.73 12.65*** 10.44***
PTO (dummy) 3.54 10.61*** 8.19***
PTO Technologies (dummy) -0.25 
EG (dummy) 0.83 
Variables from the beneficiary 
(X3i) 
Age -0.08 
Educ 2.39~ 10.76** 11.98***
Experience -0.03 
Woman 5.76 
Debts -0.79 
Continue with a decrease of 25% in 
income -5.72 
Continue with a decrease of 50% in 
income 3.30 
Continue with a decrease of 75% in 
income -0.19 
31 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 4. Results of the econometric model of determinants of mining formalization
 MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3
RESPONSE VARIABLE (Y1: 
FORMALIZATION INDEX)
OLS - 
ALL VARIABLES
OLS - RESTRICTED 
VARIABLES
SPATIAL LAG MODEL – 
RESTRICTED VARIABLES
Model parameters 
(Intercept) -36.77* 5.6 -25.68*
R-squared 0.8702 0.6133 
AIC 572.29
n 75 75 75
Note: The symbols “ * ” or " ~ " refer to the level of significance of the coefficients in the regression models. Significance is 
represented as follows: 0 percent “ *** ”, 1 percent “ ** “, 5 percent “ * “ and 10 percent " ~ ".
Source: Prepared by evaluation team using data from the beneficiary survey, information from the PIRS31 and the USAID 
monitoring and evaluation plan.
Contracting local residents of the zone where an intervention took place facilitated relationship-building 
and knowledge transfer between OL and mining communities; it also contributed to disseminating the 
knowledge about regulations and functions of the institutions in the territory. Recruiting technical staff 
from within the territory generated trust and facilitated the interactions of the Activity with the 
communities and local and regional GOC representatives. Multiple local authorities, however, lamented 
a lack of interaction with OL staff. Miners, communities, and authorities expressed that they were 
pleased that OL recognized their region by hiring local residents. Some actors interviewed by the 
evaluation team recognized that: 
“The strength of the program is that we know the capabilities of OL staff for the formalization 
process, [because] they are people with experience in the territory and in mining territories” 
(KII with beneficiary). 
OL served as an effective bridge between small-scale miners and authorities. Although national, regional, 
and local authorities (in the mining sector, the environmental sector, prosecutors, and police) were 
familiar with OL, miners were most familiar with Oro Legal because of OL’s work to connect miners 
with GOC authorities. Some mining leaders felt that their communities had not reached the level of 
technical, and communications sophistication required to have productive dialogues with the authorities 
overseeing their sector and lamented that OL was reaching an end. National GOC institutions 
recognized the capacity of OL to work with miners and connect them with government authorities; for 
instance, a GOC official said:
31 Note that the unit of analysis for the formalization component is the MPU, not the individual miner. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 32
“OL’s work in the territories is very valuable, because it means working with and holding the 
hand of the miners and bringing them into compliance with everything, which the state does not 
have the capacity to do” (KII with GOC Official).
The greatest recognition of OL’s impact comes from miners. This evaluation found that miners may 
identify the objectives of the OL program with greater clarity than national, regional, and local 
authorities could; this is explained by the close work of Oro Legal with miners to bridge the gap 
between them and the authorities. While state actors and institutions regarded OL as a legitimate 
interlocutor, this did not mean that OL was able to shape contextual regulatory and institutional 
conditions, and GOC officials had a higher identification of the USAID name than for Oro Legal. 
C. OL ADAPTED TO IMPORTANT REGULATORY CHANGES RELATED TO ASGM DURING THE 
INTERVENTION PERIOD.
OL constructed synergistic relationships with beneficiaries and with authorities in the mining and 
environmental sectors. The relationships that OL established allowed the Activity to support and advise 
beneficiaries on how to meet their legal obligations and file the associated paperwork. These 
relationships were also helpful for OL in promoting processes and mechanisms to stimulate 
formalization, in particular formalization subcontracts and the AREs. The Activity provided beneficiaries 
with technical, regulatory, environmental, labor, social, and economic training. These activities all 
contributed to dignifying ASGM and changing the negative self-perception that many miners had due to 
social stigma. OL was also able to offer government authorities a more positive perspective on ASGM. 
Nevertheless, in some cases, the obligations imposed by the formalization subcontracts could seem to 
be an obstacle for the formalization process. Some interviewees rejected or renounced their 
formalization contracts because they felt that they included exorbitant demands. Beneficiaries also 
mentioned the use of this instrument to maintain title without exploiting the mineral or as a way of 
keeping control over the land. Other actors reportedly leveraged this tool as a business, charging up to 
20 percent of gross earnings to sign the subcontract. Some beneficiaries explained that they did not 
continue with the formalization subcontract because “… the [proposed] payment to the miners was very 
low, it was very unbalanced.” 
Beneficiaries took advantage from the institutional relationships constructed by OL. The difficulties many 
beneficiaries faced with required paperwork meant that OL needed to provide continuous support, both 
to reach the objective and to make sure beneficiaries did not give up on their intention to formalize.
This level of support was recognized by miners and authorities as a significant achievement of the 
Activity. One beneficiary from Chocó explained that: 
“Mining regulations in Colombia are so complex, so difficult to comply with, and they generate so 
many legal gaps, that it seems almost impossible that small miners could continue this process by 
themselves” (KII with beneficiary, Chocó). 
D. LEGAL STATUS WITH MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES, TOGETHER WITH 
DIGNIFICATION OF ASGM, WERE THE PRINCIPAL INCENTIVES TO REMAIN FORMAL. THIS 
SUGGESTS THAT ACTIVITIES LIKE OL SHOULD BE MORE PROACTIVE IN SUPPORTING 
GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IN EVALUATING WHERE THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATIVE 
33 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
PROCESSES FALL SHORT, RATHER THAN PLACING ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MINING 
FORMALIZATION ON THE MINERS THEMSELVES. 
The main incentive for miners to formalize their operations, and to continue to operate in a formal 
manner, was to obtain their title and their environmental license. The ability to legally bring minerals to 
market is conditional on the provenance of the mineral title with an environmental license, and miners 
without it are unable to sell their gold on the formal market. For this reason, beneficiaries who, despite 
support from OL, were unable to obtain a mining title and environmental license expressed fear at the 
program’s closure. Having attained the title and license, on the other hand, strengthened miners’ feelings 
of dignity and pride in being part of the legal economy. Exhibit 332 synthesizes the principal incentives to 
formalize, to maintain that status, and to improve environmental practices in mining operations.
Exhibit 3: Incentives to pursue formalization and improve environmental practices in mining operations (n=60)
SOURCE: INTERVIEWS CARRIED OUT WITH BENEFICIARIES
Program beneficiaries valued greatly the recognition as legitimate actors in the mining industry that they 
received through OL. Their expectations of being seen as actors in the legal mineral market, and not to 
feel that they were classed as criminals, motivated small-scale miners to continue their journeys toward 
formalization. Moreover, this recognition as legitimate actors in the mining industry helped them to feel 
that they would not have problems with law enforcement authorities in the future. One representative 
of a community council in Chocó expressed this sentiment in an interview: 
“I feel satisfied with the step forward that has been taken, not on a personal level but on a 
collective level, because results are being seen, [and] these are accomplishments that we did not 
have [before] and we are achieving these with the organization of OL” (KII with community 
council representative, Chocó).
OL support to miners to obtain the mining title and environmental license is evident, but regulatory and 
procedural complexity reduces the likelihood of comprehensive formalization. While 36 percent of 
32 This exhibit represents a qualitative compendium of nominal variables that classify (rather than score) incentives for mining 
formalization, based on the subjective importance assigned to each variable by interviewees. The longer the bar, the greater the 
importance of the incentive, measured by the number of mentions in interviews.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 34
participants surveyed asserted that the process of formalization is complicated (see Figure 4), miners 
highlighted OL's work to mediate between them and the authorities. Some mining leaders felt that their 
communities had not reached the level of technical and communications sophistication required for 
productive dialogues with the authorities overseeing their sector and lamented that Oro Legal was 
ending. Moreover, many interviewees talked about the processes of titling and licensing as though they 
constituted the entirety of the formalization process. The complexity of obtaining the mining title and 
the environmental license effectively made these administrative processes into the highest goal for 
miners and relegated other objectives to secondary status. In Chocó, for example, one beneficiary said: 
“I need, for God’s sake, before Oro Legal leaves, that we get the PTO and the license approved.” One 
beneficiary in Antioquia said: “I don’t know why they left so quickly, I thought that Oro Legal was going to wait 
until we got our title.” Speaking of the complexity of the processes, one beneficiary said: 
“We started the formalization process 18 years ago,” while a staff member of the implementing 
partner said, “mining regulations in Colombia are so complex, so difficult to comply with, and 
they generate so many legal gaps, that it seems almost impossible that small miners could 
continue this process by themselves” (KII with beneficiary, Antioquia). 
While miners are obliged to meet strict deadlines, the authorities fail to comply with the requirements 
established by law. While the regulation for small-scale mining establishes deadlines that both miners and 
authorities should follow during legal procedures to pursue formalization, it is only the miners who face 
penalties for not meeting them. The authorities recognize delays in responding to paperwork filed by 
miners but argue that this is due to a lack of personnel and logistical capacity. An OL staff member 
expressed worry over these delays:
“And this is an international cooperation program […] I can’t imagine what it would be like to 
be a small-scale miner carrying out this process with these authorities, without a direct line to 
the director of formalization, the Secretary of titling, the director of audits” (KII with OL 
staff).
The immediate costs required to meet the technical standards for formalization work against the 
formalization process. Regulatory requirements demand considerable investment, which means a long 
period during which miners cannot sell their product legally. While miners must meet strict deadlines to 
submit costly technical documents, government authorities may take years to issue a response. As a 
result of the rigorous technical, economic, and environmental requirements they face, miners fear 
formalization, whereas illegal operations offer immediate gains. This can be seen in Figure 3, where 52 
percent of beneficiaries identify the complicated process as one of the principal barriers to formalization. 
Other key barriers are financial, including high costs (30 percent), the obligation to pay taxes (26 
percent), and insufficient profitability (15 percent). At the same time, 13 percent of interviewees 
indicated that a lack of understanding of the process was an important obstacle for formalization.
35 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Exhibit 4: Principal obstacles to formalization (n=113, multiple responses allowed)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
Without the commitment of all the authorities involved, mining informality will continue to prevail. The 
difference in criteria among the different government actors involved is itself an important obstacle to 
achieving formalization, including the differences between multiple environmental agencies that use 
different frameworks. Miners argued that when they reach an agreement with one agency (e.g., the 
ANM), they often find that another issue has arisen with another agency (e.g., the Ministry of the 
Environment). A member of another government entity said: 
“They themselves invent rules as though they were pulling them out of a hat and since they are 
the authorities, it’s difficult to interpret these things; there’s no consistency in the guidelines or 
in the fine print for the requirements that each [agency] has. So, this can become arbitrary, it 
can lead to inconsistency between one region and another, these are big obstacles” (KII with 
GOC official).
The evaluation did not find sufficient evidence on the effectiveness of memoranda of understanding 
(MOUs) to gauge their contribution to the program objectives. Turnover within agencies and political 
cycles for elected officials meant that counterparts who initially signed these agreements often rotated 
or moved to a new position. OL’s counterparts did not accord these agreements the same importance 
that OL did and were in general unaware of their contents. A staff member from the implementing 
partner explained that “with the change in mayors [in elections], we lost the agreements that were signed with 
the mayor’s office.” While the MOUs carried a degree of official weight, they did not form a foundation 
for formal interaction between OL and government institutions. An individual working for the IP 
explained that: 
“The Vice ministry of Mines did ask us questions, but in an informal way; we always hoped that 
there would be a more formal scenario, in which we could explain the documents” (KII with 
IP).
The structural weaknesses identified in the formalization process were not formally presented to 
government authorities. OL participated, together with other actors in the mining sector, in 
presentations to the MME with proposals for the National Development Plan. However, there were 
fewer formal proposals for solutions to the different structural difficulties that emerged during 
implementation. The implementing partner may have been inhibited from submitting such proposals by 
not directly representing USAID in that situation.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 36
Knowledge transfer was made more difficult by the level of education of the miners. The technical 
requirements of the existing regulations demanded a high degree of general and specific knowledge. In 
sharp contrast to these demands, many of the miners did not know how to read or write. This posed 
difficulty for some trainings, as 67 percent of beneficiaries had only a basic education, and 13.6 percent 
indicated that they had no education at all. One GOC official put it this way: 
“We are talking about a population that is completely vulnerable in terms of unmet basic needs, 
access to education, and as such, any obligation at all is going to present a significant challenge 
for whoever decides to take this on” (KII with GOC official).
In addition to these problems, government officials tended to have an image of miners and of ASGM that 
was not based in reality. In the public imagination, ASGM is populated by people without skills or 
abilities, who don’t care about the law, and in need of paternalistic intervention. Moreover, these are 
imagined to be people with highly profitable mines that can easily cover the costly process of 
formalization. Yet, a GOC official said that: 
“This is a completely vulnerable population in terms of unmet basic needs, in terms of 
mechanisms for education, and so obviously any obligation stemming from an alternative, well, 
that is going to be a pretty big challenge for anyone who decides to tackle it…The miners lack 
knowledge of the mechanisms for subsistence mining, how to sign up for the Genesis tool [a 
platform that allows subsistence miners to register with the government], and so, although the 
mechanisms exist, what is needed is that the miners really take ownership of this knowledge and 
fully comply with their obligations” (KII with GOC official).
The MPUs and local actors are unaware of, or have outdated information about, mining regulations. The 
high turnover of government officials and frequent issuance of new rules make it difficult for many actors 
to stay up to date in terms of obligations and mechanisms. As one official explained, “environmental 
officials don’t know about the process of mining formalization – if mining officials don’t know it, environmental 
officials even less.” Another interviewee, an academic, elaborated on this theme, saying that: 
“In the ministries there are officials who are social communication specialists, economists, who 
have other professions and who don’t understand the specific issue of mining formalization” (KII 
with academic researcher). 
E. THE MINISTERIAL STATUS OF MINING FORMALIZATION AND THE STIGMATIZATION OF ASGM 
ARE THE MAIN OBSTACLES TO FORMALIZATION, WHILE THE PROCESS OF FORMALIZATION 
ITSELF SHOWS WEAKNESSES WITH REGARD TO GOVERNANCE. 
37 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Exhibit 5: Synthesis of the main obstacles and enablers of mining formalization (n=60)
SOURCE: INTERVIEWS CARRIED OUT WITH BENEFICIARIES
Mining formalization is a ministerial initiative, not a whole-of-government policy with enabling law 
obliging different institutions of the GOC to work together on formalization in the mining sector
(Exhibit 533). This situation impedes interinstitutional coordination for the governance of the sector, as 
the authorities do not feel legally committed to the policy of formalization. The environmental 
authorities need to better understand the process if they are to support it from an environmental 
perspective. As one government official put it “the weakness was that there was no understanding among 
the ministries so that Oro Legal, the municipalities, or the department could carry out the programs of 
formalization.”
Mining formalization is optional since a beneficiary can withdraw at any time. The process of 
formalization faces multiple disincentives, such as the years of effort required for mining titling and 
environmental licensing; the fact that selling the mineral is prohibited during the formalization process; 
and the huge investments needed to formalize. If these disincentives become too great, miners can 
withdraw from the process and return to informal status at any point without consequences. This 
situation is well understood by the different institutional actors. As one official put it “to hold a contract in 
Colombia isn’t for everyone, unfortunately.” 
Officials are unaware of or misinterpret regulations, to the disadvantage of the small miners, while 
authorities are unaware of the reality and particularities of ASGM. Clear guidelines for the interpretation 
of regulations do not exist, and each functionary can make their own decisions based on their own 
professional experiences. Decisions made by poorly trained officials acquire the status of an 
administrative procedure act and can introduce disincentives for the formalization processes promoted 
by an activity such as OL. National authorities acknowledge that there is great ignorance of the 
33 This figure represents a qualitative compendium of nominal variables that classify (rather than score) obstacles and enablers
of mining formalization, based on the subjective importance assigned to each variable by interviewees. The longer the bar, the 
greater the importance of an obstacle or enabler, measured by the number of mentions in interviews. The dotted line around 
the red bars separates obstacles to the process from enablers.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 38
particularities of artisanal mining, which makes formalization processes very difficult. Small-scale mining 
has been stigmatized and is frequently confused with illicit mineral extractors. According to a GOC
official: 
“Ownership on the part of the authorities is a bit absent, in this case regulatory authorities, 
there’s a lack of knowledge of social, economic, productive realities and others that have grown 
up around mining activity in Colombia” (KII with GOC official).
Areas that are protected by law, including forest reserve areas covered by Law 2 of 1959, and protected 
areas in general, have restrictions on mining and on mining formalization, and it is highly unlikely for 
miners to obtain an exemption from these protections. In addition to the considerable technical and 
legal difficulties of obtaining an exemption, a program like OL cannot include miners working in these 
zones. Moreover, the cost of obtaining this kind of permit is higher than the PTO and the EIA, which 
reduces the likelihood that a small miner would want to request an exemption. 
F. IT IS NECESSARY TO PRIORITIZE INTERVENTIONS FOCUSED ON GREATER CURRENT AND 
FUTURE INCOME, SINCE SUCCESSFUL FORMALIZATION DEPENDS ON SUCCESSFUL 
COMMERCIALIZATION; WITHOUT THIS CONDITION, MINERS WILL NOT SEE BENEFITS IN 
WORKING WITHIN THE LAW AND WILL RETURN TO THEIR PRIOR LIVELIHOODS.
A greater emphasis by OL on gold commercialization could have improved the prospects for 
beneficiaries continuing to be formal/legal. Economic motives represent the major motivation for 
formalization (Exhibit 6), which means that an approach focused on better prices, more ethical buyers, 
and greater financial stability has contributed significantly to keeping beneficiaries engaged and interested 
in remaining formal, even after the conclusion of OL. An international gold trader noted that “when 
mining becomes legal the miners can participate in fair markets and receive a better price.” Another trader 
noted that “There’s an expectation of getting a better price for your gold, and that is why today you still see 
dissatisfaction.” 
Licit incomes only improve, however, once miners have their mining title and environmental license; 
without these instruments, sales are not legal. This fact has presented a considerable challenge for OL, 
as it effectively demands that miners have significant economic reserves to comply with the prior 
requirements (mining title and environmental license) needed to legally sell the gold that they produce. 
For miners to continue to seek formalization, they will have to see that economic benefits materialize. 
The motivation of miners is to earn a higher income. Consequently, difficulties with the administrative 
procedures to obtain a mining title and environmental license represent critical obstacles to the 
formalization process. Exhibit 6 shows that the principal perceived advantages of formalization include a 
sense of personal safety, access to more fair markets, access to better practices (e.g., that permit 
greater efficiency), more fair prices for materials and inputs, access to credit, and the ability to obtain 
machinery. All these factors are related to economic benefits.
39 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Exhibit 6: Beneficiaries’ perceptions of the advantages of formalization. (n=113, multiple responses allowed)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
G. SUPPORT FOR THE JOURNEY TO SELF-RELIANCE (J2SR) CAN BE SEEN IN AREAS SUCH AS 
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, SYSTEMATIC MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, 
SUPPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE, LEAVING INFORMALITY, AND SUPPORT FOR 
INSTITUTIONS; BUT THIS REQUIRES LONGER-TERM SUPPORT TO GUARANTEE LASTING 
STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN MINERS’ BEHAVIOR. 
The trainings offered by OL improved compliance with environmental regulations and the systematic
management of environmental impacts. OL built capacity in ASGM to reduce environmental impacts 
through the implementation of cleaner and more efficient practices. These trainings have contributed to 
formalization in mining areas. For example, most beneficiaries surveyed stated that they agree or 
strongly agree that trainings helped reduce the use of mercury (88 percent) and that new practices have 
improved the environment (91 percent). A commercial partner in Antioquia noted that: 
“Those beneficiaries could come to trading for the long term because they have already been 
formalized and have an important foundation: Oro Legal left them with their training so they 
could have a long-term future and continue on the path of mining correctly carried out” (KII 
with a commercial partner, Antioquia). 
OL contributed to notable improvements in environmental performance through the impact studies 
required for the environmental license. This was recognized by environmental authorities, who consider 
the studies to be critical guidelines to protect the environment. Similarly, OL helped implement cleaner 
and more efficient gold processing techniques. A high-ranking GOC official, familiar with the trajectory 
of OL, noted that: “The environment has won from this. From what we have seen on the ground and from 
what the miners have told us, we only have words of appreciation.” In the same sense, a beneficiary in 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 40
Antioquia indicated that: “They have supported us in everything; how to manage the environment, the oils, the 
area of the river, they advised us on everything.” 
The formalization promoted by a program like OL still faces disadvantages in competing with illegality. 
Due to strong pressures from the deadlines, costs, and technical requirements established in mining and 
environmental regulations, miners have great incentives to turn to illegality. These incentives include 
financing, supplies, sales without registration, and avoidance of the payment of taxes and royalties. 
Miners must meet strict deadlines for the delivery of expensive technical documents, but authorities can 
take several years to issue a ruling on them. The technical, economic, and environmental requirements 
cause miners to fear the formalization process, while illegality offers immediate incentives. 
Lack of coordination between training entities was evident, which generated redundancies in services 
and training contents. This overloads the miners, taking them away from their work in their mines to 
attend the different sessions offered. Sometimes this produced excessive training in some topics or 
duplicated content from different actors (including OL, the National Learning Service (SENA), 
academics, NGOs, contractors, businesses). This contributed to disincentivizing miners to seek training, 
particularly for those who had to close their mine for a day to attend workshops. Two mayoral officials 
from different municipalities in Antioquia concurred on this. One said: 
“There was no communication in those ministries to know everything that they wanted to 
achieve, what they wanted to achieve, let's say on the issue of legal formalization.” Another said 
that “There was no understanding between the ministries so that OL, the municipalities or the 
governorates could specify [what would happen in] the formalization programs” (KII with 
Mayoral Official, Antioquia). 
We found low coordination between the entities relevant for formalization. Institutions recognized their 
lack of coordination but did not propose solutions. The mining and environmental authorities did not 
feel legally linked to the formalization process. Environmental authorities require a greater 
understanding of the mining process to become supporters of formalization and the idea that miners 
could move towards environmental protection. One staff member of the IP put it this way: 
“Sometimes we find a solution with the mining [Ministry] side, but the environmental [side] won’t 
allow it (…) The linkages with institutions, that is to say with mining authorities and environmental 
authorities, is whether the mining and environmental authorities can sit down responsibly and 
determine that the mining law effectively meshes with the environmental [law]” (KII with IP). 
Additionally, we found low operational capacity of the entities involved (mining and environmental). The 
authorities recognize the lack of human, economic, and logistical resources to devote to mining 
formalization. This lack of resources compromised OL's efforts by delaying processes, limiting results, 
and discouraging beneficiaries.
A. THE INTERRUPTION OF THE ACTIVITY WITH SOME OF MPUS WITHOUT THEIR MINING TITLE 
OR ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSE COULD CAUSE MINERS TO BACKSLIDE ON THEIR INTENTIONS 
TO FORMALIZE THEIR OPERATIONS.
41 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
The future of OL’s beneficiaries is highly uncertain, as they did not foresee the conditions under which 
the Activity closed. Considerable fear exists among the beneficiaries, especially those who did not 
graduate to formalization by Activity close. One such beneficiary said: 
“Now that the program is in its closing phase they should, before they go, leave us with the 
PTO prepared and the license approved so that we can make partnerships with businesses that 
will support us with the economic capacity to carry out mining” (KII with beneficiary).
Some miners compared the end of OL with the end of BioREDD+ and said that beneficiaries felt a sense 
of abandonment. Some interviewees considered the Corcrecer initiative as a continuation of OL; 
however, the objectives of Corcrecer are different from those of OL. Beneficiaries expressed their 
concern in interviews. One beneficiary in Chocó said: “For God’s sake, before going they should leave us 
with the PTO and [environmental] license.” Another beneficiary in Chocó put it this way: 
“My worry is that they are leaving, but we haven’t managed to get a title. If Oro Legal is not 
there to help advise and interact with the national government or with the Agency, there is no 
social muscle [influence]” (KII with beneficiary, Chocó).
A beneficiary in Antioquia said that “Without the title in my hand, we can’t say that we are legalized (...) who 
is going to be our godfather to help us comply with the requirements?” 
Short-lived projects create skepticism and instability in miners. Some previous interventions have left 
miners feeling that these programs always remain unfinished. At the end of these activities, the miners 
return to a reality where they feel excluded. Some cited BioREDD+ as an example of an intervention 
that was well executed, but whose effectiveness decreased after its anticipated closure. One academic 
explained it this way: 
“From one moment to another the resources ran out, they promised us this and it turns out 
that they left us halfway. So, you have to be very careful with these assistance projects, so if the 
miners spend time and see that the project is serious, they will be on their way” (KII with 
academic researcher).
The structural modification of traditional gold exploitation requires longer-term support. The 
internalization of more environmentally friendly business habits and practices, regulatory compliance, 
and passage through complex and costly administrative procedures highlight the need for a longer-term 
OL-type support activity. The time needed to cover costs, adopt technical standards, or simply await 
responses from authorities is measured in years. Some beneficiaries expressed their uncertainty in the 
following terms: 
“Oro Legal entered with USAID and they are already closing, and then, who is left with that, 
how is that going to continue? How can we continue with the confidence and peace of mind that 
the state will continue with the processes” (Interviews with beneficiaries)?
A. VALUE CHAIN BENEFICIARIES’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF 
ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS FOR THEIR PRESENT AND FUTURE WELL￾BEING
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 42
Evaluation question 3 How do beneficiaries involved in OL´s value chains activities perceive the 
impact of alternative livelihoods on their present and future well-being 
outside the ASGM activities?
OL promoted the expansion and strengthening of productive bases for beekeeping in the Bajo Cauca 
region of Antioquia. This value chain benefitted 335 families in the region. The families received 11,360 
beehives, which were set up with nucleus colonies to populate them and begin production of honey. OL 
also provided advisory and technical assistance for beneficiaries to develop technical capacity to manage 
their apiaries. OL concluded 13 grant agreements, representing a total of $802,000, were signed with 
three non-profit organizations, seven producer associations, one community council, one Indigenous 
resguardo, two mayoral offices, and one business in the area of agriculture and forestry. In addition, OL 
proposed and financed the creation of COLTAPICOLA, an association of local specialists who provided 
assistance to the new beekeepers and who could continue to provide technical assistance after the 
conclusion of the Activity. Finally, OL set up contacts with potential buyers for the honey produced by 
the Activity’s beneficiaries and facilitated an agreement for commercialization of this product through a 
regional business.
OL helped develop the value chain for annatto in Chocó. The Activity developed an improved annatto 
production system that incorporated 661 Ha. These properties stretched across six communities and 
producer organizations. OL signed subsidy agreements with the communities to provide producers with 
technical assistance. In five of the six communities, an equal number of collection and threshing centers 
were created and equipped, considering ease of access for harvesting and primary seed processing. To 
complement these efforts, OL encouraged and facilitated the constitution of the company Achiotes y 
Agros del Chocó SAS (A&ACH). Five community councils and a private business with experience in 
agroindustry partnered with A&ACH. OL also financed the overhaul and equipment of the A&ACH 
processing plant, where it supported annatto processing for the industrial dye market. OL managed the 
development of a commercial agreement with a leading company in the colorants industry in Colombia, 
which remained in the final negotiation phase at the end of the Activity. Finally, to give continuity to the 
entire process, OL structured a business model proposal. This proposal was presented to Acumen, a 
patient capital investment fund, to obtain financing and business support after the completion of OL.
A. THE VALUE CHAINS SET UP BY OL ARE PERCEIVED AS ALTERNATIVE INCOME SOURCES THAT 
CAN BE VIABLE IF CHAINS OF PRODUCTION AND COMMERCIALIZATION ARE 
CONSOLIDATED.
Beneficiaries’ perceptions of the two value chains differed based on two associated factors: the incomes 
that they gained, and the prospects for commercialization of their products. Of beneficiaries involved in 
beekeeping, 77 percent indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with OL, while 40 percent of 
annatto producers indicated that level of satisfaction (see Exhibit 7). The beekeeping value chain is 
embedded in a national market, in which Antioquia was the second-most productive department in 
Colombia between 2010 and 2019.34 Moreover, in the past decade, this value chain has been supported 
by USAID. In contrast, annatto in Chocó has historically been an orchard crop of cultural significance 
and incipient market structure. The value chain is not technically advanced, and it enjoys little access to 
34 Dirección de cadenas pecuarias, pesqueras y acuícolas del Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2020
43 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
agro-industrial markets. OL is the first USAID Activity to pilot an annatto value chain initiative. The joint 
category diagram from the econometric analysis shows that annatto producers’ dissatisfaction is related 
to the fact that it has proved impossible for them to sell a considerable proportion of their harvests, and 
the consequent lack of income from this activity. At the same time, this does not mean that annatto will 
not prove viable in the future; respondents who had spent less than a year cultivating annatto were 
those who expressed the greatest dissatisfaction.35 The market conditions of the honey market in the 
region, on the other hand, meant that beekeepers in general were able to find buyers for their products. 
Despite price fluctuations and delayed payments, they tended to see their activities turn into viable 
sources of household income. Beneficiaries with more than one year in the beekeeping value chain also 
tended to see this activity as more viable than those with less than a year working in beekeeping.
Exhibit 7: Beneficiaries’ level of satisfaction with the value chains (n annatto=381, n beekeeping=297)
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON BENEFICIARY SURVEY
Income from beekeeping and annatto complemented household incomes, and if consolidated as value 
chains, would become more attractive and viable for beneficiaries. The beneficiary survey found that 
76.4 percent of annatto producers and 44 percent of beekeepers carried out activities related to gold 
mining before OL. Moreover, it emerged in interviews that several of the beneficiary families continued 
to carry out gold mining activities due to the insufficient income obtained from the value chain projects. 
However, the survey showed that 68.5 percent of annatto producers and 92 percent of beekeepers 
consider these alternative activities more viable than gold mining. According to the results of the joint 
category diagram obtained from the econometric analysis, high satisfaction of beekeeping beneficiaries 
was associated with perceived income.36 Moreover, yield (kg/hive) is one of the variables that best 
explains an Agricultural Production Unit’s (UPA) level of income, as an increase of one kg of yield is 
associated with a 4.5 percent increase in total income reported by beneficiaries. Each additional point of 
capacity installed and used37 is associated with a 1.1 percent increase in total income for the beekeeping 
UPAs. The beekeeping UPAs that received business training had on average 4.94 percent more income 
35 See Annex I. Complementary Data and Analysis – Quantitative Annex Value Chains and Alternative Livelihoods – Descriptive 
analysis, variable association, and variable grouping – Figure 4, Pp. 6. 36 See Annex 1 – Quantitative Annex, Value Chains and Alternative Livelihoods – Descriptive Analysis, variable associations and 
grouping of observations – Figure 5, pp. 7. 37 Producers surveyed for the evaluation estimated the percentage that they utilized of the capacity that was installed in their 
UPA. Utilization of installed capacity is the potential production or maximum volume of production for a business, unit, 
department, or section, over a set period of time, and taking into account available resources, including equipment, installations, 
human resources, technology, experience, and knowledge. An example of the measurement of this indicator is the Business 
Opinion Survey of the think tank Fedesarrollo, which tracks this indicator for a monthly national-level sample of businessmen.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 44
than those that did not receive this kind of training. For beneficiaries in the annatto component38, each 
additional point of capacity installed and used was associated with 1.1 percent higher income. Each 
additional worker in the annatto UPAs increased total income by 2.9 percent. The annatto UPAs that 
received technical assistance or production equipment registered 1.65 percent and 1.05 percent more 
income respectively. 
B. OL ACHIEVED NOTEWORTHY STRENGTHENING OF PRODUCTION IN BOTH VALUE CHAINS, 
PROVIDING BENEFICIARIES WITH INPUTS AND TECHNICAL CAPACITIES, AND CONSOLIDATED 
ENCLAVES OF PRODUCTION THAT REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF 
PRODUCTION IN COLOMBIA. 
OL strengthened the capacities of the beneficiaries, increased their productive potential, and improved 
yields and quality thanks to the investments and technical assistance provided by the Activity. In the case 
of beekeeping, a 2016 study in Bajo Cauca in 201639 found that prior to the entry of OL, the average 
yield per beehive was 8.4 kgs/year. Beekeeping beneficiaries surveyed indicated an average yield of 14.2 
kgs/year for 2020. The results of the 2020 survey were heterogenous; while 35.3 percent of beekeeping 
beneficiaries had not surpassed the 2016, 31.1 percent were producing over 20 kgs/year and 8.4 percent 
got over 30 kgs/year, which was the ideal goal proposed by the Activity (Exhibit 8). For annatto, 
information on yields prior to OL is less available, as this was a traditional crop, but one estimate40
found average annual yields of less than1.5 ton/Ha in Chocó. While OL annatto beneficiaries have not 
yet obtained complete harvests, one community leader declared in an interview that “We were planting 
three or four tons/Ha, and now there are crops between five and five and a half tons/Ha.” This indicates that 
investments in property, together with OL’s technical assistance, led annatto producers to adopt better 
practices to increase their productivity.
Exhibit 8: Distribution of beekeepers by yield of their hives (n=262) 
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
38 For more details, see Annex I. Analysis and Complementary Data – Quantitative Annex, Value Chains and Alternative 
Livelihoods – Econometric Model of the Determinants of Incomes for Beekeeping and Annatto Production, pp. 8-9. 39 Diagnóstico de la actividad apícola en el Bajo Cauca Antioqueño, Corporación nacional de investigación y fomento forestal – 
CONIF para OL, 2016. 
40 Evaluaciones Agropecuarias Municipales para el Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (2007-2018).
45 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
OL established broad productive bases of beekeeping and annatto that could be the foundation for the 
consolidation of productive conglomerates in the targeted areas. In beekeeping OL established 11,360 
hives. In 2019 a total of 135,117 hives were reported in Colombia41, meaning that OL’s contribution 
represents around 8.4 percent of the national total. Between 2016 and 2019 there was nationwide 
growth equivalent to 34,236 hives42, suggesting that OL supported 33 percent of this growth nationwide 
over the last four years. With current yields as calculated from the figures from the beneficiary survey, 
the productive potential of the hives established by OL stands at 161,312 kgs/year. For annatto, the 
figures from the EVA report indicated that in 2017 there were 664 Ha nationwide, and beginning in the 
same year, OL set up 661 Ha, making this the largest agro-industrial annatto establishment in the 
country. The productive potential of annatto was calculated by A&ACH at 3,000 tons/year.
OL developed local technical skills and capacity. However, the proposed scheme does not ensure the 
continuity of technical assistance to producers. Technical assistance services for both beekeeping and 
annatto were provided by local professionals and technicians whose skills were strengthened by the 
Activity, leaving a knowledge base in the territories. For annatto the specialists trained were part of the 
community councils and organizations that received support. However, plans for continuity of assistance 
were not considered and once the Activity ended, these specialists did not continue to provide service. 
In the case of beekeeping, the creation of and support to COLTAPICOLA, bringing together technical 
specialists who were part of the OL team, was an innovative proposal to ensure continuity of services. 
However, these specialists do not have sufficient connections with the associations and producers, and 
the level of service provision is very low, so producers in practice receive little technical assistance to 
help them improve their yields. 
C. IN THE AREA OF BEEKEEPING, OL FOCUSED MAINLY ON STRENGTHENING UPAS AND PUT LESS 
EMPHASIS ON CONSOLIDATING LOCAL CHAINS TO INCREASE COMPETITIVENESS.
Exhibit 9: Beneficiaries’ perceptions of the income gained from annatto and beekeeping (n annatto =346, n beekeeping=281) 
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEYS
Beekeepers recognized the improvement in their incomes due to the increase in their productive 
capacity and saw prospects for future growth in this area. Of the beekeepers surveyed, 87.3 percent 
41 Dirección de cadenas pecuarias, pesqueras y acuícolas del Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. 42 Ibid.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 46
said their household income improved because of beekeeping (Figure 8). Some producers were on their 
own initiative investing to increase the hives in their apiary. According to OL's final reports, an average 
of 34 hives were delivered per family. Of the beekeepers surveyed, 31.4 percent said they had increased 
their number of hives after initial delivery; 16.1 percent said they had 45, which is the number of hives 
defined by OL as the desirable size of a Beekeeping Productive Unit. According to the model of 
determinants of beekeeping beneficiary incomes, each additional point of installed capacity corresponded 
to a 1.1 percent increase in total income.43 
In beekeeping, the consolidation of an agro-chain within the territory was not promoted, nor was a 
unified strategy with a socio-business approach to support it. Although primary honey production was 
notably strengthened, there was no consistent work with the other links in the regional chain, such as 
collection, stockpiling, primary processing, packaging, and sale. The approach for work carried out under 
the 13 agreements depended on the organization with which the agreement was signed. The Activity did 
not directly strengthen the associations that participated, nor did it propose an associative work model 
to improve beekeeping competitiveness in the region. It is worth highlighting the case of the agreement 
that was made with a private forestry and agricultural company in the region. The company 
incorporated the beehives owned by Activity beneficiaries into the company's property as part of its 
production process, in a joint accounts arrangement with an association that was created to receive 25 
percent of the revenue brought in by these hives. As a non-profit organization it could not distribute 
these resources among its members.
Exhibit 10: Distribution of beekeepers by the number of hives in their apiaries (n=262) 
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEYS
The opportunity to form a regional commercial alliance as a regional link in the value chain did not arise, 
and because this was included only at the end of the Activity this chain was not consolidated. While OL
approached a regional honey trading company at the beginning of the Activity, the preferred course of 
action was to manage commercial contacts with external buyers and distributors or directly with large 
agro-industries. Due to a lack of local capacity for collection, primary processing, and quality assurance 
capacities, it was not possible to complete commercial agreements with these large buyers. At the end 
of 2019, OL had reestablished contact with the regional distributor and reached a commercialization 
agreement. However, there was not enough time to consolidate the relationships between this partner 
43 Annex I. Complementary Data and Analysis – Quantitative Annex Value Chains and Alternative Livelihoods – Descriptive 
analysis, variable association, and variable grouping – Table 2, Pp. 8).
47 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
and the associations and producers. Moreover, the distributor did not have sufficient capacity or 
resources to absorb the new supply.
D. OL WAS ABLE TO PROMOTE AN AGRO-INDUSTRIAL VALUE CHAIN FOR ANNATTO THAT, IF 
CONSOLIDATED, COULD BE A BENCHMARK FOR DEVELOPMENT IN CHOCÓ. 
Starting with a traditional crop with an incipient market structure, OL identified a variety of annatto 
suitable for an improved production system in Chocó. Prior to OL, an improved production system for 
annatto suitable for Chocó did not exist. The Activity started by analyzing the native variety of annatto 
and found useful benefits of this cultivar. An academic who participated in the evaluation described these 
benefits: 
“The seeds that come from there have a high production of bixin44 in comparison with other 
areas, other locations outside Chocó; really the difference is overwhelming” (KII with 
academic researcher).
With this initial input, the Activity defined good practices for sowing and caring for the crop. These 
practices substantially improved yields over traditional practices, and reduced the time needed to reach 
the productive stage, from 18 to 12 months. This system was transferred to and used by specialists and 
producers in the area. This achievement alone is a significant contribution to the development of the 
annatto industry in Chocó.
OL established the foundations of an agro-industrial value chain for annatto in Chocó. However, some 
critical issues remain to be resolved, which could pose serious risks for the sustainability of this 
achievement. In contrast to beekeeping in Bajo Cauca, with the annatto value chain OL strengthened 
three key links within the region: primary production by small producers; gathering and threshing 45 by 
community councils; and processing to extract bixin paste with the community business A&ACH SAS. A 
technical partnership was formed with the agro-industrial business Naranja Madura SAS, also a partner 
of A&ACH, to guarantee the needed technical assistance. While OL advanced a commercial partnership 
with a leading business in the colorant industry, the agreement that will be signed, according to 
information submitted by these actors, will only absorb a third of the supply provided by the cultivations 
supported by OL. This situation of mismatched supply and demand could lead to some producers 
abandoning the business. As one annatto producer noted: 
“We have to make an enormous effort to expand the business, to expand sales, after having won 
better clients and optimized all these processes (…) to keep the producers motivated and ensure 
that cultivation continues and that there is no dropout [from the Activity]” (KII with beneficiary). 
E. BUSINESS MODELS WERE CREATED FOR THE UPAS, BUT COMPREHENSIVE BUSINESS MODELS 
FOR THE CHAINS WERE NOT; THIS LED TO COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, AND TECHNICAL 
44 Bixin is a natural ingredient, extracted from annatto seeds, which is used as a coloring additive in the food 
industry.
45 The first step in processing, in which the annatto seeds are separated from the capsule containing them.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 48
DIFFICULTIES THAT STILL FACE THE VALUE CHAINS TODAY AND, IN THE CASE OF ANNATTO, 
POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO THE VALUE CHAIN’S SUSTAINABILITY.
Producers of annatto felt dissatisfied with the incomes they received, and disappointed that the initial 
expectation of a guaranteed market for their products was not met. The annatto producers surveyed
who gave an income report stated that they received an average of COP$430,545 per month for this 
activity during 2020 (a figure equal to about 49 percent of Colombia’s national minimum wage). Only 
43.3 percent of them agreed with the statement that their household income improved with this activity 
(see Exhibit 9). Although OL paid wages to all annatto beneficiaries as a temporary subsidy to encourage 
their participation, only 55.6 percent of those surveyed stated that part of the income they received 
came from the sale of annatto. This evaluation found evidence of dissatisfaction and even 
disappointment; as one interviewee said: 
“Because at one point they said that now we had a buyer for all of the production, that we 
didn’t have to worry, that this was now settled. Of course, it wasn’t that way, it wasn’t that way 
then and it isn’t that way now” (KII with beneficiary).
For beneficiaries involved in beekeeping, the fact that the associations and the regional commercial 
partner do not pay cash on delivery for the honey is an issue and leads to beneficiaries selling a portion 
of their honey to intermediaries and opportunistic traders. The current high production in the area and 
the growing demand for honey creates a favorable situation for intermediaries who pay cash and buy 
directly from the producer, as evidenced by the 39.6 percent of beekeepers surveyed who said they sell 
half or more of their production individually. This makes it difficult, however, to consolidate value-adding 
processes in the territory. Both the associations and the regional distributor have shown that they do 
not have enough working capital to buy cash for the high volumes of honey that are currently produced 
in the area. One producer noted that “people were complaining that they weren’t getting paid for the honey 
and okay then, I don’t know, what they need is to have resources to pay people cash.” This measure, if 
adopted, however, could lead to a drop in prices during production spikes. While the commercial 
partner has managed a credit of COP$250 million (US$67,843), permitting the company to adapt to new 
production, this is still not sufficient to guarantee cash payments for the entirety of current production. 
The absence of comprehensive business models capable of accounting for the impacts of investments led 
to overproduction of annatto and a shortage of capital in the beekeeping component. The program 
defined in detail the productive and financial models of the UPAs, but the goals for number of hives and 
Ha of annatto were not calculated from a business model that started with demand and evaluated the 
logistical requirements and financial resources for the commercialization of these new productions. 
Given the complexities of the dye agribusiness, bringing in a new customer for annatto requires a 
process of adjusting product specifications that typically takes more than six months. Only a third of the 
production can be sold to the annatto commercial partner, so there is a very high risk of beneficiary 
desertion. Some producers have already lost up to three harvests. In the beekeeping chain, even though 
the regional commercial partner secured increased working capital, this is still not enough to guarantee 
cash purchases to all producers.
F. PROJECT PARTICIPANTS EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE VALUE CHAINS 
INSTEAD OF IN ILLEGAL MINING BECAUSE OF THE EFFECTS ON THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE, 
FINDING THEM VIABLE AS LONG AS THEY CAN GENERATE INCOMES TO SUSTAIN THEIR 
LIVELIHOODS.
49 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
OL had positive effects for beneficiaries’ quality of life in both the beekeeping and the annatto 
components. Of beekeeping beneficiaries surveyed, 85 percent said that OL had contributed to 
improving quality of life for themselves and their families. For annatto, this percentage stood at 51 
percent (Figure 10). The joint category diagram derived from the econometric analysis46 shows that 
these differences in perception are related to whether the value chains generate incomes. This confirms 
the relationship between perceived increases in quality of life and increased household income. The 
highest perceived quality of life was reflected in other aspects that beneficiaries valued, such as 
connections with their family and community, access to technical knowledge, and vocational growth, and 
the chance to engage in activities that were less physically demanding than mining.
Exhibit 11: Beneficiaries’ perceptions of the impact of value chains on their quality of life (n annatto=346, n beekeeping=281) 
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
Female participation was significant in the first productive step of both value chains, which generated 
positive effects for their autonomy, recognition, and belonging in the family and community. Female 
participation in value chains stood at 56 percent for beekeeping, and 28 percent for annatto. This 
participation created opportunities for them to be involved in remunerated work that complemented 
the unremunerated care work that women performed inside the home. This was beneficial for women’s 
sense of autonomy and recognition, as stated by one beneficiary: 
“This work has been something that has connected me with my three children. Even though I’m 
the one who is doing the work, they pay attention to what I’m doing. For example, this boy here 
will say, ‘look, now mama went to give the bees their food, mama went to visit the hives” (KII 
with beneficiary). 
In the case of annatto, this sense of recognition manifested in community terms, as expressed by one 
beneficiary thus: “women from other places come to visit us, for example women from Cocomacia, from Atrato, 
came here to see how we were working.” Women’s participation was evident mostly in the first link of the 
value chains, and less so in later stages.
The annatto component as a regional agro-industrial chain is gaining recognition for enabling the 
inhabitants of Chocó to advance their own territorial development. From the community councils to the 
beneficiaries who worked in the annatto chain, a variety of actors repeatedly expressed the importance 
of this regional process. One beneficiary, for example, said that: 
46 See Annex I. Analysis and Complementary Data - Quantitative Annex, Value chains and alternative livelihoods - Descriptive 
analysis, variable association and observation grouping – Figures 4 and 5, pp. 6-7).
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 50
“Generating value chains around the community is always a goal, a dream for us. Why? Because this 
department deserves these possibilities. We have an impoverished countryside; now the program 
offers the possibility of reaching the dream and the goal that we have as an organized community”
(KII with beneficiary).
When they heard about this activity, other community councils expressed interest in participating in the 
value chain. The advances and results that OL achieved are unprecedented in the region and are valued 
by the community councils, who are now part of this agro-industrial, entrepreneurial process. 
G. THE PROGRESS MADE BY THE VALUE CHAINS DID NOT HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON SECURITY 
OR PUBLIC ORDER, BUT IT SUPPORTED HOUSEHOLD RESILIENCE, INCREASING PARTICIPANTS’ 
PERCEPTION OF SECURITY AND SENSE OF HAVING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FUTURE IN THEIR 
HOME TERRITORIES. 
Although the security situation continues to threaten value chain beneficiaries, having viable alternatives 
for income generation strengthens the household resilience by reducing economic vulnerability, 
strengthening social networks at the family and community level. Beneficiaries expressed perceptions of 
greater security and support for institutions. The percentage of beneficiaries who felt that value chain 
activities contributed to improving safety was 64.6 percent for annatto and 74.7 percent for beekeeping. 
Likewise, the beneficiaries expressed that the productive projects contribute to expectations for future 
prosperity in the territory. Indeed, a statistical analysis of variable association47 showed that beneficiaries 
engaged in beekeeping considered the activity to be viable and indicated they would continue to pursue 
that activity even in a hypothetical situation where income gained from beekeeping decreased by as 
much as 75 percent. 
Beneficiaries perceived the value chain activities as a way for people to be productively engaged, thus 
helping to reduce the risk of recruitment by armed actors, especially for young people. Beneficiaries 
appreciated that the value chains generated alternatives for young people to make productive use of 
their time and offered outlets for them to contribute their energy and ideas. They recognized this as a 
protective factor against recruitment by armed groups. This is supported by the findings of Colombia’s 
Human Rights Ombudsman (Defensoría del Pueblo), which identified the absence of support networks 
for the families of children, adolescents, and young people as one of the main risk factors for 
recruitment by armed groups.48 Offering alternative sources of income, then, improves families’ abilities 
to provide safe spaces in the face of external threats, including forced recruitment. 
Beneficiaries and other actors perceived the presence of armed groups as the most significant threat to 
the further development of value chains. Among the beekeeping beneficiaries, 41 percent identified 
security as an obstacle to development in the region. Moreover, among the potential obstacles from a 
commercial, technical, or productive standpoint, security issues were mentioned by most beneficiaries, 
with an incidence 18 percentage points higher than a lack of commercial agreements and 23 points 
higher than a lack of financing.
47 Annex I. Complementary Data and Analysis – Quantitative Annex Value Chains and Alternative Livelihoods – Descriptive 
analysis, variable association, and variable grouping – Figure 5, Pp. 7. 48 Informe Defensorial: Prevención del reclutamiento de niños, niñas y adolescentes, Análisis de la política pública con enfoque 
étnico. Defensoría del Pueblo, marzo de 2014.
51 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
H. BENEFICIARIES RECOGNIZED THE POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ANNATTO AND 
APICULTURE PROJECTS IN TERMS OF RECOVERY IN DEGRADED AREAS AND THE PREVENTION 
OF FURTHER ILLEGAL EXTRACTION. 
OL has improved environmental quality through the value chain activities and avoided greater 
environmental degradation, reducing illegal extraction in the areas targeted by the intervention. 
Beekeepers and annatto producers surveyed tended to agree that these activities had slowed 
environmental damage in their area, with 78.8 percent and 68 percent affirming this, respectively. 
Producers see reasons to actively discourage illicit mining in the areas of their value chain activities. An 
annatto producer explained it this way: 
“Here it was possible to suspend mining activity, even though it had been very important, 
because here there was a kind of fortress […] with this crop that we have here, so that we have 
stopped mining” (KII with beneficiary).
Beneficiaries also said that their value chain activities had also helped rehabilitate areas that had been 
degraded. 
Interdependence between beekeeping and the rehabilitation model using Acacia Mangium strengthened 
the sustainability of both components. From the beginning, OL established an objective of linking the 
planting of Acacia mangium with beekeeping and envisioned the production of honey from this tree to 
differentiate the product. However, the honey produced by bees from Acacia mangium has a darker 
color, so producers had to include multi-flower honey in the mix to improve market acceptance. Still, 
beekeepers positively perceive the value of acacia trees on the productivity of their hives and are 
committed to caring for the areas planted with these trees.
5.3 RELEVANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS (ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC) OF 
THE DIFFERENT MODELS OF REHABILITATION IN DEGRADED AREAS IN ANTIOQUIA AND 
CHOCÓ 
Evaluation question 4 From the environmental, social, and economic point of view, how 
appropriate and effective have been the differentiated rehabilitation 
models developed by Oro Legal in Antioquia and Chocó in areas 
previously degraded by illegal mining?
The areas in which OL was active are areas of considerable environmental importance, meaning that 
rehabilitation efforts in these areas contributed to achieving key national and international environmental 
goals. Colombia has identified 40 percent of its continental surface as being subject to some degree of 
degradation, one of the most important types of soil damage. The country has also suffered biodiversity 
losses due to changes in land use and deforestation associated with mining.49 OL sought to address the 
negative environmental effects of illegal mining effectively.50 In prioritizing this project, USAID took on 
an important goal, but a challenging one, owing to the state of development of regulations in the mining 
49 IPBES,http://www.humboldt.org.co/images/documentos/pdf/oportunidades/capitulo-4-motores-directos-de-transformacion-y￾perdida-de-biodiversidad.pdf 50 Environmental assessment, USAID, 2017
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 52
sector, the presence of illegal groups, various environmental and mining authorities at the national, 
regional, and local levels, and the characteristics of local communities. 
A. THE SELECTION OF TARGETED AREAS WAS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THEIR RICHNESS IN NATURAL 
RESOURCES AND BIODIVERSITY. 
The Chocó bioregion is considered a biodiversity hotspot because of its high number of endemic species 
and the presence of pristine forests. It is a mega-diverse forest region, whose forests, mangrove 
swamps, and estuaries are home to 9,000 species of vascular plants, 200 species of mammals, 600 bird 
species, 100 reptile species, and 120 amphibian species, of which 25 percent are endemic.51 It is an 
important area because of its geographical location at the confluence of the Pacific, Caribbean, and 
Andean regions.52 
Bajo Cauca, Antioquia, is 80 percent covered by humid tropical forest and premontane forest 
ecosystems, and the zone is rich in surface and underground water. Its main rivers are the Man, the 
Cauca, the Cacerí, and the Nechí, with hundreds of small tributaries. Its forest ecosystems are home to 
many animal and plant species, which have been over-exploited, generating considerable ecological 
impacts.53
The areas where OL worked are zones of high importance from an environmental standpoint. The 
polygons targeted by OL overlap with forest reserve zones by 96 percent in Chocó and 33 percent in 
Antioquia; 36 percent of the focus areas in Chocó and 33 percent in Antioquia are located in prioritized
conservation areas as defined by national policy.54 In Antioquia, eight percent of the targeted zones are 
in priority areas for restoration, and six percent are in priority areas for rehabilitation and recovery 
under the Unique Registry of Ecosystems and Environmental Areas (Exhibit 12).55
51 Evaluación Nacional de Biodiversidad y Servicios Ecosistémicos. Instituto Humboldt. 2019. 52 Ibid. 53 Bajo Cauca: Desarrollo Regional, una tarea común universidad-región, Instituto de Estudios Regionales (INER) Dirección de 
Regionalización. Universidad de Antioquia, 2000. ISBN 9586557456. 54 Documento Conpes 3680 de 2010. 55 The estimation of these areas was carried out using cartographic methods and using information from the Colombian 
Environmental Information System (SIAC).
53 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Exhibit 12: Cross analysis of areas targeted by OL with areas of environmental importance. The values presented here 
correspond to Ha rehabilitated by OL with respect to environmentally important areas in each department.
SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM USING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FROM SIAC.
B. OL WORKED IN AREAS WITH SIGNIFICANT LEVELS OF DEGRADATION AND HIGH RISK FOR 
COMMUNITIES DUE TO LACK OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (FOOD AND WATER SECURITY), AND 
THE POSSIBILITY OF NATURAL DISASTERS.
As a result of mining extraction activities, the two departments have been affected by biodiversity loss, 
to the detriment of resources such as soil and water. The mining activity carried out for decades in the 
area has caused biodiversity loss and negatively affected the provision of environmental goods and 
services, such as water, air, soils suitable for cultivation and climate regulation. These areas are subject 
to deforestation, soil degradation, and increased vulnerability to the negative effects of natural disaster 
risks and climate change. The municipalities of San Juan, Istmina, Unión Panamericana, Cantón de San 
Pablo, and Río Quito in the department of Chocó were repeatedly identified in early alerts for 
deforestation,56 with the adaptation of land for mining and coca cultivation the main two causes. In 
Antioquia, these alerts detected the active core of deforestation in the Serranía of San Lucas in the 
north-eastern part of the department.57 
The areas targeted by OL overlapped with medium to high vulnerability areas. The degree of 
vulnerability varied by department. In Chocó, as shown in Exhibit 13, almost 13,000 Ha have a medium 
level of vulnerability, while 2000 Ha are located in high vulnerability zones. In Antioquia, most of the 
areas where OL worked had high (1,514 Ha) and very high (155 Ha) levels of vulnerability.
56 Caracterización de las principales causas y agentes de la deforestación a nivel nacional período 2005-2015. González, J. 
Cubillos, A., Chadid, M., Cubillos, A., Arias, M., Zúñiga, E., Joubert, F. Pérez, I, Berrío, V. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y 
Estudios Ambientales – IDEAM-. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Programa ONU-REDD Colombia. Bogotá, 
2018.IDEAM, 2017
57 Décimo Boletín de Alerta Temprana de Deforestación. IDEAM, 2017. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 54
Exhibit 13: Cross analysis of areas targeted by OL with environmentally vulnerable areas. The figure shows Ha that cross 
between OL rehabilitation zones with respect to vulnerable areas. For the department of Chocó 12,980 Ha (of the 15,049 
targeted by OL) are in medium-vulnerability zones. For Antioquia, the majority of the polygons are in high-vulnerability zones.
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM USING INFORMATION FROM THE COLOMBIAN ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (SIAC)
Orphan mining environmental liabilities are systems with anthropogenic disturbances where the 
production of ecosystem services is compromised. Among the environmental impacts of an abandoned 
mine are physically altered landscapes, debris, water, soil and air pollution, loss of vegetation, open 
shafts, acid seepage, metal washing, and increased sediment. Gold extraction affects the first layer of the 
soil, altering the physical and chemical properties and leading to loss of edaphic structure, causing 
instability that leads to desertification, sterilization, or increased erosion.58 This affects the landscape of 
the area, generating a domino effect on its fauna and flora due to the fractionation or transformation of 
the biome.
Mining liabilities in Chocó have led to severe environmental impacts, threateningdifferent species. 
Extreme weather events have affected public infrastructure and housing. Of the 5,976 plants species 
found in the department, around 10 percent face some threat.59 Extreme weather (hydro-climatic) 
events have occurred, including avalanches, mudslides, fires, floods, unusually heavy rains, droughts, 
electrical storms, and gales, which have damaged homes and the basic infrastructure of municipalities. 
Studies of ecosystem vulnerability60 have found that the greatest vulnerability is related to floods and 
droughts, which affect traditional agriculture practices that local communities rely on to meet their 
needs. 
In Antioquia, OL beneficiaries recognized mining’s impact by changes in the landscape and effects on 
local flora and fauna. The beneficiaries recognized changes in their territory caused by mining activities 
58 Contaminación y remediación de suelos en Colombia: aplicación a la minería de oro. Martínez Sepúlveda, José Alejandro. 
Miguel Reinaldo Casallas. 1a edición / Bogotá: Universidad EAN, 2018. 112 páginas. 9789587565836 59 Vulnerability of native forests in the Colombian Chocó: mining and biodiversity conservation. Valois Hamlet y Martínez 
Carolina. 2016. BOSQUE 37(2): 295-305, 2016 DOI: 10.4067/S0717-92002016000200008. 60 Studies carried out to inform the Plan Integral de Cambio Climático del Chocó. 
55 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
and described the presence of holes, gullies, and eroded soils. There was a shortage of land to develop 
livestock or agricultural activities. In interviews, beneficiaries highlighted salient aspects, such as: 
“The region of Bajo Cauca is badly hit by deforestation caused by mining, so our intention was 
to reforest” (Interviews with beneficiaries). 
Another beneficiary in Antioquia said that: 
“Everything here was pure sand, pure stone, this was what there was throughout the whole 
zone. And for people who lived around here, it was very hard, because it had grown a lot, so 
there was the problem of water” (KII with beneficiary, Antioquia). 
OL beneficiaries recognized the need to reverse environmental damages and valued the recovery of the 
environment thanks to the implementation of this component. Fifty-one percent of program 
beneficiaries participated in the program out of a motivation to protect the environment, and 18 
percent to recover areas degraded by mining, while 14 percent highlighted that they wanted a future 
with food security (Exhibit 14). In addition, in the interviews, interest in the trees that were part of the 
rehabilitation component came up frequently, as did planting projects and a desire to work to improve 
living conditions (Exhibit 15).
Exhibit 14: Motivations of beneficiaries to participate in the rehabilitation component of OL (n=318).
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 56
Exhibit 15: Word cloud for the rehabilitation component
SOURCE: DRAWN FROM INTERVIEWS AROUND THEMES OF REHABILITATION, REFORESTATION, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL MOTIVATIONS
C. OL DREW UP A STRATEGIC BUDGET TO ADDRESS THE AMBITIOUS GOAL OF MANAGING 
16,000 HECTARES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES.
OL filled funding gaps, in the absence of public investment in rehabilitation to manage orphaned 
environmental liabilities in priority areas due to the impacts of these liabilities. The absence of a legal 
definition of environmental liabilities in Colombia creates difficulties for the different entities to allocate 
resources to the rehabilitation of areas degraded by mining and incorporate the activity into institutional 
planning instruments. Although there is a common idea of what a mining environmental liability is, its 
definition should be legal, and there should be the guidance for managing these liabilities. One study 
defined this as “deterioration or harm to natural resources as a consequence of activities that generate 
pollution or detriments to the environment.”61 Nevertheless, individuals working in public institutions 
indicated that they do not have a clear definition for orphaned liabilities, and that activities in this area 
are not included in institutional action plans, making it non-viable to make investments to respond to 
this problem. An official in a local institution in Antioquia explained that: 
“To start with, at the national level there is no regulation around this issue, so it is very difficult 
for us to define an orphaned liability. To the extent that from our action plan we can access 
resources for recovery of areas, we do it, but we do not have a budget line for it” (KII with 
GOC official). 
With an estimated cost of $1,700/Ha, the OL model has lower estimated average costs than similar 
programs. When comparing the estimated costs of similar programs, OL has a lower average cost per 
hectare. The National Restoration Plan adopted by MADS, with a rehabilitation goal of one million 
hectares, has an estimated investment of COP$6.2 billion pesos, which yields an average cost of 
$1,820/Ha. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) indicates that “Agreement does not exist on how much it costs 
61 Estudio sobre lineamientos, incentivos y regulación para el manejo de los pasivos ambientales mineros (PAM), incluyendo 
cierre de faenas mineras. Bolivia (Estado Plurinacional de), Chile, Colombia y el Perú. Oblasser, A. 2016. Serie Medio Ambiente 
y Desarrollo, N° 163 (LC/L.4208), Santiago, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
57 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
to recovery a hectare degraded by mining, with costs varying between COP $1,300,000 to COP $90,000,000.” 
As a counterpart to OL, however, WWF invested $2,000/Ha rehabilitated.62 
OL's model allowed the program to manage an ambitious extension of the available resources. 
Rehabilitation projects have been pursued in Colombia since 1993, promoted by the Botanical Garden 
of Bogotá, National Parks, and various NGOs. In total this includes 102 projects covering 87,870 Ha. Of 
these projects, 40.7 percent have coverage of less than 10 Ha, and only 3 percent are large-scale 
projects, defined as covering between 1,000 and 10,000 Ha. OL pursued a different set of strategies: it 
combined active and passive rehabilitation strategies, made use of different species, and provided 
temporary labor support to local inhabitants to carry out the sowing and care of seedlings in nurseries, 
watering and sowing. As well as relying on municipalities to advance soil management, it allowed 
managing a total area of 17,028 Ha, of which 13,421 corresponded to passive rehabilitation. The passive 
rehabilitation strategy has a low cost, especially for some tropical ecosystems. These processes, 
however, can be delayed and can be affected by the isolation of the source ecosystems.
D. FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE, IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO IMPLEMENT 
DIFFERENTIATED MODELS IN ANTIOQUIA AND CHOCÓ, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THEIR 
BIOLOGICAL, CLIMATIC, AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS.
Acacia mangium has long been used and recognized in the department of Antioquia. In 1995 the Central 
Antioquia Regional Autonomous Corporation (Corantioquia) and the National University had tested
Acacia mangium in Bajo Cauca to rehabilitate soils degraded by alluvial mining. The species is suitable for 
timber, and, given its adaptability, has been used in rehabilitation programs in various countries of the 
tropics.63 Its use in rehabilitation programs stems from its ability to fix nitrogen in the soil, which 
improves soil productivity. Acacia mangium owes this ability to its symbiotic relationships with 
mycorrhizal fungi. In this relationship, the tree’s root system is host to the fungi, which provide 
considerable benefits, including enabling greater extension of the root system, compensating for soil 
infertility, increasing the species’ tolerance to drought-related stress, and contributing to the creation of 
soil.64 This utility in the rehabilitation of degraded lands is complemented by the species’ use as a source 
of timber. Over the past decade in Colombia, Acacia mangium has been exploited for its timber 
potential, as it can be cut into beams, which can be further used for the construction of housing and 
furniture, tannins that are useful for painting, biocarbon for energy, and pulped into fibers for paper.65 
Nevertheless, there is also evidence of risks related to the use of acacia mangium. Given the extensive 
planting of this species, several reports mention that, over time, Acacia mangium will naturally fall, 
probably because the trees are shallowly rooted. Thisdoes not occur with native species, which are 
62 Dejando un territorio vivo a nuestros renacientes. Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones para procesos de recuperación 
de áreas degradadas por minería en el territorio colectivo de Cocomacia. Vásquez, C., Murillo, W., Córdoba, D. & J. Gamboa. 
2019. Cocomacia – WWF. Cali – Colombia. 63 Taxonomy, distribution, biology and use as an exotic. In K. Awang & D. Taylor (Eds) Acacia mangium Growing and 
Utilization. Pinyopusarerk, K., B. L. Sim & B.V. Gunn (1993). Winrock International & FAO, Bangkok, Thailand. 1-19. 64 Diversidad de hongos micorrizógenos arbusculares de una crono-secuencia de suelos aluviales degradados por actividad 
minera en el Bajo Cauca Antioqueño. Medina Marisol, Orozco Francisco Márques María Helena. 2009. Rev.Fac.Nal.Agr.Medellín 
62(1): 4749-4759. 65 Aspectos fisiológicos y de aprovechamiento de Acacia mangium Willd. Una revisión de la revista colombiana de Ciencias 
hortícolas. Reyes Giovanni, Carmona Sandra, Fernández María. 12(1): 244-253
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 58
more deeply rooted and can resist storms.66. While the species’ results for soil rehabilitation are 
favorable, the trees can also come to dominate primary forests. Therefore, some studies warn of this 
invasive behavior and recommend the use of native species.67 Other issues for the use of Acacia mangium
include the species’ high consumption of water.68 
The model of active rehabilitation with native species used in Chocó used seeds and seedlings from 
neighboring ecosystems. It took this ecosystem as a model, and used a landscape focus, using a 
methodology that promotes the entire ecosystem together.69 Some rehabilitation activities were 
assisted (active) where interventions were direct, such as enrichment and removal or transfer of plants. 
Other rehabilitation activities were spontaneous (passive), when agents causing degradation were 
removed and the area was left without other kinds of direct activities;70 in some cases, just closing off 
these areas proved sufficient. 
Beneficiaries considered OL’s model to be appropriate. Community council members in Chocó 
expressed that the rehabilitation model in the department was appropriate because it was carried out in 
concert with the community, who determined what could and could not be done. These beneficiaries 
highlighted certain aspects, such as: 
“It was appropriate because it was coordinated with the community, which is what decided to plant 
trees in degraded areas for the community to conserve them, so that the community would support 
this and not continue with mining (…) They also planted guava, guama, which are native species”
(KII with community council member, Chocó).
In Antioquia Acacia was recognized generically as a tree that would help the soil recover and therefore 
well-suited for this intervention. One official in a mayor’s office said that: 
“The acacia is the only thing to plant in these areas that are so degraded. The acacia will put down 
roots even in stone, and it produces plenty of falling leaves and organic material for soil recovery. 
We could say that we were going to plant something else for nostalgic reasons, [but] it would not 
have the same results” (KII with GOC official, Antioquia).
E. IT PROVED IMPORTANT TO BASE SUPPORT FOR REHABILITATION IN THE SOCIAL 
INSTITUTIONS OF THE REGIONS, ESPECIALLY IN CHOCÓ, WHERE THE COMMUNITY 
COUNCILS PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN REHABILITATION ACTIONS.
OL recognized the community councils as holding authority, recognized the legality of collective land 
tenure, and drew on ancestral local knowledge to support rehabilitation. OL drew on community 
66 Ecological Assessment of Restored Subtropical Forests in Hong Kong. Zheng, Hailong. 2009. A Thesis Submitted in Partial 
Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography and Resource Management. The Chinese 
University of Hong Kong. 
67 Acacia spp,: invasive Trees along the Brunei Coast, Borneo. Islam, Shafi Noor, Mohamad, Siti Mazidah & Azad, Abul Kalam. 
2019. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91382-7_14 68 Simposio Caribeño sobre Acacia mangium, 2014 69 La restauración ecológica en Colombia: Tendencias, necesidades y oportunidades. Murcia C y Guariguata MR. 2014. 
Documentos Ocasionales 107. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. 70 Restoration of degraded lands in the interior Columbia River basin: passive vs. active approaches. McIever y Starr, 2001. 
Elsevier. Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 15-28.
59 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
knowledge, including appropriate times to look for seeds and seedlings. This activity united generations 
in the community, strengthened the social fabric and potentially contributed to the sense of ownership 
of land and natural resources by the participants. Beneficiaries in Chocó explained process as follows: 
“First we cleaned everything, pulled up the weeds and collected garbage that had been left 
around, like jars and cans. We filled in the ditches and holes with soil. And we took advantage of 
the inputs they [OL] gave us, such as chicken manure, coffee husks, and a powder. I don’t know 
what it was called. The truth is it was very good. They also brought us chemicals to fumigate, to 
kill the weeds, to kill the ants” (Interviews with beneficiaries, Chocó). 
In Bajo Cauca OL selected properties that had legal tenure and prepared contracts for forest use. Of 
the beneficiaries surveyed, 40 percent indicated that they had a contract to support their participation in 
planting of Acacia mangium. Appealing to economic motivations proved an appropriate strategy to 
incentivize community participation. OL also worked to combine the planting of this species with 
beekeeping activity, which promoted greater care for the trees. Interviews found that beneficiaries took 
ownership of the activity, saying that it was important that people knew the trees from the nursery. As 
one beneficiary from Antioquia put it: 
“We had nurseries around the area where we were going to carry out the project because we 
believe that it is very important for people to know the trees since they were babies, to start 
generating other sensitivities and other connections with the project and with what they were going 
to plant” (KII with beneficiary, Antioquia).
These activities helped develop a greater connection between the beneficiaries and the trees from the 
beginning, which encouraged ownership of the project. 
F. OL’S REHABILITATION MODELS IN ANTIOQUIA AND CHOCÓ INCREASED AREAS COVERED BY 
VEGETATION AND REDUCED DEGRADED AREAS.
To analyze changes in ground cover and deforestation, we drew on satellite images of a sample of the 
area targeted by OL, made up of 2,077 Ha (represented by 13 polygons) under active rehabilitation.71
This analysis found a four percent increase in vegetation cover and a 14 percent decrease in 
deforestation in the sample. Using ArcGIS software to interpret the images, we calculated variation in 
vegetation cover to measure rehabilitation. Comparing satellite images over the period from 2016 to 
2020, we analyzed vegetation cover compared to bare ground, interpreted as degraded soil. We used 
the SAVI index for this analysis since it allowed us to identify different phenological states, making it 
possible to observe the vegetation in initial stages of development.72 Using this method, we determined 
the behavior of all the polygons in the sample. Exhibit 16 shows the results for the pilot farm.
71 Due to persistently cloudy conditions, it was not possible to carry out a similar analysis for areas undergoing passive 
rehabilitation. 72 Comparación del NDVI con el PVI y el SAVI como indicadores para la asignación de modelos de combustible para la 
estimación del riesgo de incendios en Andalucia. Tecnologías Geográficas para el Desarrollo Sostenible, 164-174. Sánchez 
Esperanza, Torres Martín, Palacios Arturo, Aguilar Mónica, Pino Isabel, Granado Laura. 2000. Universidad de Alcalá.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 60
Exhibit 16: Behavior of vegetation cover vs degraded areas in the shapefile from the pilot farm, in the municipality of Caucasia. 
The right side shows satellite images from the farm, with the upper image being from the year 2016 and the lower image from 
2020.
SOURCE: CALCULATIONS CARRIED OUT FOR THE EVALUATION USING SATELLITE IMAGES.
The variation in vegetation coverage found in the sample from Antioquia was not homogenous. For 
some polygons, vegetation coverage increased over time, as in Vegas de Segovia, Fundación Mineros, 
Villa Grande, and Chilona (Table 5); while in others it decreased, as in Asogauca and Reforestadora 
Zaragoza.73 An analysis of the overall behavior of the samples found a four percent increase in 
vegetation cover and a 13 percent decrease in deforestation. 
73 Annex I. Supplemental Analysis and Data – Rehabilitation component (pp. 10-18) shows a review of satellite imagery the 
behavior of the sum of vegetation over for all polygons in the sample.
74 The thematic accuracy obtained for 11 of the 13 analyzed polygons is greater than 85 percent. The polygons for Tropico 
Diverso and Cañada la Rica presented ranges of years for which the accuracy is lower, so these years were eliminated in the 
calculations.
TABLE 5. CHANGE IN VEGETATION COVER ORO LEGAL’S TARGETED AREAS IN ANTIOQUIA74
SHAPEFILE ∆ VEGETATION COVER BEGINNING TO END
Trópico Diverso 3%
Villa Grande 6%
Vegas de Segovia 10%
Asogauca -17%
Reforestadora Zaragoza -14%
Asogauca P1 -1%
Fundación Mineros P1 2%
Fundación Mineros P2 8%
61 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Source: Calculations performed for the evaluation from satellite images
In the case of active rehabilitation in Chocó, the sample showed a nine percent increase in vegetation 
cover and a 35 percent decrease in degraded areas (see Exhibit 17). The sample in this department was 
limited by persistently cloudy conditions, which decreased the visibility of the images. This meant that 
information could not be gathered for passive rehabilitation. The active rehabilitation zones, however, 
showed OL’s best performance in reducing land degradation, as well as a small, but gradual and 
sustained increase in vegetation coverage. 
Exhibit 17: Aggregate behavior of vegetation coverage vs degraded areas in Río Quito, Villaconto, Chocó. The right side of the 
figure shows satellite images from the farm.
SOURCE: CALCULATIONS PERFORMED FOR THE EVALUATION FROM SATELLITE IMAGES.
Beneficiaries had positive perceptions of the rehabilitation component results. In general, they indicated 
that the reforestation process was working, as, in addition to the trees that were planted, they observed 
the return of native animals, such as birds and monkeys. Beneficiaries also felt that the increase in shade 
helped moderate high temperatures and gave them spaces to walk or relax. One beneficiary in Chocó 
indicated that: 
“The reforestation has been really useful, because it didn’t just [plant trees] but rather now one 
can see a lot of monkeys, parrots, [an animal] that is called the mountain cat here, partridges….”
(KII with beneficiary, Chocó).
Local actors perceived positive results from the Activity, such as improvements in local microclimate, 
increased biodiversity, and soil recovery. Of the beneficiaries surveyed, 72 percent mentioned positive 
effects for water quality, 77 percent recognized positive changes in the landscape, and 72 percent 
thought that land degraded by mining had recovered (Exhibit 18). Beneficiaries also perceived positive 
effects of rehabilitation for their quality of life, with 81 percent of respondents indicating that it had 
positive effects for the community, including for health and food security. Respondents also mentioned 
Chilona 1%
Afroclaver P1 48%
Afroclaver P2 1%
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 62
improvements to the landscape, greater tranquility, and repairing relationships with the natural world. 
One beneficiary in Antioquia said that: 
“Now we don’t feel the heat like before, you don’t see the land so eroded, now you can see 
green fields, you see little iguanas, all the animals we have around here, the water is cooler. 
Then this makes you, yourself, change, you go out [into the fields or forest] and you say, how 
nice this looks, like it was before. So, this changes your life, because there’s more oxygen, 
there’s more shade” (KII with beneficiary, Antioquia).
Exhibit 18: Beneficiaries’ perceptions of the results of the rehabilitation component of OL (n=318)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
G. THE SUSTAINABILITY OF REHABILITATION PROMOTED BY OL IS NOT ASSURED, AND RISKS 
REMAIN TO THE EFFORT AND RESOURCES INVESTED THIS FAR, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO 
BENEFICIARIES, CONSERVATION OF REHABILITATED AREAS HAS WEAKENED OVER TIME.
The Community Councils do not have the ability to cover the costs of continued care, monitoring, and
control of the managed areas. Beneficiaries note that commitment to guarding and conserving the places 
where trees were planted has weakened over time. It has not been possible to perform timely 
maintenance of these plantations due to the lack of resources of the councils and communities that 
would enable them to contribute their time and work. Community members often do not have the time 
to go to the rehabilitation areas, which can entail trips of up to eight hours. Beneficiaries expressed that: 
“There are trees disappearing because the maintenance was not done when it had to be done. 
There we need the program to continue to give us a hand, to continue supporting us with 
working capital to be able to have personnel to help us restore things – to see if a tree died, to 
replace it, to check if the weeds are overrunning it, to be able to weed it” (Interviews with 
beneficiares).
Local institutions were not sufficiently involved in supporting rehabilitation activities. This includes their 
participation from the establishment of the nursery, to caring for targeted areas, to promoting the 
positive effects of OL. The same local entities point out that activities were not carried out directly with 
63 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
them and that there was no joint work to leave in place capacity, which has led to weakening the 
processes of community ownership after the end of the Activity and even to the loss of nursery 
infrastructure established by OL. Interviews carried out for the evaluation with GOC officials at 
different levels confirmed this. One national-level GOC official said that “The results that we have, well, 
they sent us in a fact sheet, otherwise we don’t have much information.” At the local level, an official in one 
mayor’s office mentioned that “No projects were executed directly with [the mayor’s office], so it doesn’t know 
about this matter.” 
Finally, OL did not promote sustainable exploitation of the acacia planting. Although expectations were 
raised and commitments were made to promote commercial use of this wood, this was not carried out, 
and beneficiaries did not receive training on how they might do so. Nor was there planning for gradual 
replacement of Acacia trees with native timber plants once the soil has been rehabilitated. In turn, the 
beneficiaries do not currently have the resources to maintain the management of the plantations. Thus, a 
risk exists to the sustainability of the models implemented by OL, a situation that could be overcome 
through projects that increase the income of the beneficiaries and support continued management in 
rehabilitated areas (Exhibit 19).
Exhibit 19: Expectations of rehabilitation beneficiaries to obtain economic benefits from rehabilitation (n=318)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
5.4 EFFECTIVE COMBINATION OF INSTRUMENTS AND APPROACHES TO REDUCE THE 
USE OF MERCURY IN ASGM
Evaluation question 5 What combination of instruments and approaches employed in the 
effort to reduce mercury usage in ASGM have proven to be most 
effective and why?
OL's support for small-scale mining included modifications in gold mining techniques to eliminate the use 
of mercury. This activity involved significant efforts and investments by the Activity, particularly in terms 
of mercury-free processing equipment and technical assistance to improve mining environmental 
performance. Reduction in mercury use is gradual, and OL constantly monitored mercury to assess its 
results. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 64
A. LAW 1658 OF 2013 AND THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF MERCURY PROHIBITION IN MID-2018 
CONSTITUTES THE MOST IMPORTANT EXTERNAL FACTOR FOR THE REDUCTION OF 
MERCURY IN MINING PRACTICES. 
The GOC adopted Law 1658 on July 15, 2013,75 to protect human health and preserve renewable 
natural resources and the environment. This regulation applies throughout the national territory and 
limits the import, production, marketing, handling, transportation, storage, final disposal, and release into 
the environment of mercury for industrial activities. The Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) was 
charged with promoting compliance with this obligation to eradicate mercury use in the sector in a 
maximum of five years. Enormous challenges persist, however, in the chain of control and state 
regulatory capacities. ASGM takes place in remote regions under the control of illegal armed groups and 
by small producers who are not trained in appropriate extractive techniques. OL benefited from the 
issuance of this regulation since it made mandatory an objective of OL, with a positive impact on Activity 
results associated with the use of mercury.
B. SUPPORT FOR FORMALIZATION, TRAINING ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GOLD EXTRACTION 
USING CLEAN TECHNIQUES AND RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF MERCURY ON 
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT WAS AN EFFECTIVE COMBINATION OF FACTORS TO 
ELIMINATE MERCURY.
OL provided technical assistance for the preparation of Work and Construction Plans (PTO), as well as 
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) with the MPUs. Article 78 of the Mining Code mandates that 
PTOs should establish and determine the location of minerals, the exploitable quality and quantity, the 
technical viability of its extraction, and the environmental impact of implementing this plan (ANM, 2018). 
Preparing the PTO is a step toward appropriate mineral exploitation, Itprovides knowledge about 
mineral deposits and analyses of how to exploit these deposits can be registered in the PTO.
OL provided important technical assistance to small miners, who otherwise would not have prepared
these instruments (at least not with the required quality, nor with effective guidance for mercury-free 
practices). Ninety percent of MPU beneficiaries indicated that the PTO determined mercury-free 
mineral processing, and 88 percent recognized that OL helped make accessible the techniques and 
technologies for the PTO (Figure 19). This allowed the evaluation to conclude that the technical 
assistance provided by OL (carrying out a study of mineral deposits) guided best practices for mercury￾free extraction, and as such, that formalization was related to the elimination of mercury.
Exhibit 20: Support provided by OL to MPUs for PTOs (n=113)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
75 This law responds to Colombia’s status as a signatory to the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
65 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
The training provided by OL for MPUs on formalization achieved their aims and small miners are aware 
of the current regulations regarding mercury. Miners recognize that mercury is banned and understand 
that viable alternatives to its use exist. In interviews, beneficiaries affirmed that they do not use mercury, 
either because they have never used it or because they have reduced its use. They recognized the health 
dangers and environmental impacts of mercury. One miner said, for example: 
“This question of mercury is very hard and very difficult, here we don’t use it, we mine without 
it, for clean, legal mining and for clean land. This mercury is really dangerous, I don’t know 
anything about it, and I’m a miner and I’m not familiar with it” (KII with a beneficiary).
In the beneficiary surveys, beneficiaries of the formalization component mentioned the support and 
capacity building of the training provided by OL. More than 80 percent of the beneficiaries agreed or 
strongly agreed that OL helped reduce the use of mercury, that technological change helped reduce the 
use of mercury in gold processing, that new mercury-free practices yielded more processed gold, and 
that these practices were helping the environment. 
Exhibit 21: Level of agreement (4 and 5 on a scale from 1 to 5) with statements about OL’s support for reduction in the use of 
mercury in mining (n=113)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
Beneficiaries who were subcontractors with large mining businesses were aware that they could not use 
mercury. This was corroborated by partners, who explained that they exercised this control based on
the procedures required and support by OL: 
“The condition that they had for the miners consisted of not using mercury in any of their 
processes, and the best way to comply was that the ASGM miners delivered the concentrates 
from the sands, and they (as a legal mining company) processed them with their own 
technology” (KII with a local partner).
Another beneficiary from Antioquia noted that beneficiaries who were subcontractors could now “grind 
the gold in an area of the mining business where they have the machinery that you need to not use mercury.” 
Training and, above all, assistance to access new techniques are key elements for beneficiaries in 
eliminating the use of mercury. Small and informal miners have social and economic conditions that 
make it difficult for them to decide to change their gold mining practices. Stopping the use of mercury is 
a long-term process that implies accepting behavioral changes in one’s daily work and recognizing that 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 66
the economic benefits are not immediate. Oro Legal made efforts to demonstrate the efficiency of new 
practices and to supply the inputs for the technological reconversion. This was one of the achievements 
of OL that was most recognized by the beneficiaries. One beneficiary from Antioquia affirmed that: 
“Mercury, to tell the truth, is the cheapest method to extract gold. The other methods are 
more expensive. So, the advising works. Of course, everyone is aware that they can’t use it 
[mercury], but that’s why they don’t do it. Many times, the way to survive is stronger than the 
need to take care of oneself” (KII with beneficiary, Antioquia).
Awareness campaigns that highlight the impacts on human health and the environment have had good 
results. Officials interviewed from the mining and environmental ministries highlighted the development 
of outreach campaigns as their main strategy to reduce the use of mercury. They recognized the results 
of OL by reaching users directly and raising awareness of the risks of using mercury. More than 70 
percent of the beneficiaries surveyed felt motivated to eliminate mercury from their practices because 
of health concerns (Exhibit 22). This exercise complements the actions taken by local institutions, which 
recognized that OL reached miners directly.
Exhibit 22: Motivations to not use mercury in the MPUs (n=113, multiple responses allowed)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
C. THERE IS NO CERTAINTY ABOUT FULL ELIMINATION OF MERCURY USE AMONG MINERS. 
OL’s activities contributed to increased compliance with the regulation and have achieved a reduction in 
the use of mercury. Calculations performed for the evaluation based on OL information show a 
decreasing trend in mercury use. Beneficiaries went from using 7 grams of mercury to produce 1 gram 
of gold in the second half of 2017 to 0 grams of mercury to produce 1 gram of gold in the first quarter 
of 2020. This reduction is more notable in alluvial and underground mining (Exhibit 23). Mercury is used 
in ASGM because of its ease, speed, and cheapness in recovering gold from amalgamation. The use of 
mercury depends on the mineralogical composition of the material from which the gold is being 
recovered, such as whether it contains sulfides, quartz, or other metallic elements.76 Studies carried out 
76 Sinopsis nacional de la minería aurífera artesanal y de pequeña escala. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. 2012. 
Proyecto Contribución a la construcción de un plan estratégico regional para la reducción del uso de mercurio en la minería 
aurífera artesanal y de pequeña escala.
67 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
by the Energy Mining Planning Unit77 indicate that underground mining uses between 15 and 35 grams of 
mercury per gram 1 of gold, and alluvial mining uses an average of 11.8 grams of mercury per 1 gram of 
gold; this can be reduced with mini-dredgers, and through closed circuits.
Exhibit 23: Trends in mercury use among OL beneficiaries
SOURCE: CALCULATED BY EVALUATION TEAM FROM INFORMATION FROM ORO LEGAL
While mercury use has decreased, it has not been possible to eradicate it completely. According to 
beneficiary surveys, 1.1 percent of beneficiaries still use mercury (Exhibit 24). This reflects the 
discrepancies between different sources regarding the results of mercury reduction efforts, and it 
suggests that, although there is a significant reduction in mercury use, there are still beneficiaries of OL 
that use it in mining operations. Beneficiaries vehemently affirm their non-use of mercury, but 
government authorities and researchers on the subject are aware that mercury continues to be used in 
gold mining. Local authorities in different municipalities expressed as much during interviews. One said: 
“You look here, and people have spread further to more distant areas to look for gold. They 
use mercury, but they come to sell it at the same place [that they buy it] after they burn it and 
make the amalgam at home [at the mining site].” Another local official said that “You will not 
see reduction, unless in 2025, 2028, there is actually a decided policy - but as long as there is 
mercury and people can use it, they will continue to use it” (KII with GOC official).
Exhibit 24: Mercury use by OL beneficiaries (n=113)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
77 Indicadores de la minería en Colombia. Unidad de Planeación Minero Energética, 2014.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 68
D. THE PROHIBITION OF MERCURY IS A COMPLEX CHALLENGE, INVOLVING THE CONTROL OF 
ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING, WHICH REMAINS ACTIVE IN THE REGION
According to Law 1658, the state had five years to prepare the mining sector for mercury eradication, 
but it began the required work late. The MME published its strategic plan to eliminate mercury in 2016, 
three years after the passage of the law. Faced with this reality, local institutions expressed that this 
work should have begun when the law was adopted, and that awareness raising should have proceeded 
in parallel with the development of the strategic plan. During an interview for this evaluation, an official 
of the national government affirmed that: 
“The regulatory framework on mercury is clear. Now, is this practical and suited to the needs 
and realities of the field? Well, no, because a law simply does not eliminate the practice. And the 
Ministry had the power to technically support the miners, and it started late, long after the law 
went into effect” (KII with GOC official).
Assuming that a small percentage of ASGM miners do continue to use mercury, the challenge lies in 
controlling its trafficking and access to it. Various actors affirmed that the purchase of the mineral 
occurs in municipalities close to those inhabited by OL beneficiaries, and in gold shops. The miners who 
continue to use mercury in the extraction of gold are usually located in areas far from other miners and 
urban centers. One official in Chocó said that: 
“I think that, without mentioning any particular organization, there is corruption, and this is the 
reason that mercury continues to make its way to the regions. So, attacking this corruption is 
important to reduce the influx of mercury. And this raises again the issue of knowledge and 
[awareness] campaigns” (KII with GOC official).
In this sense, activities like OL can complement institutional activities by guiding the formulation of a 
comprehensive policy, using the knowledge generated in the implementation of local actions.
E. FORMALIZATION SUBCONTRACTS WORKED TO CONTROL MERCURY USE. 
The links formed with large mining companies through formalization subcontracts were an effective way 
to control the use of mercury. As discussed in section 5.1, OL used its management and logistical 
capabilities to organize groups of miners around formalization subcontracts. This led to recognition by 
various actors that formalization subcontracts work very well to control the use of mercury, as long as 
the process is transparent, and one party is not allowed to have an advantage over the other. In other 
words, honest dialogue and transparent agreements can be promoted between mining companies and 
small miners. However, 57 percent of MPUs still sell their product in gold shops, and only six percent 
sell to a large-scale mining company (Exhibit 25). 
69 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Exhibit 25: Buyers to whom MPUs sell their product (n=113)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEY
5.5 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ACTORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF OL’S RELEVANCE AND 
EFFECTIVENESS
Evaluation Question 6 What are the main perceptions of the relevance and effectiveness of the 
USAID - Oro Legal’s intervention among direct and indirect stakeholders 
- ASGM operators, gold mining private sector, academia, international 
donors, USG agencies, GOC agencies, etc.?
Given the extent of the Activity and the variety of actors involved, it is important to establish how these 
actors perceived the relevance and effectiveness of OL. Inquiring about these perceptions can provide a 
comprehensive view of an activity like OL, contrasting different opinions and points of view, and yielding 
a look at both the success factors and the bottlenecks of the intervention. Given that this section cuts 
across all components of the Activity, some findings overlap with what was stated in the previous 
sections. For this reason, we reference evidence already discussed in previous sections of the document 
as a complement to the analysis presented in this section. The main conclusions regarding the relevance 
and effectiveness of the intervention are presented below. 
A. OL IS PERCEIVED AS RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE TO THE CONTEXT OF THE REGIONS IN 
WHICH IT IS ACTIVE, AND BENEFICIARIES HIGHLIGHT ITS MULTIPLE STRENGTHS; CONTINUED 
FOLLOW-UP IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT TO GUARANTEE ITS CONTINUED SUSTAINABILITY. 
In general, as discussed in section 5.1, beneficiaries are highly satisfied with the Activity and highlight its 
multiple strengths. Beneficiary surveys found that 73 percent of beneficiaries in mining formalization, 77 
percent in beekeeping, 59 percent in rehabilitation, and 40 percent in annatto, respectively, report their 
satisfaction with OL as a four or five (on a scale of one to five, with five being the highest) (Exhibit 26). 
Moreover, interviews highlighted the relevance of the Activity, as well as its effects for the environment, 
mining activity, economic development, quality of life, and the participation of women and young people.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 70
Exhibit 26: Satisfaction with OL and perception of its effectiveness (n formalization=128, n beekeeping=297, n annatto=381, n 
rehabilitation=377)
SOURCE: BENEFICIARY SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS 78
The Activity is also relevant in all its components to the context and needs of the targeted regions and 
municipalities. The evidence presented in section 5.3 shows that the targeted municipalities are areas 
affected by high environmental degradation due to mining activity, thus highlighting the importance of 
(for example) the OL rehabilitation component. Along the same lines, sections 5.1 and 5.2 clearly show 
the importance of mining formalization and the promotion of alternative economic activities in the 
targeted areas.
The inputs, machinery, training, and assistance provided by OL are highly valued by beneficiaries; the 
importance of follow-up is again highlighted as a requirement for sustainability. One beneficiary from 
Antioquia noted: 
“Oro Legal accomplished for us what I expected it would; they offered us a lot of advice and a 
lot of help, and they fulfilled it. I am very grateful to Oro Legal for everything it did” (KII with 
beneficiary).
Nonetheless, some beneficiaries worried about the continuity of OL after the Activity closed. One 
beneficiary from Chocó said: 
“It was a very good thing, but there was also a lack of follow-up with the program, they 
completely forgot about us, it’s done and goodbye” (KII with beneficiary).
This is a clear threat to OL’s achievements and could pose a challenge due to time and contractual 
obligations specific to the Activity.
Finally, the evaluation identified direct beneficiaries who were unaware of OL’s objectives and activities 
or reported having received no support from the Activity. This group is small, as just five out of 52 
78 Perceptions of OL’s effectiveness are measured by the number of mentions in interviews.
71 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
interviewees (9.7 percent) and 51 of 669 survey respondents (7.6 percent) were unaware of the 
Activity. One interviewee said: 
“There was no support from Oro Legal. I participated in the occasional meeting, but there was no 
technical assistance. I am still waiting for support or supplies to arrive. But okay, at least Oro Legal is 
an entity that has the will and is ready to help” (KII with beneficiary).
B. OL PROVIDED KNOWLEDGE ON FORMALIZATION AND REDUCING MERCURY USE, 
CONTRIBUTED TO DIGNIFYING ARTISANAL MINING AND INCREASED BELIEF IN SUSTAINABLE 
MINING AND COORDINATION WITH MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES. 
HOWEVER, INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS CONTINUES TO AFFECT TRUST AND EFFECTIVENESS.
OL contributed to creating a positive perception that it is possible to carry out mining operations in an 
environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable way. It also facilitated linkages between MPUs and 
the mining and environmental authorities in the formalization process, although trust and perceptions of 
effectiveness are affected by the weak capacity of the relevant institutions. Section 5.1 explores the 
supporting evidence in full. This section indicates that OL contributed to reversing the skepticism of 
artisanal and small-scale miners, while acting as a bridge between small-scale miners and the authorities. 
Quantitative evidence indicates that 32 percent of respondents consider that one of the main advantages 
of mining formalization is access to best practices, while only two percent of respondents indicate that 
there is no advantage to formalization. These linkages do not always work smoothly, as while miners 
must comply with strict deadlines to carry out formalization, the authorities often do not themselves 
comply with these deadlines.
The Activity filled in knowledge gaps among the miners, providing support and tools for the 
formalization process and for reduction in mercury use. Beneficiaries noted that, before the legal 
prohibition on the use of mercury, OL began to share knowledge on what would need to be done to 
comply with this ban. One beneficiary from Antioquia said: 
“When the government banned mercury, many people here were left adrift, because the 
government just said: “this is over and that’s that” and sent in the police. In this case, Oro Legal 
filled this hole that was there (…)” (KII with beneficiary, Antioquia). 
The Activity offered tools and knowledge that the miners would not have otherwise obtained. Another 
beneficiary from Antioquia affirmed that OL “taught things that otherwise would have been inaccessible, 
because to get an environmental advisor costs money, all that costs money and Oro Legal gave us that advice.”
Environmental advise activities seem to have had an impact on mercury use. Quantitative evidence 
(section 5.4) indicates that a major motivation for 49 percent of beneficiaries surveyed to not use 
mercury was to protect water sources, and 42 percent did not use mercury to protect air quality. 
C. THERE IS A POSITIVE PERCEPTION OF RECOVERY OF NATIVE SPECIES, REGULATION OF 
TEMPERATURE (LOCAL MICROCLIMATE), AND THE AWARENESS RAISING AMONG 
COMMUNITIES THAT CREATES LOCAL OWNERSHIP IN THESE ZONES, WHILE OTHER RESULTS, 
SUCH AS REHABILITATION, HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS MORE LONG TERM. 
Beneficiaries had positive perceptions of the recovery of native species and changes in the landscape, and 
highly valued the rehabilitation interventions in degraded areas are highly valued. This finding is discussed 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 72
in section 5.3, which fully presents the evidence on increases in vegetation cover, and the decrease in 
degraded areas achieved by OL’s rehabilitation models in Antioquia and Chocó.
Beneficiaries expected that some effects of the rehabilitation intervention would be by their nature 
visible in the future and over the long term. Different actors involved in OL agreed that reforestation 
and restoration of degraded areas would take place over the long term, even if they have yielded 
positive results in the immediate term. In the words of one beneficiary from Antioquia: 
“Although the issue of reforestation and exploitation is long-term, you can see the economic issues 
there, which is in exploitation [of forest products] in the long-term and let's say the issue of 
beekeeping in the shorter term” (KII with beneficiary, Antioquia).
D. THE VALUE CHAIN ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTED TO IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH 
BEEKEEPING AND ANNATTO AND THROUGH TRAININGS ON HOW TO MANAGE WASTE 
GENERATED BY THE INTERVENTION.
Beneficiaries valued the beekeeping and annatto value chain activities for their environmental 
contributions. This is supported by the findings in section 5.2, which provides more extensive evidence 
on this point. The entirety of the qualitative and quantitative data indicates that OL has improved 
environmental conditions, averted land degradation, and discouraged illegal mining in the areas covered 
by the intervention. 
E. THE TRAINING HAD A POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON THE ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY 
FRIENDLY PRACTICES AND THE APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT OF WASTE GENERATED BY 
VALUE CHAIN ACTIVITIES. IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT BOTH VALUE CHAINS (ANNATTO 
AND BEEKEEPING) TAUGHT BENEFICIARIES HOW TO CORRECTLY MANAGE THESE WASTES. 
ONE BENEFICIARY WORKING IN THE AREAS OF ANNATTO AND REHABILITATION NOTED 
THAT “THE SHELL OF THE ANNATTO, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY TOLD US COULD BE USED AS FERTILIZER ON 
OUR PLANTS, SO WE DID THAT.” A BEEKEEPING BENEFICIARY TOLD INTERVIEWERS THAT 
INSTEAD OF THROWING THE BAGS CONTAINING BEE FOOD ON THE GROUND, “WE PUT 
THEM IN OUR POCKETS AND TAKE THEM HOME TO THROW IN THE TRASH THERE.” THE VALUE 
CHAINS REPRESENT ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES THAT GENERATE CONSIDERABLE 
ADDITIONAL INCOME THROUGH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND THE PROVISION OF INPUTS, 
AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR FORMAL EMPLOYMENT. 
Value chain activities represent an economic alternative for families, and the technical assistance and 
inputs provided have contributed to increasing incomes. This is supported by section 5.2, which shows 
in depth how beneficiaries consider value chains to be viable alternatives for income generation if they 
are able to consolidate the productive and commercial chains of which they are a part. This section also 
explains how the income garnered from the value chains complements household income and positively 
impacts beneficiaries’ quality of life. 
OL generated opportunities for formal employment. The beneficiary survey found that 38 percent of 
respondents are affiliated with health and pension systems, which is a proxy for formal employment. The 
highest percentages are found among beneficiaries of the mining formalization component (51 percent), 
annatto (49 percent), and beekeeping (39 percent). For those working on rehabilitation (20 percent), 
the Activity did not have an objective to generate formal work or to establish an alternative livelihood 
73 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
(Exhibit 27). This finding accords with the evidence presented in section 5.1, which shows that the good 
business practices imparted by OL enabled advances in labor rights and security. Interviewees also 
confirmed that they had found formal work with contracts that included benefits. 
Exhibit 27: Beneficiaries affiliated to health and pension systems (n formalization=128, n beekeeping=297, n annatto=381, n 
rehabilitation=377)
SOURCE: SURVEY OF BENEFICIARIES
F. OL IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE COMMUNITIES (RECOGNITION, COMMUNITY WORK, 
KNOWLEDGE, AND PURCHASING POWER) WHILE LEGALITY GENERATED MULTIPLE 
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS (SOCIAL AND JURIDICAL SECURITY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND DECREASED 
RISKS). 
The value chain activities improved quality of life by incentivizing collaborative work in the family and in 
communities, promising greater knowledge, employment, and incomes. Eighty-five percent of beekeeping 
beneficiaries and 51 percent of annatto beneficiaries considered that the support from OL had 
contributed to improving the quality of life of their families (Exhibit 28). This follows from section 5.2, 
which lays out the evidence that the value chains had a positive effect on beneficiaries’ quality of life, as 
represented by the generation of employment, greater purchasing power, and knowledge of technical 
terms and language.
Exhibit 28: Perception of OL support for quality of life (n annatto=346, n beekeeping=281
SOURCE: SURVEY OF BENEFICIARIES
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 74
The value chains generated recognition and self-recognition among local communities, propelling 
territorial development and offering a benchmark for other regions, groups, and associations. It is worth 
noting that the annatto component has pushed forward a regional agro-industrial chain that 
demonstrates the capacity of the residents of Chocó to steer their own territorial development. This 
component represents a project without precedent in the department. 
Legalization of mining operations generated a variety of benefits associated with security before the law, 
peace of mind, reduced personal risk, higher self-esteem, a sense of belonging, lower costs, increased 
sales, and the absence of worry about fines and law enforcement operations. In general, the Activity 
contributed to greater legality, which improved beneficiaries’ quality of life through benefits like access 
to social insurance in case of accidents and a sense of security from knowing that law enforcement 
authorities would not impede miners’ work. This is accompanied by an increase in recognition and self￾esteem, as it breaks with the common paradigm that miners have no intention of being legal. This point 
is deepened in section 5.1.
G. DESPITE PERCEPTIONS OF GREATER PEACEFULNESS IN THE TARGETED ZONES, THE SECURITY 
SITUATION IS STILL COMPLEX, AND THIS HAD AN IMPACT ON OL’S EFFECTIVENESS. 
Beneficiaries perceived a greater sense of security in areas where OL was active. One beneficiary 
explained that “this is the first time that the institutions have come to these regions, you can at least feel valued 
and that you exist, and this has implications for security in the area.” These shifts also contributed to a 
reduction in illicit activity in these areas, in favor of the establishment of alternative livelihoods. This 
point is further developed in section 5.2, which demonstrates how these alternatives (among other 
benefits) offer options for young peoples’ use of time, reducing vulnerability to recruitment by armed 
actors. 
Nevertheless, the security situation in the areas where OL operated continues to be complex and these 
complexities have negative implications for the effectiveness of the Activity. Threats from armed groups 
were detected, which constitute the chief obstacle or potential threat to the development of the 
beekeeping value chain, as discussed in section 5.2. 
H. THE ACTIVITY GENERATED WORK OPPORTUNITIES THAT IMPROVED THE QUALITY OF LIFE 
FOR WOMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES, DUE TO INCREASED INCOME, EMPOWERMENT, AND 
COMMUNITY TIES. FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, THERE ARE FEW WORK OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 
AREAS TARGETED BY OL, AND THIS IS COMPOUNDED BY LOW INTEREST IN ACTIVITIES 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTRYSIDE. 
OL generated work opportunities for women, improved their incomes, promoted their empowerment, 
and generated community linkages that improved their quality of life and that of their families. As shown 
in Figure 27, 37 percent of direct beneficiaries were women, participating mostly in the beekeeping (50 
percent), rehabilitation (44 percent), and annatto (29 percent) components. Section 5.2 explores 
women’s participation in depth, finding that it was significant in the first link of the value chain, 
generating positive effects for autonomy, recognition, and family connections. In the mining formalization 
component, while mining is a historically male-dominated activity, 14 percent of participants were 
women.
75 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Exhibit 29: Distribution of direct beneficiaries by sex (n formalization=128, n beekeeping=297, n annatto=381, n 
rehabilitation=377)
SOURCE: DIRECT BENEFICIARY DATABASE
Beneficiaries perceived that it was important to involve young people in the value chain activities to 
connect generations and to keep youth from getting involved in illicit activities. One beneficiary said, 
“involving young people depends on the parents or on producers, they should lead by example (…).” Section 5.2 
examines this point in greater detail, finding that the value chains offer young people an alternative way
to use their time, which can help keep them from being recruited by armed groups.
There are few opportunities in the labor market for young people, and sometimes they are not very 
interested in activities associated with the countryside. Actors interviewed indicated that there are few 
opportunities for young people to enter the labor market. In the words of one beekeeping beneficiary, 
“a threat in the countryside is that young people want to improve their lives, and the armed groups take 
advantage of that with false promises to lure them away (…).” This is also complicated when young people 
are not interested in rural activities and seek to migrate to the cities. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 76
F. RECOMMENDATIONS
The evaluation team developed 43 recommendations, which largely seek to suggest potential courses of 
action for future USAID Activities related with ASGM. These recommendations are organized as 
follows: eight are related to mining formalization and governance, eight are related to value chains and 
alternative livelihoods, eleven address the theme of rehabilitation in areas degraded by mining activities, 
seven are associated with the elimination or reduction of mercury in the ASGM supply chain, and six are 
related to the perceived relevance, impact, and effectiveness of the Activity. Each subsection presents 
the recommendation with related implementation measures and timeframe for carrying them out. 
6.1 INCENTIVES FOR ASGM MINERS TO CONTINUE BEING LEGAL/FORMAL AND IMPROVE 
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OPERATIONS AND (II) FACTORS 
(INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL) THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO OR HINDERED 
STRENGTHENING OF MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
RECOMMENDATION 1
CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE TO MINERS AND AUTHORITIES, IN ALL ACTIVITIES AND 
COMPONENTS OF ACTIVITIES LIKE OL, THAT ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND 
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE CAN ONLY BE IMPROVED THROUGH PROCESSES OF 
FORMALIZATION AND DIGNIFICATION OF ASGM.
Implementation measures: i) Incorporate measures to combat stigmatization of ASGM in all 
components for activities of this type; ii) Hire technical staff from the targeted areas to facilitate 
communication with miners, local communities, and the authorities; iii) Identify the most useful business 
practices for ASGM and develop trainings specifically for this sector; iv) Prepare documents, booklets, 
Point of Purchase displays, and dissemination tools emphasizing the benefits of formalization. The 
responsible parties are USAID, the implementing partner, and the MME. This is a short-term measure 
(up to two years).
RECOMMENDATION 2
MAINTAIN AND/OR REINFORCE THE ADAPTIVE APPROACH OF ACTIVITIES LIKE OL 
WORKING ON ASGM WITH REGULATORY CHANGES AND TURNOVER OF OFFICIALS IN 
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. 
Implementation measures: i) Pay constant attention to the issuance of regulations that affect 
(negatively or positively) the program’s work; ii) Design, through the implementing partner and in 
coordination and partnership with the relevant institutional actors, specific guidelines for dialogue and 
direct connection with government officials, including objectives, scope, key actors, and local 
commitments. The responsible parties are USAID and the implementing partner. This is a short-term 
measure (six months).
RECOMMENDATION 3
INCREASE USAID’S PARTICIPATION IN ESTABLISHING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
IMPLEMENTING PARTNER AND GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, IN ORDER TO LEND 
OFFICIAL STATUS TO THE IMPLEMENTER’S PROPOSALS AND REQUESTS.
77 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Implementation measures: i) Formalize meetings with the authorities by taking minutes that state 
what is presented, what has been agreed upon, commitments, and responsible parties. If possible, engage 
USAID or other credible actors in these institutional meetings; ii) Partner with research institutions to 
prepare analytical documents on the economic, social, and environmental impacts (and solutions) 
associated with current processes and the results of the formalization policy, and communicate these 
findings. The experience of OL and of BioREDD+ provide useful insights for improving these processes; 
iii) Design short courses, aimed at officials in the mining and environmental authorities, that present the 
recent experiences of USAID and other national and international organizations. The responsible parties 
are USAID and the implementing partner. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years).
RECOMMENDATION 4
STRENGTHEN THE TECHNICAL ENTRY CRITERIA AND THE MINIMUM STAGE THAT 
BENEFICIARIES MUST REACH WITHIN THE FORMALIZATION PROCESS TO GUARANTEE 
THAT THE BENEFICIARIES COMPLY WITH THE INTERVENTION CYCLE AND DEFINE 
WHAT HAPPENS FOR BENEFICIARIES WHO DO NOT REACH THE MINIMUM STAGE SET BY 
THE PROGRAM. 
Implementation measures: i) Define the minimum duration of OL-type activities to be the length of 
time required to obtain the mining title and the environmental license; ii) Establish a plan for closing 
activities that includes preparing beneficiaries to continue, guaranteeing their formal status, after work 
concludes. The responsible parties are USAID and the implementing partner. This is a short-term 
measure (six months).
RECOMMENDATION 5
ENSURE THAT THE DESIGN OF OL-TYPE PROGRAMS INCLUDES, FROM THE BEGINNING, 
ACTIONS TO CREATE NEW CHANNELS FOR THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF GOLD AND 
ASSOCIATED MINERALS AND TO ESTABLISH PARTNERSHIPS WITH ORGANIZATIONS 
THAT PROMOTE FAIR TRADE, ETHICAL MARKETS, AND PRICE DIFFERENTIALS THAT 
SUPPORT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. 
Implementation measures: i) Set as a specific objective for OL-type activities the opening of new 
channels of formalization through the identification of potential partners from the beginning of the 
activity, to involve them in the process, and sign formal entry agreements with the beneficiaries under 
the environmental or social requirements established by this counterpart. The responsible parties are 
USAID and the implementing partner. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 6
VERIFY THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF BIOREDD+ AND OL, TO DETERMINE THE MOST 
APPROPRIATE DURATION OF TIME FOR THESE PROGRAMS TO SATISFY THE 
EXPECTATIONS OF USAID. THIS INCLUDES COORDINATING ACTIVITIES WITH OTHER 
TRAINING PROVIDERS TO STREAMLINE, MAXIMIZE RESOURCES, AND REDUCE PRESSURE 
ON MINERS.
Implementation measures: i) Coordinate the timing of OL-type activities with those focused on 
support to small miners to achieve structural changes in terms of formalization and behavior; ii) Establish 
ongoing dialogue and partnerships with training organizations, such as SENA, academic institutions, 
NGOs, state contractors, governors’ offices, extractive businesses, and mining and environmental 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 78
authorities, with the goal of rationalizing and increasing the effectiveness of trainings for ASGM. The 
responsible parties are USAID and the implementing partner. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 7
MORE ACTIVELY USE THE POSITION OF USAID TO PROMOTE OBLIGATORY MINING 
FORMALIZATION AS AN OFFICIAL STATE POLICY, DRAWING ON THE EXPERIENCES OF 
OL. 
Implementation measures: i) Document and socialize more broadly USAID’s experiences with
activities like OL to promote mining formalization as a comprehensive state policy; ii) Examine the 
benefits and drawbacks of making formalization obligatory, in order to present a proposal to the 
government. The responsible parties are USAID, the implementing partner, and the MME. This is a 
medium-term recommendation (up to two years).
RECOMMENDATION 8
CONTINUE THE PRACTICE OF HIRING TECHNICAL PERSONNEL FROM THE TARGETED 
REGIONS.
Implementation measures: i) Identify (inventory) and draw on the pool of professionals in the areas 
that are included in the program. The responsible parties are USAID and the implementing partner. This 
is a medium-term recommendation (up to two years). 
6.2 VALUE CHAIN BENEFICIARIES’ PERCEPTION OF THE IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE 
LIVELIHOODS FOR THEIR PRESENT AND FUTURE WELL-BEING 
RECOMMENDATION 9
CONTINUE TO INCENTIVIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL VALUE CHAINS, 
SELECTED THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF VOCATIONS AND SUITABILITY 
ACROSS THE SELECTED TERRITORY, TO ADVANCE GRADUAL TRANSITIONS OF 
ACTIVITY ACROSS MINING AREAS.
Implementation measures: i) Incorporate into the Activity a comprehensive evaluation of suitability 
(environmental, agroecological, logistical, cultural, and with regard to land use planning) for each value 
chain to be promoted; ii) Work with local communities and regional government entities to select the 
value chains; iii) Conclude agreements among producers and government institutions to enable a gradual 
transition from mining into new activities according to the levels of development of the value chains in 
each area. The responsible parties are governors’ offices, mayoral offices, USAID, departmental and 
municipal secretaries of agriculture, autonomous regional corporations, the Rural Agriculture Planning 
Unit (UPRA), Agrosavia, and ICA. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 10
CONTINUE TO DEVELOP TECHNICAL CAPACITY IN THE TARGETED TERRITORIES AND 
TO DESIGN STRATEGIES THAT PROMOTE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE OVER TIME.
79 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Implementation measures: i) Involve technical and professional staff from the targeted areas in the 
provision of technical assistance, training them in agricultural extension approaches, and unifying the 
criteria for productive systems to transfer capacity to local producers; ii) Design technical assistance 
models in the territories to assure their financing from different sources: integration with PDEAs,79
support from the private sector or civil society, and self-financing through the agricultural business itself. 
The responsible parties are governors’ offices, mayoral offices, USAID, the implementing partner, 
departmental and municipal secretaries of agriculture, SENA, ADR, and technical and commercial 
partners. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 11
MANAGE SUPPORT FOR THE CONTINUITY OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM 
COLTAPICOLA AND THE TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS FROM THE COMMUNITY COUNCILS 
TO THE PRODUCERS THAT PARTICIPATED IN OL.
Implementation measures: i) Provide advising to COLTAPICOLA and the community councils in 
order to determine, with the producers and the organizations, financing options for provision of 
technical assistance, such as: direct financing with the business, working with PDEA, or securing support 
from a third party; ii) Manage the integration of the service provision model of COLTAPICOLA and the 
community councils for the beekeeping and annatto projects, including already-existing and new 
projects. The responsible parties are USAID, COLTAPICOLA, community councils, beekeeping 
associations, Campo Dulce, technical and commercial partners for the two value chains, departmental 
and municipal agriculture secretaries, and ADR. This is a short-term measure (less than six months).
RECOMMENDATION 12
FOCUS INTERVENTIONS TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL 
PRODUCTION CHAINS THAT ADD VALUE, CONNECT WITH MARKETS, AND ARE 
COMPETITIVE.
Implementation measures: i) Identify and define, in the design phase, the links of the value chain to 
be promoted by the project; this exercise should analyze its viability, including the capacity present in 
the territory, current connections with markets, current and potential demand, available resources, and 
the time required for execution; ii) Incorporate in the new interventions any previous processes of 
developing agrobusinesses- in the region, giving preference in the value chain to actors that add value in 
the targeted area; iii) Implement monitoring mechanisms that guarantee the chain approach in execution, 
reconciling the requirements, possibilities, and agreements of each link in the chains from primary 
production to commercialization. The responsible parties are USAID and the implementing partner. This 
is a medium-term measure (up to two years).
RECOMMENDATION 13
GUARANTEE THAT THE INCENTIVES FOR ESTABLISHMENTS WITH SMALL PRODUCERS, 
ESPECIALLY ON A LARGE SCALE, ARE SUPPORTED BY A COMMERCIAL CHAIN OF THE 
79 Departmental Agricultural Extensions Plans are supported in their planning, monitoring, and evaluation by the Rural 
Development Agency. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 80
VOLUMES TO BE PRODUCED AND THE DESIGN OF AN ASSOCIATIVE BUSINESS MODEL 
THAT ENSURES ITS VIABILITY.
Implementation measures: i) Identify in the planning phase the market or markets that will be linked 
to in order to identify the technical specifications, commercial conditions, and volumes of products that 
will be required, involving commercial partners from the beginning of execution; ii) Incorporate from the 
start of execution the design of a business model with a value chain approach that brings together 
possibilities, time required, costs and prices for primary production, processes for aggregating value, 
logistics, and pre-agreements for demand, and distribute resources across the different links of the chain 
as needed; iii) Include in planning processes the size of the productive establishments in line with the 
business model and, if necessary, define the phases of establishment according to the advances 
envisioned in production and commercialization. The responsible parties are USAID and the 
implementing partner. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 14
ENSURE THE CONTINUITY OF FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL, AND BUSINESS SUPPORT IN 
ORDER TO COMPLETE THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE ANNATTO VALUE CHAIN IN 
CHOCÓ. 
Implementation measures: i) Guarantee support for A&ACH to complete the process with Acumen 
and, if financing is not secured, support the enterprise in finding alternative mechanisms. The responsible 
parties are USAID and A&ACH. This is a short-term measure (less than six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 15
STRENGTHEN INCENTIVES FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN AND YOUNG PEOPLE 
IN AGRICULTURAL VALUE CHAINS AND FOR THE ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT OF FAMILIES 
AND THEIR WAY OF LIFE IN THE PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES. 
Implementation measures: i) Incorporate family and community participation into agricultural 
extension activities to encourage women’s leadership and the involvement of young people in the 
productive units; ii) Determine a strategy that guarantees the participation of women in decision making 
processes and in all the links of the value chain targeted by the project. The responsible parties are 
USAID and the implementing partner. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 16
STRENGTHEN STRATEGIES FOR CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP OF 
PROJECTS, FACILITATING THE EMPOWERMENT OF LOCAL AGRIBUSINESSES AND THE 
PARTICIPATION OF YOUTH LEADERSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY. 
Implementation measures: i) Identify and involve community organizations and representative 
leadership in activities from the beginning of execution and at different links of the value chains; ii) 
During execution, implement leadership training strategies aimed at young people from producer 
families so that they participate in the activities of adding value, innovation, and technology; iii) 
Implement training and support plans to strengthen the capacity of organizations and leaders to gradually 
take over the operation of the agrobusinesses- created in the execution of the projects. The responsible 
81 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
parties are USAID, the implementing partner, mayors’ offices, SENA, and chambers of commerce. This 
is a long-term measure (more than two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 17
CONTINUE TO PROMOTE VALUE CHAINS THAT INCORPORATE THE AGROECOLOGICAL 
SYSTEMS OF THE TARGETED AREAS.
Implementation measures: i) Incorporate into the activities design analysis and studies to identify 
the productive systems that are most viable and adaptable, with the lowest environmental impact; ii) 
Implement monitoring actions during activity execution to ensure that productive establishments and 
agribusinesses do not move the boundaries of cultivated and uncultivated land, use water rationally, and 
manage waste well; iii) Implement communications activities to reach out to producers and publicize the 
synergies between good environmental management and the productivity of the establishments. The 
responsible parties are USAID, mayors’ offices, the implementing partner, autonomous regional 
corporations, and UPRA. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years).
6.3 RELEVANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS (ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC) OF 
THE DIFFERENT MODELS FOR REHABILITATION OF DEGRADED LANDS IN ANTIOQUIA 
AND CHOCÓ
RECOMMENDATION 18
INCORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA INTO THE DESIGN OF ACTIVITIES LIKE OL, 
TO ALLOW TARGET AREAS TO BE SELECTED IN A WAY THAT IS ALIGNED WITH THE 
GOALS OF NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY AND THAT INCREASES THE IMPACT OF THE 
REHABILITATION ACTIVITY. 
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: i) Reinforce the targeting of areas using information available from 
the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM) and local entities, such as 
satellite images, information from the forest and carbon monitoring system, early warnings of 
deforestation, and identification of active nuclei of deforestation; ii) Construct a baseline for 
environmental liabilities by carrying out social mapping exercises; this offers a participatory methodology 
for research in the territory, and would contribute to raising awareness of environmental degradation. 
The responsible parties are USAID, MADS, IDEAM, regional autonomous corporations, IIAP, mayors’ 
offices, and local communities. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years).
RECOMMENDATION 19
INCLUDE SOIL ANALYSIS, MEASURING POLLUTION AND DEGRADATION, IN THE DESIGN 
OF ACTIVITIES LIKE OL.
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: i) Formulate a soil action plan to determine the state of soil 
pollution and degradation, and to promote its recovery through bioremediation actions that reduce the 
risks of contamination (e.g., mercury, cyanide, fuels, oils) and increase soil fertility. The responsible 
parties are USAID, governors’ offices, mayors’ offices, autonomous regional corporations, IIAP, and 
academic institutions. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 82
RECOMMENDATION 20
ACTIVITIES LIKE OL SHOULD WIDELY DISSEMINATE THEIR RESULTS AND THE EFFECTS 
OF REHABILITATION FOR QUALITY OF LIFE AND SOCIETY AT LARGE TO GENERATE 
COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP AND GREATER CARE OF THE REHABILITATED ZONES BY 
LOCAL POPULATIONS.
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: i) Implement monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for variables on 
health, food security, and other social benefits of rehabilitation; ii) Implement publicity campaigns on the 
impacts of rehabilitation for quality of life, with an emphasis on health and food security, and making use 
of testimonies and results from OL. The responsible parties are USAID, governors’ offices, mayors’ 
offices, autonomous regional corporations, and NGOs. This is a short-term (six months) and medium￾term (up to two years) measure. 
RECOMMENDATION 21
CONNECT REHABILITATION COMPONENTS OF ACTIVITIES LIKE OL WITH THE ETHNIC 
DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF THE COMMUNITY COUNCILS, TO STRENGTHEN 
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AMONG AFRO-COLOMBIAN COMMUNITIES.
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: i) Coordinate with the community councils to connect rehabilitation 
with the chapter on environmental sustainability in the ethnic development plan; ii) Transfer knowledge 
to the community councils about conservation incentives with the goal of encouraging commitment to 
rehabilitation actions. The responsible parties are USAID and the community councils in targeted areas. 
This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 22
CONNECT REHABILITATION COMPONENTS OF ACTIVITIES LIKE OL WITH LOCAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTS AND LEADERS TO WORK JOINTLY WITH THEM AND 
ENCOURAGE THEIR WORK IN THESE AREAS. 
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: i) Create a mapping of social movements, environmental 
movements, and environmental leaders as part of the design process for rehabilitation activities; ii) 
Undertake new rehabilitation activities with local movements and leaders and publicize these activities 
through communications work by the Activity and USAID. The responsible parties are USAID, NGOs, 
regional autonomous corporations, and SENA. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 23
PROMOTE PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND/OR THE SUSTAINABLE 
EXPLOITATION OF ACACIA WOOD.
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: i) Sign conservation agreements; and ii) Develop a strategy for the 
sustainable exploitation of Acacia wood, with this measure connecting to the recommendation on 
ecological succession. The responsible parties are USAID, MADS, MADR, autonomous regional 
corporations, IIAP, and the business community. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years). 
83 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
RECOMMENDATION 24
IN PROGRAMS LIKE OL, MANAGE ACACIA MANGIUM PLANTING IN A WAY THAT MOVES 
TOWARD ECOLOGICAL SUCCESSION, MAKING USE OF ENDEMIC SPECIES THAT 
CONTRIBUTE TO REHABILITATION OF THE SOIL (APPLIES TO ANTIOQUIA).
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: i) Design and implement a progressive substitution plan that 
encourages sustainable exploitation of forest resources, including through the identification of native 
species that allow for the replacement of Acacia mangium, establishing a reference ecosystem for the 
component, including synergies with value chain activities (e.g., beekeeping), upkeep of nurseries, and the 
planting of endemic species. The responsible parties are NGOs, regional autonomous corporations, 
IIAP, mayors’ offices, and USAID. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 25
IN ACTIVITIES LIKE OL, WHICH INCLUDE PASSIVE REHABILITATION COMPONENTS, 
ESTABLISH ALLIANCES WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND GRASSROOTS COMMUNITIES 
TO INCREASE LOCAL OWNERSHIP AND ENSURE THE RESULTS OF REHABILITATION 
(APPLIES TO CHOCÓ). 
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: i) Design and implement a control strategy for areas under passive 
rehabilitation, identifying factors that could limit primary growth; ii) Bring together work with 
community councils and local government institutions, such as mayors’ offices, CAR, and IIAP) to 
strengthen local ownership; iii) Manage resources in order to finance working capital and incentives for 
community members to take charge of the care and maintenance of the zones of passive rehabilitation, 
especially when these are far from where community members live and work, implying extra effort to 
take care of them; iv) Involve local entities (mayors’ offices, CAR, and IIAP) in the selection of planting 
sites and encourage counterparts to commit inputs, whether funding, technical assistance, or land. The 
responsible parties are USAID, NGOs, autonomous regional corporations, IIAP, mayors’ offices, and 
local communities. This is a short-term (six months) and medium-term measure (up to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 26
DOCUMENT THE COSTS OF REHABILITATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PLANNING OF 
SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITIES WITH A SIMILAR SCOPE.
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: i) Prepare a detailed costing for rehabilitation components, with 
differentiation by type of territory being managed (Type I, II, and III as defined in the implementation of 
OL) and by type of rehabilitation (whether active or passive), based on information from the 
implementer and local operators. Activities should also facilitate access to that information by the 
responsible institutions. Responsible parties are USAID, the implementing partner (regional 
coordinators), and local staff. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 27
ACTIVITIES THAT INCLUDE PASSIVE REHABILITATION WITHIN COLLECTIVE 
TERRITORIES SHOULD INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TERRITORIAL CONTROL 
STRATEGY, IN CONCERT WITH COMMUNITY COUNCILS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 
MAINTENANCE OF THE MANAGED AREAS.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 84
Implementation measures: i) Advance conflict resolution trainings in order to strengthen the role of 
community councils, respecting the traditional customs of the community; ii) Support the community 
councils in activities that encourage their ethnic-cultural identity and promote management and 
conservation of natural resources; iii) Connect the actions of the Activity with the national round table 
on restoration in order to develop the work of the institutions in the territory; iv) Improve linkages 
with local institutions so that they can exercise control and prevent the entry of activities that cause 
environmental damage in areas where the Activity is working. The responsible parties are USAID, 
community councils, educational institutions, and NGOs. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 28 
SUPPORT THE ALIGNMENT OF PLANTATIONS ON PRIVATE LANDS TO EXERCISE BETTER 
CONTROL OF THE PLANTED AREAS AND NOT ALLOW THE ACTIONS PROMOTED BY 
ACTIVITIES SUCH AS OL TO BE LOST THROUGH DEGRADATION AS NEW PRESSURE 
FACTORS ENTER THE ECOSYSTEM.
Implementation measures: i) Review alignment of the properties that are managed, together with 
the community councils (continuity of social cartography); ii) Support the communities and property 
owners in aligning their approaches. It could be possible to promote the use of living fences. The 
responsible parties include autonomous regional corporations, NGOs, IGAC, and USAID. This is a 
medium-term measure (up to two years).
RECOMMENDATION 29
IMPLEMENT PLANS TO CONNECT MAYORS’ OFFICES, AUTONOMOUS REGIONAL 
CORPORATIONS, AND IIAP TO ENSURE CONTINUITY OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT 
BY THESE INSTITUTIONS (E.G., KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER). 
Implementation measures: i) Conclude agreements with local institutions and the community 
councils to support the maintenance of nurseries; ii) Incorporate donations of seedlings from local 
institutions; iii) Advance entrepreneurial agricultural activities with local populations to sustainably 
exploit the wood and non-wood products of rehabilitated areas. Beneficiaries should also receive 
training on how to make use of these resources (with the environmental and agricultural authorities) 
and on how to prepare carbon credit projects; iv) Incorporate studies to determine the viability of 
applying to the GOC’s incentive program for planting and to design a financing strategy for verification 
of greenhouse gas reduction. These exercises would allow the program to set expectations within the 
community, based on the viability of specific courses of action; v) Establish partnerships with 
businesspeople who are applying for carbon tax exemptions. The responsible parties are USAID, MADS, 
MADR, autonomous regional corporations, IIAP, and the business community. This is a medium-term 
measure (up to two years). 
6.4 THE MOST EFFECTIVE COMBINATION OF INSTRUMENTS AND APPROACHES TO 
REDUCE THE USE OF MERCURY IN ASGM
RECOMMENDATION 30
CONTINUE TO DELIVER TRAINING TO MINERS ON ISSUES RELATED TO THE 
PROHIBITION ON MERCURY.
85 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Implementation measures: i) Consult with local communities on the most appropriate methods of 
communication to generate impact with miners; ii) Train personnel in the targeted areas to replicate the 
trainings for ASGM miners; iii) Coordinate with municipal mining secretariats to prepare a training 
program on mining and environmental regulations. The responsible parties are USAID, NGOs, local 
mining organizations, and mayors’ offices. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 31
INCLUDE IN THE DESIGN OF ACTIVITIES LIKE OL A COMPONENT SUPPORTING 
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES TO ADVANCE GEOLOGICAL STUDIES TO LOOK FOR MINERAL 
DEPOSITS.
Implementation measures: i) Carry out geological investigations of mineral deposits to assist ASGM 
beneficiaries in preparing their PTOs. The responsible parties are USAID and the Colombian Geological 
Service. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 32
CARRY OUT A TECHNOLOGICAL RECONVERSION PROGRAM FOR ASGM MINERS WHO 
HAVE RECEIVED TRAINING AND KNOW HOW TO MAKE USE OF THE NEW PRACTICES.
Implementation measures: i) Develop financing strategies for reconversion of technology for small 
miners; ii) Promote support for reconversion for small miners among businesses and NGOs; iii) Carry 
out geological investigations to search for mineral deposits, supporting ASGM beneficiaries in preparing 
their PTOs. The responsible parties are USAID, MME, mayors’ offices, mining businesses, and NGOs. 
This is a medium-term measure (up to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 33
INCREASE MONITORING OF MERCURY USE IN THE TARGETED AREAS. 
Implementation measures: i) Formulate a strategy for financing visits by mining and environmental 
authorities to carry out the corresponding controls and monitoring; ii) In activities like OL, support 
implementation of the sectoral environmental action plan, increasing air and water quality studies. The 
responsible parties are local organizations, mayors’ offices, autonomous regional corporations, and 
governors’ offices. This is a short-term (six months) and medium-term measure (up to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 34
CARRY OUT CAMPAIGNS TO RAISE AWARENESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE USE 
OF MERCURY AND EXPAND THESE TO ENCOMPASS OTHER MINING-RELATED 
CONTAMINANTS, SUCH AS CYANIDE. 
Implementation measures: i) Broaden the information included in awareness-raising campaigns on 
the contaminants used in gold processing, drawing on research carried out in academic institutions; ii) 
Work with relevant NGOs to develop diverse types of advertisements to make clear the impacts of 
contaminants in mining activities. The responsible parties are USAID, academic institutions, and NGOs. 
This is a short-term (six months) and medium-term measure (up to two years). 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 86
RECOMMENDATION 35
WORK WITH LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES TO DEVELOP 
A STRATEGY TO COMMERCIALIZE AND MARKET MERCURY-FREE GOLD. 
Implementation measures: i) Activities like OL should include a strategy to sell gold to international 
buyers, specialized jewelry companies, and ethical buyers. The responsible parties are USAID, MME, 
MADS, MCIT, and governors’ offices. This is a short-term (six months) and medium-term measure (up 
to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 36
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE FORMALIZATION SUBCONTRACTS AND MONITOR THEIR 
CONDITIONS TO PROMOTE A FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF THE BENEFITS OF GOLD MINING 
ACTIVITY. 
Implementation measures: i) Support current OL beneficiaries to advance in signing subcontracts 
with large mining companies; ii) Develop interest on the part of large mining enterprises to work with 
small miners; iii) Work with the mining authorities to develop incentives for mining enterprises to 
contribute to processes of mercury-free gold processing in ASGM; iv) include a strategy to sell gold to 
international buyers, specialized jewelry companies, and ethical buyers. The responsible parties are 
USAID, mining enterprises, and MME. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
6.5 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ACTORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF OL’S RELEVANCE AND 
EFFECTIVENESS
RECOMMENDATION 37
IMPROVE PROCESSES OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND DEEPEN DESCRIPTIONS OF 
BENEFICIARIES’ CONDITIONS TO IMPROVE MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT OF 
INTERVENTIONS’ EFFECTIVENESS. 
Implementation measures: i) Define protocols and standards for traceability and management of 
information, including structuring databases; ii) Define the variables and instruments that characterize 
different aspects of the intervention, including incomes; iii) Apply instruments that can characterize the 
beginning, middle, and end of the intervention (baseline, mid-line, and final). The responsible parties are 
USAID and the implementing partner. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 38
STRENGTHEN COORDINATION AMONG USAID, THE IMPLEMENTING PARTNER, THE 
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES FOR BETTER PLANNING, 
COMPLEMENTARITY OF WORK, FOLLOW-UP, AND SUSTAINABILITY OF INTERVENTIONS.
Implementation measures: In any possible continuation of OL, i) Establish a coordinating body with 
the participation of USAID, the implementing partner, MME, ANM, MADS, MADR, and local 
government entities to define a framework for the interventions, establish lines of complementarity and 
concurrency, define a support plan and carry out monitoring activities with periodic reports (including 
results indicators); ii) implement knowledge transfer sessions between the implementing partner and 
87 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
government officials with the aim of improving knowledge of realities in the targeted areas and 
discussing opportunities to improve the procedures or support defined by the authorities. The 
responsible parties are USAID, the implementing partner, and national and local government entities. 
This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 39
STRENGTHEN TRAINING COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE IMPROVED 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE ACTIVITY. 
Implementation measures: i) Broaden the scope of training in best environmental practices for 
activities like OL (waste management, recycling, careful use of water, alternative energy, multimodal 
transport, etc.); ii) Strengthen partnerships with local and departmental institutions (regional 
autonomous corporations, mayors’ offices, NGOs, and private groups) and seek to coordinate 
investments. The responsible parties are USAID, the implementing partner, and national and local 
government entities. This is a medium-term measure (up to two years). 
RECOMMENDATION 40
CONTINUE AND INCREASE THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON THE BENEFITS 
AND CHANGES IN QUALITY OF LIFE ASSOCIATED WITH LEGAL MINING AND THE VALUE 
CHAIN INITIATIVES. 
Implementation measures: i) Design and implement strategies and instruments for the dissemination 
of benefits through community associations and community councils (using visual and didactic materials 
and participatory meetings); ii) Strengthen pedagogical activities and activities that explain the benefits of 
OL-type interventions, drawing on testimonies and the experience of participants; iii) Develop strategies 
for sharing information on benefits and incentives targeted for partners in the interventions. The 
responsible parties are USAID and the implementing partner. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 41
ENSURE CONTINUITY IN THE HIRING OF TECHNICAL PERSONNEL FROM THE TARGETED 
AREAS TO MITIGATE SECURITY ISSUES. MOREOVER, INCLUDE IN THE TRAINING AND IN 
THE SPACES OF THE INTERVENTION DISCUSSIONS OF PROTOCOLS FOR SELF-CARE FOR 
VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES.
Implementation measures: i) Hire local people to facilitate access to the targeted areas and instill 
greater trust to the beneficiaries; ii) Identify the protocols, manuals, and booklets defined by the 
National Protection Unit (e.g., the Manual for Self-Security and Self-Protection); iii) Identify relevant 
socio-emotional tools, designed by different entities and NGOs, that local people who are promoting 
reconciliation can use to develop leadership abilities and promote peace; iv) Disseminate this material 
through the program to the relevant beneficiaries. The responsible parties are USAID and the 
implementing partner. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 42
BROADEN THE GENDER FOCUS TO INCREASE THE PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN, WHICH 
SHOWED GOOD RESULTS IN OL. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 88
Implementation measures: i) Include a minimum percentage of women participants in the selection 
criteria for beneficiaries; ii) Continue initiatives that strengthen women’s empowerment and disseminate 
information on the benefits of women’s participation in the Activity; iii) Create spaces where women 
beneficiaries can share and exchange experiences; iv) In discussions with partners, emphasize the 
importance and benefits of participating in initiatives that also include women’s participation. The 
responsible parties are USAID and the implementing partner. This is a short-term measure (six months). 
RECOMMENDATION 43
REFLECT ON THE DEFINITION OF GENERATIONAL RENEWAL STRATEGIES IN VALUE 
CHAIN INTERVENTIONS TO INCREASE YOUNG PEOPLE’S DESIRE TO STAY IN TARGETED 
AREAS, PREVENT THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN ILLICIT ACTIVITIES, AND CONTRIBUTE TO 
THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE ACTIVITY.
Implementation measures: i) Define a strategy to raise awareness of the importance and benefits of 
generational renewal in the value chains; ii) Include in the value chain initiatives a component for 
knowledge transfer from adults to young people in the community (e.g., from fathers to sons); iii) 
Create partnerships with education secretariats and educational institutions through social service 
programs to promote training and participation of young people in the value chains. The responsible 
parties are USAID, the implementing partner, local governments, and educational institutions. This is a 
medium-term measure (up to two years).
89 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
ANNEX 1: METHDOLOGICAL DESIGN APPLIED TO ANSWER THE 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
In this section, we briefly present how we approached the development of the methodological design to 
answer the six evaluation questions. In the first part, we summarize the process for the consolidation of 
the design that we implemented. In the second, we point out the different topics (sub-questions) we 
analyzed and triangulated the information. Finally, we present the connection between the findings we 
produced and the subjects (sub-questions) to broadly answer the six evaluation questions.
PROCESS FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EVALUATION DESIGN
We took the six evaluation questions established in the SoW and their respective context paragraphs 
and guidelines as a starting point to carry out the evaluation. To consolidate the first deliverable of the 
evaluation process – evaluation design and work plan -, we concentrated on understanding the questions 
considering the operational and conceptual elements of Oro Legal (OL). We made a first documentary 
review focused on section C of the contract, annual reports (2016-2019), and annual work plans (2015-
2019). This first documentary review allowed us to identify the main lines of work, the type of initiatives 
and strategies used by Oro Legal to reach the territories, and how Oro Legal linked with their
beneficiaries.
Because of this first documentary review, a series of questions of a conceptual and operational nature 
arose about elements that were not explicit within the revised documentation and that it was necessary 
to clarify to design the methodological approach. To answer these questions of a conceptual and 
operational nature, we asked MEL Activity, USAID, and Oro Legal the need to have thematic meetings 
with the Activity's management team and their regional leaders to respond to the concerns that arose. 
Given that this evaluation planning moment coincided with the last months of OL's operation, 
characterized by many administrative tasks for the implementing partner, we received the proposal to 
hold a single workshop with the entire implementing partner's team. This workshop had parallel 
thematic sections led by the evaluation team. We sought to collect information that would allow us to 
clear up operational and conceptual doubts and approximate the six evaluation questions from a 
perspective consistent with what had been the conceptualization and implementation of the Activity. 
With the different inputs of the preliminary documentary review, as well as the material derived from 
the workshop with the implementing partner, we built the design matrix80 that identified for each 
evaluation question: (1) the main performance indicators, (2) the key actors at the national, 
departmental and municipal levels, (3) the existing information sources (documentary, monitoring and 
administrative data of public access) and other primary sources that we explored in the framework of 
this evaluation. (4) For the latter, we built qualitative collection instruments (interview guides) and 
quantitative ones (survey). In a follow-up meeting, USAID requested us, based on the learning from the 
mid-term evaluation of Oro Legal, to survey only direct beneficiaries of the Activity (individuals 
identified as such by the official databases provided by OL) and avoid collecting information with indirect 
beneficiaries. In line with this strategy, all data collection instruments (see Annex VI) had an initial pre￾completion (survey) section (or knowledge and relationship with the Activity (interviews)) to ensure 
that the interviewee/respondent knew the Activity and, therefore, could provide accurate information 
80 The design matrix in Annex V contains the details of the elements referenced here.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 90
about their conceptualization of OL's implementation. On the other hand, the instruments included 
specific sections to each component of OL covered by the evaluation questions. In addition, we designed 
the interview guides and the survey to guarantee that the responses of both approaches could be spun 
in the most straightforward way to facilitate triangulation and the production of robust evidence around 
the findings. (5) Finally, we included some proposals for an analytical approach to the information 
collected by each type of source, drafted in a generic way to allow for emerging data with the 
expectation of the quality and richness of the information that would become evident after its collection.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS, TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
To build a set of valuable findings, conclusions, and recommendations for USAID and the Implementing 
Partner, during the design phase, we identified within each of the six evaluation questions and their 
respective context and guidelines paragraphs, a series of topics (sub-questions) around which we 
organized the analysis and triangulation of information. To answer each of the six evaluation questions, 
we focused on providing findings conceived around each topic (sub-question) and thus covered the 
general question's breadth. The topics (sub-questions) that we identified around each of the six
evaluation questions are detailed below:
Mining Formalization:
G. Formalization standards
H. Access to legal markets
I. Incentives to remain legal
J. Incentives to improve the environmental performance of mining operations
K. Behavior change
L. Factors preventing the uptake of formalization
Mining Governance and Policy: 
G. Factors contributing to the strengthening of Colombian mining and environmental governance
H. Factors hindering the strengthening of Colombian mining and environmental governance
Value Chain Development and Alternative Livelihoods
H. Perception of impact in economic outcomes (financial and non-financial)
I. Perception of impact in non-economic factors (environment, recognition, security, and pressure 
from illegal armed groups)
Rehabilitation of Areas Degraded by Illegal Mining:
H. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the differentiated departmental approach
I. Cost-effectiveness
J. Progress made
K. Local commitment to maintenance and monitoring
Elimination/Reduction of Mercury from the ASGM Supply Chain:
I. How was it done, and what were the motivations
J. Impact of instruments combinations
91 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
K. External factors contributing
L. External factors hindering
Perceived Relevance and Impact of the Activity:
B. Main perceptions from different stakeholders
Rehabilitation of Areas Degraded by Illegal Mining:
F. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the differentiated departmental approach
G. Cost-effectiveness
H. Progress made
I. Local commitment to maintenance and monitoring
Elimination/Reduction of Mercury from the ASGM Supply Chain:
I. How was it done, and what were the motivations
J. Impact of instruments combinations
K. External factors contributing
L. External factors hindering
Perceived Relevance and Impact of the Activity:
D. Main perceptions from different stakeholders
E. The findings included in the final report are related to at least one of the topics (Sub-questions), 
covering all the question's edges to provide answers that cover the evaluation questions' breadth 
and complexity. The tables below present the connection between the findings and different topics 
(Sub-questions)81: 
81 Since question six focuses on the perceptions of the different stakeholders, the answer takes elements developed in the five 
previous questions.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 92
TABLE 6: MINING FORMALIZATION TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 A. FORMALIZATION 
STANDARDS 
B. ACCESS 
TO LEGAL 
MARKETS
C. INCENTIVES 
TO REMAIN 
LEGAL 
D. INCENTIVES TO 
IMPROVE THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL 
PERFORMANCE OF 
MINING 
OPERATIONS
E. BEHAVIOR 
CHANGE
F. FACTORS 
PREVENTING THE 
UPTAKE OF 
FORMALIZATION
Since 2014 the Ministry of Mines and Energy 
(MME) has promoted a shift in mindset about 
legalization/formalization of mining 
operations, aiming to modernize the ASGM 
sector
X 
In line with this vision of mining formalization, 
OL contacted more than 640 MPUs; of these, 
it provided support to 334 and formalized 
146 (53 in Antioquia and 93 in Chocó)
X X X X 
OL helped to strengthen miners' desire to 
remain legal/formal and maintain 
environmental performance through 
dignifying ASGM
 X X 
OL showed beneficiaries the benefits of 
formalization while helping them to overcome 
the multiple disincentives to formalization
X X 
The good business practices promoted by OL 
enabled advances in workers' rights and more 
ethical practices. 
 X 
Beneficiaries that obtained their mining title 
and their environmental license improved 
their earnings
 X X X 
OL's logistical and management support 
helped push forward the approach of working 
with groups of miners around formalization 
subcontracts and special reserve areas (ARE). 
X X 
93 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 6: MINING FORMALIZATION TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 A. FORMALIZATION 
STANDARDS 
B. ACCESS 
TO LEGAL 
MARKETS
C. INCENTIVES 
TO REMAIN 
LEGAL 
D. INCENTIVES TO 
IMPROVE THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL 
PERFORMANCE OF 
MINING 
OPERATIONS
E. BEHAVIOR 
CHANGE
F. FACTORS 
PREVENTING THE 
UPTAKE OF 
FORMALIZATION
Contracting local residents of the zone in 
which an intervention was carried out 
facilitated relationship-building and knowledge 
transfer between OL and mining 
communities, and contributed to 
disseminating knowledge of regulations and 
functions of the institutions in the territory
 X 
The greatest recognition of OL's impact 
comes from miners. 
X 
Nevertheless, in some cases the obligations 
imposed by the formalization subcontracts 
could seem to be an obstacle for the 
formalization process
 X 
Beneficiaries benefitted from the institutional 
relationships constructed by OL
 X 
The main incentive for miners to formalize 
their operations, and to continue to operate 
in a formal manner, was to obtain their title 
and their environmental license
X X X 
OL support to miners to obtain the mining 
title and environmental license is evident, but 
regulatory and procedural complexity 
reduces the likelihood of comprehensive 
formalization 
 X X 
While miners are obliged to meet strict 
deadlines, the authorities fail to comply with 
the requirements established by law
 X 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 94
TABLE 6: MINING FORMALIZATION TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 A. FORMALIZATION 
STANDARDS 
B. ACCESS 
TO LEGAL 
MARKETS
C. INCENTIVES 
TO REMAIN 
LEGAL 
D. INCENTIVES TO 
IMPROVE THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL 
PERFORMANCE OF 
MINING 
OPERATIONS
E. BEHAVIOR 
CHANGE
F. FACTORS 
PREVENTING THE 
UPTAKE OF 
FORMALIZATION
The costs immediately demanded to meet the 
technical standards for formalization work 
against the formalization process
X X 
The evaluation did not find sufficient evidence 
on the effectiveness of memoranda of 
understanding (MOUs) to gauge their 
contribution to the program objectives
X 
Knowledge transfer was made more difficult 
by the level of education of the miners. 
 X X 
In addition to these problems, government 
officials tended to have an image of miners 
and of ASGM that was not based in reality
 X 
The MPUs and local actors are unaware of, or 
have outdated information about, mining 
regulations 
X X 
Officials are unaware of or misinterpret 
regulations, to the disadvantage of the small 
miners, while authorities are unaware of the 
reality and particularities of ASGM
 X 
Areas that are protected by law, including 
forest reserve areas covered by Law 2 of 
1959, are subject to restrictions on 
formalization, and it is highly unlikely for 
miners to obtain an exemption from these 
protections
X X 
A greater emphasis by OL on gold 
commercialization could have improved the 
prospects for beneficiaries continuing to be 
formal/legal 
 X 
95 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 6: MINING FORMALIZATION TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 A. FORMALIZATION 
STANDARDS 
B. ACCESS 
TO LEGAL 
MARKETS
C. INCENTIVES 
TO REMAIN 
LEGAL 
D. INCENTIVES TO 
IMPROVE THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL 
PERFORMANCE OF 
MINING 
OPERATIONS
E. BEHAVIOR 
CHANGE
F. FACTORS 
PREVENTING THE 
UPTAKE OF 
FORMALIZATION
Licit incomes only improve, however, once 
miners have their mining title and 
environmental license; without these 
instruments, sales are not legal
 X X X X 
For miners to continue to seek formalization, 
they will have to see that economic benefits 
materialize
 X 
The trainings offered by OL improved 
compliance with environmental regulations 
and the systematic management of 
environmental impacts
 X X 
OL contributed to notable improvements in 
environmental performance through the 
impact studies required for the environmental 
license
 X 
The formalization promoted by a program 
like OL still faces disadvantages in competing 
with illegality
 X 
The future of OL's beneficiaries is highly 
uncertain, as they did not foresee the 
conditions under which the Activity closed
 X 
Short-lived projects create skepticism and 
instability in miners
 X 
The structural modification of traditional gold 
exploitation requires longer-term support
 X 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 96
TABLE 7: MINING GOVERNANCE AND POLICY: TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 A. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE 
STRENGTHENING OF COLOMBIAN MINING 
AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
B. FACTORS HINDERING THE 
STRENGTHENING OF COLOMBIAN MINING 
AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
OL provided support on regulatory and governance issues in the mining 
sector
X 
OL's work to link miners, local communities, and mining and environmental 
authorities is one of its main contributions to mining governance
X 
OL served as an effective bridge between small-scale miners and authorities X 
OL constructed synergistic relationships with beneficiaries and with 
authorities in the mining and environmental sectors
X 
Beneficiaries benefitted from the institutional relationships constructed by OL X 
Program beneficiaries valued greatly the recognition as legitimate actors in the 
mining industry that they received through OL
X 
Without the commitment of all the authorities involved, mining informality 
will continue to prevail
 X 
The more structural weaknesses identified in the formalization process were 
not formally presented to government authorities
 X 
Mining formalization is a ministerial initiative, not a national policy, and it does 
not have the force of law
 X 
Mining formalization is optional since a beneficiary can withdraw at any time X 
Officials are unaware of or misinterpret regulations, to the disadvantage of 
the small miners, while authorities are unaware of the reality and 
particularities of ASGM
 X 
Lack of coordination between training entities was evident, which generated 
redundancies in services and training contents
 X 
We found low coordination between the entities related to formalization X 
97 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 8: VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT AND ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS: TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 A. PERCEPTION OF IMPACT IN 
ECONOMIC OUTCOMES 
(FINANCIAL AND NON- FINANCIAL)
B. PERCEPTION OF IMPACT IN NON- ECONOMIC FACTORS (ENVIRONMENT, 
RECOGNITION, SECURITY, AND PRESSURE 
FROM ILLEGAL ARMED GROUPS)
OL promoted the expansion and strengthening of productive bases for 
beekeeping in the Bajo Cauca region of Antioquia. 
X 
OL helped develop the value chain for annatto in Chocó X 
Beneficiaries' perceptions of the two value chains differed based on two 
associated factors: the incomes that they gained, and the prospects for 
commercialization of their products
X 
Income from beekeeping and annatto complemented household incomes, and if 
consolidated as value chains, would become more attractive and viable for 
beneficiaries
X 
OL strengthened the capacities of the beneficiaries, increased their productive 
potential, and improved yields and quality thanks to the investments and 
technical support provided by the Activity
X 
OL established broad productive bases of beekeeping and annatto that could be 
the foundation for the consolidation of productive conglomerates in the 
targeted areas
X 
OL developed local technical skills and capacity. However, the proposed scheme 
does not ensure the continuity of technical assistance to producers
X 
Beekeepers recognized the improvement in their incomes thanks to the increase 
in their productive capacity and saw prospects for future growth in this area
X 
In beekeeping, the consolidation of an agro-chain within the territory was not 
promoted, nor was a unified strategy with a socio-business approach to support 
it. 
X 
The opportunity to form a regional commercial alliance as a regional link in the 
value chain did not arise, and because this was included only at the end of the 
Activity this chain was not consolidated
X 
Starting with a traditional crop, OL identified a variety of annatto suitable for an 
improved production system in Chocó
X 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 98
OL established the foundations of an agro-industrial value chain for annatto in 
Chocó. However, some critical issues remain to be resolved, which could pose 
serious risks for the sustainability of this achievement
X 
Producers of annatto felt dissatisfied with the incomes they received, and 
disappointed that the initial promise of a guaranteed market for their products 
was not kept
X 
For beneficiaries involved in beekeeping, the fact that the associations and the 
regional commercial partner do not pay cash on delivery for the honey is an 
issue, and leads to beneficiaries selling a portion of their production to 
intermediaries and opportunistic traders
X 
The absence of comprehensive business models capable of accounting for the 
impacts of investments led to overproduction of annatto and a shortage of 
capital in the beekeeping component
X 
OL had positive effects for beneficiaries' quality of life in both the beekeeping 
and the annatto components
 X 
Female participation was significant in the first productive step of both value 
chains, which generated positive effects for their autonomy, recognition, and 
belonging in the family and community
 X 
The annatto component as a regional agro-industrial chain is generating 
recognition and self-recognition of the ability of the inhabitants of Chocó to 
propel their own territorial development
 X 
Although the security situation continues to threaten value chain beneficiaries, 
having viable alternatives for income generation strengthens the household 
resilience by reducing economic vulnerability, strengthening social networks at 
the family and community level
X X 
The alternative activities were perceived as offering a way for people to spend 
their time that helped reduce the risk of recruitment by armed actors, especially 
for young people
 X 
Beneficiaries and other actors perceived the presence of armed groups as the 
most significant threat to the further development of value chains
 X 
OL has improved environmental quality through the value chain approach and 
avoided greater environmental degradation, reducing illegal extraction in the 
areas targeted by the intervention
 X 
Interdependence between beekeeping and the rehabilitation model using Acacia 
Mangium strengthened the sustainability of both components
X X 
99 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 9: REHABILITATION OF AREAS DEGRADED BY ILLEGAL MINING: TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 
A. APPROPRIATENESS AND 
EFFECTIVENESS OF 
DIFFERENTIATED 
DEPARTMENTAL APPROACH
B. COST 
EFFECTIVENESS
C. PROGRESS 
MADE
D. LOCAL 
COMMITMENT TO 
MAINTENANCE 
AND MONITORING
The areas in which OL was active are areas of considerable environmental 
importance, meaning that rehabilitation efforts in these areas contributed to 
achieving important national and international environmental goals
X 
The Chocó bioregion is considered a biodiversity hotspot because of its high 
number of endemic species and the presence of pristine forest. X 
Bajo Cauca, Antioquia, is 80 percent covered by tropical humid forest and 
premontane forest ecosystems, and the zone is rich in surface and 
underground water
X 
The areas where OL worked are zones of high importance from an 
environmental standpoint X 
As a result of mining extraction activities, the two departments have been 
affected by biodiversity loss, to the detriment of resources such as soil and 
water. 
X 
The areas of work by OL overlapped with areas of medium to high 
vulnerability X 
Orphan mining environmental liabilities are systems with anthropogenic 
disturbances where the production of ecosystem services is compromised X 
As a consequence, in Chocó, there are severe environmental impacts; 
different species are threatened and extreme weather events have had 
impacts on public infrastructure and housing
X 
In Antioquia, OL beneficiaries recognized mining's impact by changes in the 
landscape and effects on local flora and fauna X 
OL beneficiaries recognized the need to reverse environmental damages and 
valued the recovery of the environment thanks to the implementation of this 
component
X X 
OL filled funding gaps, in the absence of public investment in rehabilitation, 
to manage orphaned environmental liabilities in priority areas due to the 
impacts of these liabilities. 
X X 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 100
TABLE 9: REHABILITATION OF AREAS DEGRADED BY ILLEGAL MINING: TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 
A. APPROPRIATENESS AND 
EFFECTIVENESS OF 
DIFFERENTIATED 
DEPARTMENTAL APPROACH
B. COST 
EFFECTIVENESS
C. PROGRESS 
MADE
D. LOCAL 
COMMITMENT TO 
MAINTENANCE 
AND MONITORING
With an estimated cost of $1,700/Ha, the OL model has lower estimated 
average costs than similar programs X 
OL's model allowed the program to manage an ambitious extension of the 
available resources X X 
Acacia mangium has long been used and recognized in the department of 
Antioquia. X 
Nevertheless, there is also evidence of risks related to the use of acacia 
mangium X 
The model of active rehabilitation with native species used in Chocó used 
seeds and seedlings from neighboring ecosystems. X X 
Beneficiaries considered OL's model to be appropriate X 
OL recognized the community councils as holding authority, recognized the 
legality of collective land tenure, and drew on ancestral local knowledge to 
support rehabilitation. 
X X 
In Bajo Cauca OL selected properties that had legal tenure and prepared 
contracts for forest use X X 
To analyze changes in ground cover and deforestation, we drew on satellite 
images of a sample of the area targeted by OL, made up of 2,077 Ha 
(represented by 13 polygons) under active rehabilitation. This analysis found 
a four percent increase in vegetation cover and a 14 percent decrease in 
deforestation in the sample
 X 
The variation in vegetation coverage found in the sample from Antioquia 
was not homogenous. X 
101 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 9: REHABILITATION OF AREAS DEGRADED BY ILLEGAL MINING: TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 
A. APPROPRIATENESS AND 
EFFECTIVENESS OF 
DIFFERENTIATED 
DEPARTMENTAL APPROACH
B. COST 
EFFECTIVENESS
C. PROGRESS 
MADE
D. LOCAL 
COMMITMENT TO 
MAINTENANCE 
AND MONITORING
In the case of active rehabilitation in Chocó, the sample showed a nine 
percent increase in vegetation cover and a 35 percent decrease in degraded 
lands 
 X 
Beneficiaries perceived rehabilitation component results positively X 
Local actors perceived positive results from the Activity, such as 
improvements in the microclimate, increased biodiversity, and soil recovery. X 
The Activity could have implemented a strategy so that local communities 
have the resources to leverage continuity of OL's work X 
The Community Councils do not have the ability to cover the costs of 
continued care, monitoring, and control of the managed areas X 
Local institutions were not sufficiently involved in supporting rehabilitation 
activities X 
The opportunity to promote conservation financial incentive projects was 
not considered X X 
Finally, OL did not promote sustainable exploitation of the acacia plantings. X 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 102
TABLE 10: ELIMINATION/REDUCTION OF MERCURY FROM THE ASGM SUPPLY CHAIN: TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 A. HOW WAS DONE AND 
WHAT WERE THE MOTIVATIONS
B. IMPACT OF 
INSTRUMENTS 
COMBINATION
C. EXTERNAL FACTORS 
CONTRIBUTING
D. EXTERNAL 
FACTORS HINDERING
OL's support for small-scale mining included 
modifications in gold mining techniques to 
eliminate the use of mercury
X 
The GOC adopted Law 1658 on July 15, 2013, 
with the goal of protecting human health and 
preserving renewable natural resources and the 
environment
 X 
OL provided technical support for the 
preparation of Work and Construction Plans 
(PTO), as well as Environmental Impact 
Assessments (EIA) with the MPUs. 
X 
OL provided important technical assistance to 
small miners, who otherwise would not have 
been able to prepare these instruments (at least 
not with the required quality, nor with effective 
guidance for mercury-free practices). 
X 
The trainings provided by OL for MPUs on 
formalization achieved their aims and small 
miners are aware of the current regulations 
regarding mercury. 
 X 
Beneficiaries who were subcontractors with 
large mining businesses were aware that they 
could not use mercury
 X 
Training and, above all, support to access new 
techniques are key elements for beneficiaries in 
eliminating the use of mercury
 X 
103 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 10: ELIMINATION/REDUCTION OF MERCURY FROM THE ASGM SUPPLY CHAIN: TOPICS (SUB-QUESTIONS) AND FINDINGS
 A. HOW WAS DONE AND 
WHAT WERE THE MOTIVATIONS
B. IMPACT OF 
INSTRUMENTS 
COMBINATION
C. EXTERNAL FACTORS 
CONTRIBUTING
D. EXTERNAL 
FACTORS HINDERING
Awareness campaigns that highlight the impacts 
on human health and the environment have had 
good results
 X 
OL's activities contributed to increased 
compliance with the regulation and have 
achieved a reduction in the use of mercury. 
 X 
While mercury use has decreased, it has not 
been possible to completely eradicate it. X 
According to Law 1658, the state had five years 
to prepare the mining sector for mercury 
eradication, but it began the required work late X 
Assuming that a small percentage of ASGM 
miners do continue to use mercury, the 
challenge lies in controlling its trafficking and 
access to it
 X 
The links formed with large mining companies 
through formalization subcontracts was an 
effective way to control the use of mercury
 X 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 104
ANNEX II: QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND 
CHALLENGES
In the quantitative data collection, were performed 670 surveys. The participants answered survey 
questions as follows: 120 on mining, 185 on rehabilitation, 183 on annatto, and 182 on beekeeping (See 
Exhibit 28).
Component Antioquia Chocó Total
Mining 26 94 120 
Beekeeping 182 0 182 
Annatto 0 183 183 
Rehabilitation 177 8 185 
Exhibit 30: Total Surveys Performed
SOURCE: DATA PROVIDED BY ORO LEGAL, 2020
SAMPLE DESIGN
A. TARGET POPULATION
The target population belongs to three groups:
1. Miners participating in mining formalization activities.
2. Individuals working in agricultural value chains, specifically the beekeeping and annatto chains. 
3. Individuals participating in rehabilitation activities of areas degraded by mining activities. 
According to the data provided by Oro Legal, there were a total of 1,247 direct beneficiaries in 21 
municipalities of Antioquia and Chocó. Direct beneficiaries corresponded to the following categories in 
the departments of Antioquia and Chocó, as follows:
Component Antioquia Chocó Total
Mining 81 86 167 
Beekeeping 345 0 345 
Annatto 0 320 320 
Rehabilitation 412 3 415 
Exhibit 31: Number of Beneficiaries per Category According to Department
SOURCE: DATA PROVIDED BY ORO LEGAL
105 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
B. SAMPLING FRAME
The sampling frame was one of the most relevant components in need of defining82. The following 
sampling frames were used for this research:
• Miners participating in mining formalization activities: This database of direct mining 
beneficiaries has 167 participants.
• Individuals participating in beekeeping and annatto activities: These databases are 
comprised of 345 direct beneficiaries of annatto and 320 direct beneficiaries of beekeeping. 
• Individuals participating in land rehabilitation activities of areas degraded by mining 
activities: This database has 415 direct beneficiaries: 412 from Antioquia and three from Chocó.
We selected survey participants from all the direct beneficiaries registered in the database in each 
category to guarantee probabilistic sampling. Additionally, through associations, community councils, 
local organizations, mining projects, and other groups, we obtained the contact information of selected 
direct beneficiaries whose contact information was unavailable. Of the 1263 beneficiaries in the direct 
beneficiary’s database, only 667 beneficiaries had phone numbers; we obtained the contact information 
of 92 beneficiaries; thus, a total of 759 registered beneficiaries had contact phone numbers.
In each category, a simple random sampling was implemented as follows:
𝑛𝑛ℎ = 𝑛𝑛0
1 + 𝑛𝑛0
𝑁𝑁ℎ
Where 
𝑛𝑛0 =
𝑧𝑧
1−𝛼𝛼
2
2 ∗ 𝑆𝑆ℎ
2
𝑒𝑒2 𝑦𝑦 𝑆𝑆ℎ
2 = 𝑃𝑃ℎ(1 − 𝑃𝑃ℎ)
Value 𝑁𝑁ℎ is the number of direct beneficiaries in category h. For sample size calculation purposes, a 
value of 𝑃𝑃ℎ = 0.5 was considered to ensure that the sample size enabled the estimation of any 
proportion within the precision parameters. Value 𝑒𝑒 corresponds to the maximum margin of error, set 
at 5% for each component. The value of 𝑧𝑧1−𝛼𝛼/2 is the percentile (1 − 𝛼𝛼/2)100% in a normal 
distribution and corresponds to the value 1.96 to reach a 95% confidence level. Moreover, taking the 
background experience of this type of data collection into consideration, oversampling of 30% was set to 
mitigate the risks due to the lack of survey responses.
To ensure dispersion the sample we proposed, included observations from all the municipalities where 
the program was present. We created a proportional allocation for each group of interest to distribute 
the sample in all municipalities. 
82 Stukel, D., & Friedman, G. (2016). Sampling Guide for Beneficiary-Based Surveys in Support of Data Collection for Selected Feed the 
Future Agricultural Annual Monitoring Indicators. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, FHI 360, page 
23.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 106
We used the randomized real value negative selection algorithm described by Gutiérrez83 to select the 
beneficiaries sampling in each component. With 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐ℎ the number of beneficiaries 𝑐𝑐 in the municipality ℎ, 
to select a simple random sample of 𝑛𝑛𝑐𝑐ℎ, the following steps of the algorithm were followed:
3. Generate 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐ℎ realizations of a random variable with uniform distribution 𝜁𝜁𝑘𝑘 ∼ 𝑈𝑈(0,1): 𝜁𝜁1, … , 𝜁𝜁𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐ℎ. 
4. Assign 𝜁𝜁𝑘𝑘 to the Kth element of the population of component c in the municipality ℎ. 
5. Sort elements in ascending order with respect to 𝜁𝜁𝑘𝑘. 
6. Mark the order of eligibility from number 1 to 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐ℎ. 
7. Select the first 𝑛𝑛𝑐𝑐ℎ elements according to the sample size in the municipality and component.
The above selection algorithm allowed the marking of eligibility order of beneficiaries, so it is possible to 
have a replacement mechanism that does not affect the initial randomization when the sample and the 
oversample are not sufficient to achieve the minimum sample.
MINING FORMALIZATION 
For this component we proposed a minimum sample of 117 beneficiaries to have a maximum error 
margin of 5% for estimates with proportions close to 50%. According to the oversample of 30%, 152 
beneficiaries were selected to reach the minimum sample. The sample distribution by municipality 
including the oversample, is presented below.
 Direct 
Beneficiaries of 
Mining 
Formalization
Sample Size 
Allocation 
Department Municipality Direct Beneficiaries
Antioquia Barbosa 3 3 
Buriticá 10 9 
Cáceres 23 21 
Don Matías 5 5 
Remedios 11 10 
San Roque 11 10 
Segovia 1 1 
Tarazá 16 15 
Zaragoza 1 1 
83 Gutiérrez, A. (2016). Estrategias de muestreo: diseño de encuestas y estimación de parámetros. Bogotá: Universidad 
Santo Tomás. Page 61
107 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
 Direct 
Beneficiaries of 
Mining 
Formalization
Sample Size 
Allocation 
Department Municipality Direct Beneficiaries
Chocó Certegui 11 10 
Condoto 5 5 
Tadó 41 36 
Unión 
Panamericana
29 26 
Total General 167 152 
Exhibit 32: Distribution Sample with Oversample for the Mining Component
SOURCE: OWN CALCULATIONS BASED ON DATA PROVIDED BY ORO LEGAL
BEEKEEPING AND ANNATTO
To guarantee a margin of error of less than 5% with a confidence level of 95%, we proposed a selection 
of 237 beneficiaries in annatto and 228 beneficiaries in beekeeping to achieve the minimum sample.
Department Municipality Direct Beneficiaries 
of Annato
Sample Allocation
Chocó
Atrato (Yuto) 111 76 
Cantón San Pablo 74 51 
Certegui 2 1 
Quibdó 20 14 
Rio Quito 127 87 
Unión Panamericana 11 8 
Total 345 237 
Exhibit 33: Distribution of the Sample with Oversample for Annatto
SOURCE: OWN CALCULATIONS BASED ON DATA PROVIDED BY ORO LEGAL
Department Municipality Direct Beneficiaries of 
Beekeeping
Sample Allocation
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 108
Antioquia 
Caucasia 103 73 
El Bagre 72 52 
Nechí 57 41 
Tarazá 29 21 
Zaragoza 57 41 
Total 318 228 
Exhibit 34: Distribution of the Sample with Oversample for Beekeeping
SOURCE: OWN CALCULATIONS BASED ON DATA PROVIDED BY ORO LEGAL
REHABILITATION
The rehabilitation component was comprised of 412 direct beneficiaries in Antioquia and three in 
Chocó. We proposed a stratified random sampling, where subpopulations corresponded to two 
departments to achieve a maximum margin of error of 5% and a confidence level of 95%. The sample 
size with an oversample was comprised of 262 direct beneficiaries.
Department Municipality
Direct 
Beneficiaries of 
Rehabilitation
Sample Allocation 
of Direct 
Beneficiaries
Antioquia Cáceres 24 15 
Caucasia 30 19 
El Bagre 315 198 
Zaragoza 43 27 
Total Antioquia 412 259 
Chocó Quibdó 1 1 
Rio Quito 2 2 
Total Chocó 3 3 
Grand Total 415 262 
Exhibit 35: Distribution of the Sample with Oversample for Rehabilitation
SOURCE: OWN CALCULATIONS BASED ON DATA PROVIDED BY ORO LEGAL
109 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
C. EXPANSION FACTORS AND ADJUSTMENTS FOR NON-RESPONSES
In general, surveys require three steps to reach the final weight for each individual. The first step is to 
calculate the base expansion factors of the sample. The second step is the adjustment for partial or non￾responses, based on the items with no response. The final step is to create additional factor adjustments 
to correct selection biases created by lack of coverage or responses. The goal is to adjust the resulting 
weighted sample estimates of the known population values for some key variables. All selected items 
have an expansion factor that is then adjusted according to the response or coverage rate84. 
As a simple random sampling, in the case of the different components, the expansion factor of the Kth 
beneficiary is determined by the inverse of the first-order inclusion probability:
𝑑𝑑0𝑘𝑘 = 1
𝜋𝜋𝑘𝑘 ℎ
= 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐ℎ
𝑛𝑛𝑐𝑐ℎ
Where 𝜋𝜋𝑘𝑘 ℎ is the probability of inclusion of the Kth direct beneficiary of component c within the 
municipality h, 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐ℎ y 𝑛𝑛𝑐𝑐ℎ are the number of direct beneficiaries, and the corresponding sample size in 
component c in the municipality h.
The procedure established was conducted to adjust the expansion factors, where changes or incidences 
were registered at the end of each data collection85. An adjustment for unknown eligibility followed this
𝑎𝑎1,𝑐𝑐 and an adjustment for non-ignorable non-response 𝑎𝑎2,𝑐𝑐, where subscript 𝑐𝑐 represents the 
component of interest (mining, land rehabilitation, annatto or beekeeping beneficiaries); thus, the 
adjusted expansion factor for the surveyed beneficiary Kth of the population or component 𝑐𝑐 was the 
following:
𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐 = 𝑎𝑎1,𝑐𝑐𝑎𝑎2,𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑑0k.
D. SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT
We identified coverage problems of the sampling frame during the fieldwork; that is, those outside of 
the target population and those who were not included in the sample frame but stated to have 
participated in some program components. The former were respondents who were part of the 
database but stated not to be program beneficiaries.
Therefore, they were not included when calculating the expansion factor.
Among reasons provided by this group of respondents were the following:
• Attended an Oro Legal informational meeting because someone registered them but was not 
program beneficiaries as they never received any sponsorship.
• Performed mining activities but have never been sponsored by the program. 
84 Kalton, G., & Flores-Cervantes, I. (2003). Weighting Methods. Journal of official statistics, 19(2), Pages 81--97. 85 Valliant, R., Dever, J., & Kreuter, F. (2018). Practical Tools for Designing and Weighting Survey Samples. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: 
Springer.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 110
• Participated at the beginning of Oro Legal, but after the tree planting rehabilitation activity, they 
ceased to continue in the program; their information, however, remained in the database.
Additionally, during the face-to-face fieldwork, beneficiaries who did not belong to the sample frame at 
the beginning of the study stated that they had participated in Oro Legal. Consequently, the inference 
universe underwent some adjustments. Thus, 35 records that were identified as out-of-universe were 
eliminated; this resulted in a population decrease from 167 to 132 for the mining component. In this 
situation, a minimum of 99 surveys were required to achieve a maximum margin of error of 5%, 
although the total number of conducted surveys was 120.27 surveys participants responded they did not 
correspond to any category: 21 from Antioquia and six from Chocó. Therefore, we did not use those 
observations to calculate the expansion factor equation.
Universe Size Sample Size
Component Initial Final Initial Final
Mining 167 132 118 120
Annatto 345 345 183 183
Beekeeping 320 320 176 182
Rehabilitation 415 417 202 185
Total 1247 1214 679 670
Exhibit 36: Sample Size Adjustment
SOURCE: DATA PROVIDED BY ORO LEGAL
We implemented adjustments for non-responses and sample frame flaws following the methodology 
proposed by Valliant86. When calculating the design-induced errors after adjusting the base expansion 
factor, the resulting errors did not exceed 5%.
86 Valliant, R., Dever, J., & Kreuter, F. (2018). Practical Tools for Designing and Weighting Survey Samples. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: 
Springer
111 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Exhibit 37: Sampling Error
SOURCE: MEL ACTIVITY
DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
We collected in all components through a mixed collection scheme, starting with telephone calls to 
those beneficiaries who had a contact number and, simultaneously, with MEL Activity and Oro Legal, we 
contacted associations, community councils, local organizations, and other groups that could provide 
contact information. Finally, at the same time, logistics for face-to-face visits for collecting in-person 
information for the remaining beneficiaries who did not have contact numbers took place. If other 
beneficiaries selected in the sample remained in the municipality and did not respond to the telephone 
survey, we approached them in person.
Before beginning the fieldwork, we consolidated the study's sampling frame. we trained the enumerators 
on January 21, 2021, and conducted the pilot test on January 23, 2021. This pilot test made it possible to 
measure the performance of enumerators, the database quality, and any requirements needed for the 
fieldwork. Once the pollster training was completed on January 21, the fieldwork began on January 26 
and was completed on March 9, 2021.
The general steps to perform the fieldwork were the following: 
1. First, to conduct surveys via telephone to those beneficiaries with updated data.
2. The logistical coordination team contacted community leaders who helped to assemble beneficiaries 
at a specific location.
Annatto Beekeeping Mining Land Rehabilitation
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 112
3. Appointments of face-to-face visits were scheduled through community leaders in all the cases 
where beneficiaries could not be contacted via telephone. 
During the quantitative field operation, 67087 surveys were conducted (102% of the original plan). 
CHALLENGES
A. SAMPLE LOSS FACTORS
The problems identified regarding telephone contacts were specifically related to the quality of contact 
data in the database. Of the 1,263 direct beneficiaries in the database, only 667 included phone number, 
we obtained data from another 92 contacts; in total, 759 contacts had had numbers. 
An additional setback experienced during the fieldwork was related to the quality of the contact 
information. The reasons for unsuccessful contacts were as follows: 58% of the contacts did not answer 
the call, or the call was sent to voicemail, and 19% corresponded to out-of-service numbers. However, 
50% of the answered calls ended in effective surveys. 5% were rejected at the beginning of the survey; 
28% corresponded to calls that did not result in contact with the beneficiary; 1% of calls were 
abandoned; 7% of contacts stated that they did not know the beneficiary; 2% stated that they did not 
participate in the program, and 1% of the contacts had passed away. In addition, 4% of calls were 
canceled by field supervision because of inconsistencies in the information.
SITUATION 
QUANTITY
 
PERCENTAGE
Successful Interview 164 50%
Rejected 16 5%
Drop-Out 4 1%
Passed Away 1 1%
Did not Participate in Program 14 4%
Unknown Respondents 24 7%
Annulled 14 4%
Interview not Started 95 28%
TOTAL 332 100%
Exhibit 38: List of Calls that Resulted in Contact with Respondents
SOURCE: DATA PROVIDED BY ORO LEGAL, 2021
It should be noted that considering these indicators, it was necessary to perform fieldwork to collect as 
much information as possible and to reach the required sample. For this purpose, community leaders 
were contacted in the municipalities who aided in assembling the beneficiaries in a specific location to 
conduct the survey. Additionally, respondent referrals were used. Finally, we searched the Internet for 
names of some MPUs to contact managers and beneficiaries who currently work there, according to 
Oro Legal databases.
87 It is important to mention that this data was used to calculate the expansion factor for each component.
113 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
B. DIFFICULTIES IN THE FIELDWORK
A series of technical, logistical, and operational difficulties encountered during the fieldwork and the 
corresponding actions to solve them are listed below:
TABLE 11: DIFFICULTIES
DIFFICULTY DESCRIPTION
The sampling frame with beneficiaries did not appear in 
the database provided by the client 
In El Bagre (Antioquia), five surveys were conducted with 
beneficiaries who did not appear in the database and were in the 
rural district of Puerto Claver. This information was provided by 
Jesús Tate, legal representative of the Afroclaver Community 
Council, who was contacted through the database.
Individuals who stated they belonged to more than one 
component but only appeared in one database provided 
by the client.
In Antioquia and Chocó, surveys were conducted with 
beneficiaries who responded to two components. 
Beneficiaries who stated that they have not participated in 
the program
27 records did not belong to any component; 21 were from 
Antioquia and six from Chocó. These were respondents 
registered in the database but stated they were not beneficiaries 
of the program.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 114
ANNEX III: SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DATA
1. QUANTITATIVE ANNEX
The methodological design of this evaluation uses six distinct methodological approaches to carry out a 
quantitative analysis of the Oro Legal (OL). These approaches seek to respond to the six guiding 
questions of the evaluation; the degree to which this was possible depended on the quality of the 
primary information collected during the evaluation process.
MINING FORMALIZATION AND GOVERNANCE (EVALUATION QUESTION 1) 
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS, Z PROPORTION TEST
This analysis draws on disaggregated data from OL’s monitor system, with a cutoff at the third quarter. 
That data covers 215 MPUs that had at least one follow-up at the cut-off point. An analysis of OL’s 
formalization index shows that the variables affecting formalization can be grouped into two groups: 60 
percentage points of the influence on formalization are grouped at the level of the program, that is 
variables related to OL itself (in red in Exhibit 30). Meanwhile, 40 points can be attributed to variables 
related to the characteristics of the targeted mining production units (MPUs); these factors are in blue in 
Exhibit 30).
Average (Baseline)
1. Legalization (20 points) 20 
2. PTO (10 points) 3 
3. EIA (15 points) 3 
Level of formalization (indicator 0-100) 4. Environmental guida (10 
poitns) 2 
5. SST (10 points) 0.8
6. Mining security (10 points) 1.8
7. Economic factors (!0 
points) 1.2
8. Environmental factors (10 
points) 2.4
Exhibit 39: Components of the OL formalization index
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
The program-level variables tended to show notable increases in the three follow-ups after the baseline. 
The MPU-level variables, on the other hand, showed a steady trend of improvement after the baseline. 
The overall trend for the formalization indicator shows growth from the baseline, with the most 
improvement registering at the first follow-up (Exhibits 31 and 32).
115 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Exhibit 40: Trends for program-level indicators of formalization (n baseline=215)
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021).
Exhibit 41: Trends in MPU-level indicators of formalization (n baseline=215)
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021).
ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF THE DETERMINANTS OF MINING FORMALIZATION
As proposed in the evaluation design, we estimate here a model for the determinants of mining 
formalization. To do so, we triangulated information from the beneficiary survey, the methodological 
sheets of the performance indicators (PIRS), and the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP) 
of the Oro Legal Activity. While the beneficiary survey had a sample of 97 MPUs that participated in the 
mining formalization component, when we triangulated this information with USAID and validated the 
quality of the information (e.g., checking the geographic coordinates of MPUs), it proved necessary to 
trim the sample for analysis to 75 MPUs. 
0
5
10
15
20
25
Average score
Legalization PTO EIA Environmental Guide
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average score
SST Mining security Economic factors Environmental factors
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 116
Exhibit 42 shows a mapping of the coordinates of the 75 MPUs supported by OL. It is interesting to 
note that OL’s formalization indicator presents patterns of spatial clustering, so that some zones appear 
to be characterized by clusters of MPUs with high or low levels of formalization. This type of 
phenomenon led us to consider spatial effects in the econometric specifications, and in the results below 
a spatial model has been included to measure this type of formalization behavior.
Exhibit 42: Location of MPUs included in analysis
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021).
The model takes Yi (the indicator for formalization in OL) as the dependent variable,88 and takes the
vector X1i for the independent variables (attributes of the MPUs), X2i (variables related to the strategy 
of formalization) and X3i (variables related to the person who was a direct beneficiary). In order to 
evaluate the consistency of the estimations, we estimated three models using the same set of variables: 
(i) the first model contained all the variables and was estimated using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS); (ii) 
88 We considered the possibility of estimating the second equation envisioned in the evaluation design, which referred to a 
binary response model (Logit or Probit). Nevertheless, only 15 MPUs in the set of variables for the model achieved the 
threshold for formalization (>75 points). This meant that there would be more independent variables in the model than cases of 
formalization, and that the exercise would be infeasible. 
117 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
the second model restricted the number of variables and excluded the variable time in the program); 
and (iii) the third model used a restricted variable set and was estimated using a (Spatial Lag Model). The 
results of the three models are presented in Exhibit 43 below. 
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Response variable (Y1: Formalization Index)
OLS - 
All variables
OLS - 
Restricted 
variables
Spatial Lag 
Model – 
Restricted 
variables
MPU’s variables and attributes (X1i)
Entry Index 0.67* 0.65* 0.85*
Underground operation (dummy) -2.58
Family Labor (percentage) 0.00
Association (dummy) -1.82
Mechanized (dummy) 8.81* 14.62*** 14.71***
Labor -0.02
Installed Capacity (1-100) -0.06
Days of Operations (1-30) 0.08
Mine Age (years) 0.02
Municipality different for sale (dummy) -0.83
Public services (dummy) 4.38 12.64*** 6.48*
W*Yi (Spatial Lag) 0.56***
Variables from the formalization strategy (X2i)
Time in the program (quarters) 7.85***
Training (dummy) 0.55
Bills (dummy) 2.73 12.65*** 10.44***
PTO (dummy) 3.54 10.61*** 8.19***
PTO Technologies (dummy) -0.25
EG(dummy) 0.83
Variables from the beneficiary (X3i)
Age -0.08
Educ 2.39~ 10.76** 11.98***
Experience -0.03
Woman 5.76
Debts -0.79
Continue with a decrease of 25% in income -5.72
Continue with a decrease of 50% in income 3.30
Continue with a decrease of 75% in income -0.19
Model parameters
(Intercept) -36.77* 5.6 -25.68*
R-squared 0.8702 0.6133
AIC 572.29
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 118
n 75 75 75
Signif. Codes 0 " *** ", 0.001 " ** ", 0.05 " * ", 0.1 " ~ "
Exhibit 43: Results for econometric model of the determinants of mining formalization
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
he results of the three econometric specifications reveal some interesting findings. These include: 
• The model using all the variables (Model 1) shows a strong association between (time in the 
program) and the formalization indicator. Each additional quarter in the program is associated with an 
increase of 7.82 points on average. At the same time, the results on the final formalization indicator 
depended on the starting point of MPUs at entry, as each point on the formalization indicator at 
entry was associated with 0.67 points on the final score. In this model, the variable for mechanized 
operations and beneficiaries’ education level were positive and significant. Nevertheless, an 
interpretation is presented in the next two models, which showed greater consistency with the 
estimation.
• The second model evaluated a restricted group of variables, keeping variables with greater statistical 
significance and excluding the variable for time in the program. This allowed us to contrast important 
associations, which the (time in the program) variable, being highly correlated with other regressors, 
would have otherwise obscured. The results of this model showed that access to public utilities, the 
practice of saving bills and receipts, have a mining work and operation plan (PTO), and beneficiaries’ 
levels of education were determinants of formalization. 
• The third model evaluated the same group of variables as the second model, but additionally 
incorporated a spatial lag effect. The results of this model provided the best estimations of the three 
models, as the inclusion of spatial effects corrected for possible omitted variable bias. This model 
found evidence for a significant spatial effect on the formalization indicator (W*Yi): the behavior of 
other MPUs in a 1km radius influenced the formalization behavior of individual MPUs. Additionally, it 
found that MPUs with mechanized operations scored 14.71 points higher on the formalization 
indicator compared to MPUs with traditional operations. MPUs with access to a public utility (water, 
sewerage, electricity, gas, or internet) scored on average 6.48 points higher than MPUs without any 
access to these services. MPUs that saved receipts and bills and had a PTO tended to score 10.44 
and 8.19 points higher, respectively, than MPUs that did not. Having a direct beneficiary with no 
education, or only basic primary education, was associated with a formalization indicator score 11.98 
points higher in comparison with MPUs with beneficiaries with higher levels of education. Finally, this 
model found that each point that an MPU scored at entry was associated with an additional0.85 
points on the final formalization indicator, reflecting the importance of the starting point for each 
MPU’s journey toward formalization. 
VALUE CHAINS AND ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS (EVALUATION QUESTION 3
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS, VARIABLE ASSOCIATION AND OBSERVATION GROUPING
To evaluate possible associations in the responses of beekeeping and annatto beneficiaries we 
elaborated a multivariate analysis, specifically multiple correspondence analysis, for a set of ten variables 
related to both value chains. This analysis drew on a total of 371 surveys of value chain beneficiaries. 
During the processing and analysis of the databases, 42 surveys with missing variables were filtered out. 
119 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
This analysis yielded a joint category plot (Figure 4), which allowed us to represent the options for 
response categories as points on a two-dimensional plane. On this diagram, closeness to, or greater 
distance from, these points indicate greater or lesser association between beneficiaries’ responses. The 
results of this analysis are shown in Exhibits 44 and 45 below.
Exhibit 44: Joint Category Plot – Annatto
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
In the annatto chain, we identified relevant associations between activities that were carried out and the 
expected objectives of OL:
As multiple correspondence analysis allows for the reduction of dimensionality of the original data, the 
axes of Figure 6 represent the scores of the two main components that can summarize the 10 variables 
analyzed. These dimensions are latent variables obtained from the analysis and help to summarize the 
information. Dimension 1 is characterized by summarizing variables related to the viability of OL, 
barriers to the Activity, and receiving incomes. Dimension 2 is characterized by motivations, acquired 
commitments, and the frequency of receipt of incomes. The attributes associated with different colors 
are as follows: 
• Blue box: Annatto beneficiaries were dedicated to mining prior to OL. Their principal motivation 
was to improve their incomes and they saw the lack of stability in commercial agreements as the 
primary obstacle. 
• Red box: Beneficiaries were dissatisfied with the lack of or in frequency of income. This is associated 
with not considering the annatto value chain activities to be viable for the future. Beneficiaries with 
less than one year participating in this component manifest the greatest dissatisfaction. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 120
Exhibit 45: Joint Category Plot – Beekeeping
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Applying this analysis to the beekeeping value chain also yielded a set of relevant associations. These 
associations, however, differed to some extent from the results for the annatto value chains, particularly 
with respect to viability. 
• Green box: Beneficiaries were less involved with mining before OL. They manifest greater 
satisfaction with the frequency of received incomes and consider security to be the main obstacle to 
their productive activities. 
• Purple Box: Beneficiaries consider beekeeping to be a viable activity and would continue with it 
even if they experienced a drop in income. Beneficiaries with over a year working on this activity 
tend to consider it to be viable. Their main motivations for continuing with this activity is associated 
with developing activities that are less risky than mining, and where they can commercialize and sell 
their products more easily. 
ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF THE DETERMINANTS OF INCOMES IN BEEKEEPING AND 
ANNATTO PRODUCTION
Model 1
Response variable (Y1: Log Income received by the productive chain) OLS
Microeconomic determinants (X1i)
Size of the UPA -0.015
Yields of the UPA 0.045***
Use of installed capacity 0.011**
Number of people -0.010
Experience in production -0.007
121 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Legal advice (dummy) -0.165
Environmental technical assistance (dummy) 0.341
Technical advice on bee (dummy) -0.464
Technical assistance in handling equipment and tools (dummy) -0.026
Beekeeping technical training (dummy) -0.127
Work safety training (dummy) 0.124
Business training (dummy) 0.494~
Environmental management training (dummy) -0.042
Hives and bees (dummy) -0.095
Protection equipment (dummy) -0.281
Agreement for commercialization (dummy) -0.354
Territorial determinants (Zi)
Geographic isolation (dummy) -0.232
Transportation means by cars or motorcycles (dummy) -0.040
Model parameters
(Intercept) 13.8813***
R-squared 0.3794
n 98
Signif. Codes 0 " *** ", 0.001 " ** ", 0.05 " * ", 0.1 " ~ "
Exhibit 46: Results for income determinants model – Beekeeping
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Model 2
Response variable (Y1: Log Income received by the productive chain) OLS
Microeconomic determinants (X1i)
Size of the UPA 0.098
Use of installed capacity 0.011~
Number of people 0.029*
Experience in production -0.004
Legal advice (dummy) -0.254
Environmental technical assistance (dummy) -0.688
Technical advice on Annatto issues (dummy) 0.656
Technical assistance (dummy) 1.659~
Work safety training (dummy) 0.490
Business training (dummy) 0.014
Environmental management training (dummy) -0.547
Inputs (dummy) -1.315
Equipment (dummy) 1.051~
Agreement for commercialization (dummy) -0.080
Territorial determinants (Zi)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 122
Geographic isolation (dummy) 0.105
Transportation means by cars or motorcycles (dummy) 0.000
Model parameters
(Intercept) 11.868
R-squared 0.339
n 57
Signif. Codes 0 " *** ", 0.001 " ** ", 0.05 " * ", 0.1 " ~ "
Exhibit 47: Results for income determinants model – Annatto
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
In general terms, the results show that only four of the 18 variables evaluated had explanatory power 
for the incomes generated by the Agricultural Production Units (UPAs). We draw two main conclusions 
about the value chains from these results. 
• In the case of beekeeping (Table 2), we found that yield of honey (kg/hive) is one of the factors that 
most explains beneficiary incomes. An increase of one additional kg in yield is associated with an 
increase of 4.5 percent in the total income reported by beneficiaries. Each additional point of utilized 
capacity is associated with a 1.1 percent increase in total income. Beneficiaries who received business 
training had on average 4.94 percent higher incomes than those who did not receive this type of 
training.
• In the case of annatto (Table 3), we found that each additional point of utilized capacity was 
associated with a 1.1 percent increase in incomes. Moreover, each additional employee increased the 
total income of the UPA by 2.9 percent. UPAs that received technical assistance or equipment 
support registered income increases of 1.65 and1.05 percent respectively.
REHABILITATION OF AREAS DEGRADED BY ILLEGAL MINING (EVALUATION QUESTION 4)
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS – REHABILITATION OF DEGRADED AREAS
In the same way that we did for the value chain components, we carried out a multiple correspondence 
analysis for eight questions for beneficiaries of the Activity component for rehabilitation of degraded 
areas. This analysis drew on 201 observations from surveys with rehabilitation component beneficiaries. 
In the processing and analysis of this information, 35 observations with missing information were 
discarded from the set. The resultant joint category plots incorporate variables on two dimensions. 
Dimension1 is characterized by variables related to time in OL and the type of participation in OL, and 
related commitments. Dimension 2 is characterized by motivations to take part in OL and the 
expectations of beneficiaries. 
123 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Exhibit 48: Joint Plot of Category Points
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Analysis of these associations generated some key findings:
• Red box: Beneficiaries with less than one year in the activity do not expect payment for 
environmental services. This is the group with the highest level of dissatisfaction with respect to their 
expectations for rehabilitation.
• Blue box: Beneficiaries who have been in the program for a greater length of time (more than two 
years), and who have contributed land or labor to the nurseries, have the highest expectations for 
payment for environmental services.
TEXT MINING ANALYSIS
Text analysis reinforced understanding and perceptions of the program related to the rehabilitation 
component. We analyzed 36 pages (21,301 words) of interview transcriptions grouped around key 
components (rehabilitation, reforestation, policy, and environmental motivations),
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 124
Exhibit 49: Word cloud from interview transcriptions
Source: Prepared by evaluation team (2021)
Exhibit 50: Top ten most mentioned words
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
An analysis of word associations allowed us to summarize the messages that most frequently emerged 
from the interviews (Exhibit 41). These included: 1) Mining-only community, 2) Good work planting 
trees, 3) People from the program and people from the process, and 4) Nurseries to plant trees later.
100
57 50 49 48 46 44 44 43
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
125 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Exhibit 51: Word association dendrogram
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
2. REHABILITATION COMPONENT – REVIEW OF SATELLITE IMAGES
An analysis of word associations allowed us to summarize the messages that most frequently emerged 
from the interviews (Exhibit 51). These included: 1) Mining-only community, 2) Good work planting 
trees, 3) People from the program and people from the process, and 4) Nurseries to plant trees later.
Exhibit 52 shows the results obtained from these satellite images, covering the period 2016-2020 with 
the changes in vegetation cover and degraded areas shown first for the entirety of the sample, and then 
disaggregated by department.
GLOBAL Beginning Final Real increase
Vegetation cover 
(ha.) 1,618.1 1,684.5 4%
Degraded area (ha.) 458.8 393 -14% 
ANTIOQUIA Beginning Final Real increase
Vegetation cover 
(ha.) 1533.8 1592.9 4% 
Degraded area (ha.) 428.5 373.2 -13% 
Total 1962.3 1996.2 
CHOCÓ Beginning Final Real increase
Vegetation cover 
(ha.) 84.3 91.6 9%
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 126
Degraded area (ha.) 30.3 19.8 -35%
Total 114.6 111.3 
Exhibit 52: Results of satellite image analysis
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
In total, we observed 13 polygons, using these to calculate SAVI (Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index), which 
is useful for identifying vegetation at initial stages of development and in areas of low vegetation cover 
density. 
Exhibits 53-66 below show the results of this analysis. 
Exhibit 53: Pilot Farm
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Exhibit 54: Polygon for Trópico Diverso
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Exhibit 55: Polygon for Villa Grande:
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Rehabilitation 
year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Vegetation 
Cover (ha.) 0,262 7,234 10,147 10,793 10,316
Degraded area 
(ha.) 11,193 4,221 1,309 0,662 1,139
Total area (ha.) 11,455
127 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Exhibit 56: Polygon for Villaconto (Rio Quito) – Active Rehabilitation 
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Exhibit 57: Polygon for Villaconto (Rio Quito) – Passive Rehabilitation
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Exhibit 58: Polygon for Vegas de Segovia
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 128
Exhibit 59: Polygon for Refrestadora Zaragoza
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Exhibit 60: Polygon for Asogauca P1
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Exhibit 61: Polygon for Asogauca P2
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
129 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Exhibit 62: Polygon for Fundación Mineros P1
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Exhibit 63: Polygon for Fundación Mineros P2
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Exhibit 64: Polygon for Chilona
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 130
Exhibit 65: Polygon for Afroclaver, Cañada la Rica
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
Note: In Cañada la Rica (Exhibit 65), the years 2016 and 2017 (shown in white in the table) had a 
thematic exactitude lower than 85 percent. Therefore, we do not include values for these years in our 
calculations of vegetation cover. 
Exhibit 66: Afroclaver Quebraada Mellizos
SOURCE: PREPARE BY EVALUATION TEAM (2021)
3. GIS TEAM INPUTS
An annex with PowerPoint and Excel files can be found in Google Drive at the following link:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PwsvRqENdcCV4IUrkYUyLSBlDHNCSGdY?usp=sharing
4. VISUALIZATION FOR QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
A folder with qualitative visualizations by component can be accessed at the following Google Drive link: 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/188L2nSyKvacDuvYGQY7ZLPi3jIaMQmEY?usp=sharing
131 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
ANNEX III: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX89
The following is the matrix of evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations. We divided the 
matrix by each component and each evaluation question. We also divided each table into an A and B 
part. Part A presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, while Part B presents the 
implementation measures, responsible parties, and timeframe for the recommendations.
MINING FORMALIZATION (QUESTION 1) AND MINING GOVERNANCE AND POLICY 
(QUESTION 2)
QUESTION 1 - TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE APPLICATION BY MINING PRODUCTION UNITS (MPU) OF 
THE FORMALIZATION STANDARDS, IMPROVED OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY, AND ACCESS TO LEGAL 
MARKETS GAINED THROUGH ORO LEGAL’S INTERVENTION PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INCENTIVES FOR 
MINERS INVOLVED IN ASSM (ARTISANAL AND SMALL GOLD MINING) TO REMAIN LEGAL/FORMAL AND 
IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR MINING OPERATIONS?
QUESTION 2 - WHAT HAVE BEEN THE MAIN FACTORS (INTERNAL TO ORO LEGAL OR EXTERNAL 
ARISING FROM THE SECTOR CONTEXT, STAKEHOLDER ATTITUDES/BEHAVIORS, OR EXISTING 
GOVERNMENT POLICY AND CAPACITY) THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO OR HINDERED OL’S 
PROGRESS IN STRENGTHENING COLOMBIAN MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND 
POLICIES AT NATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND MUNICIPAL LEVELS?
89 This matrix presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations drafted for the April 30th, 2021 version of this report. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 132
TABLE 12A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Q1 - By dignifying ASSM, AGM promoted a will to pursue formalization and 
environmentally sound practices.
Q2 - AGM dignified ASSM and, by doing so, strengthened it.
Q1 - AGM showed beneficiaries the benefits of formalization and helped 
them overcome the process’s many disincentives.
Q1/2 - The good environmental practices disseminated by AGM increased 
job security, improved respect for worker’s rights, and promoted more 
ethical methods.
Q1 - Miners that obtained a mining claim and an environmental license
improved their income.
Q1 - AGM’s intervention helped improve the environmental performance of 
beneficiaries.
Q2/1 - AGM was an efficient intermediary between small miners and mining 
authorities. 
a. More than 71.9% of beneficiaries 
declared a high degree of satisfaction with 
AGM's implementation; this proves the 
program's success in overturning the 
artisanal and small-scale miners' distrust in 
formalization processes.
1. In all AGM-type programs' activities 
and components, continue to underline 
to miners and authorities that 
environmental, social, and economic 
performance only improves through 
ASSM (artisanal and small-scale mining) 
formalization and dignification processes.
2 Q1 - Focusing on small miners’ formalization subcontracts and special 
reserve areas (ARE) improved AGM’s management and logistic performance.
Q1 - The duties imposed on formalization subcontracts might become an 
obstacle to the process.
Q1 - AGM created synergies with beneficiaries and mining and 
environmental authorities.
Q1 - Beneficiaries profited from the institutional relationships created by 
AGM.
Q1 - The costs and haste inherent to the formalizing process’s technical 
standards can hinder formalization.
Q1 - Beneficiaries that obtained a mining claim and an environmental license 
improved their income.
b. During its implementation period, AGM 
adapted to the changes in regulation 
related to ASSM.
2. Further and reinforce the ASSM 
businesses adaptative approach in AGM￾type interventions to face changes in 
regulations and public servants.
3 Q1 - The main incentives to commence and follow through with the 
formalization process are the mining claim and an environmental license.
Q1 - By dignifying ASSM, AGM strengthened the desire to comply with 
environmental and mining regulations.
Q1/2 - Authorities are not aware of the specific conditions that define 
ASSM.
c. Dignifying the ASSM and complying with 
mining and environmental regulations are 
the main incentives for beneficiaries to 
consider formalization. That is why a 
program like AGM must be more adamant 
in its support to public agencies to help 
them assess and mend their shortcomings 
regarding administrative procedures and 
3.Increase USAID's involvement in the 
IP's (Implementing Partner) institutional 
relations to bestow the submitted 
requests and proposals with formal 
status. 
133 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 12A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
Q2 - USAID’s renown and selecting local miners eased the program’s 
interactions with public agencies and communities.
Q2 - Internal processes to comply with procedures are complex and take a 
long time, affecting the formalization program.
Q2 - There are constraints to the formalization process in forestry reserve 
areas defined by Law 2 of 1959; these limitations apply to most protected 
areas. 
Q2 - Mining Production Units (MPUs) and local stakeholders are not up to 
date regarding mining regulations.
Q2/1 - AGM did not explicitly divulge the most significant weaknesses 
identified in the formalization process.
Q2/1 - AGM is mostly known among miners.
Q2/2 - Stakeholders recognize AGM as an active agent in mining 
formalization. 
Q2/2 - Focusing on small miners’ formalization subcontracts and special 
reserve areas (ARE) improved AGM’s management and logistic performance.
Q2/2 - The research showed a significant capability to adapt to regional 
nuances and regulation changes.
Q2/2 - The process of dignifying beneficiaries empowered them, increasing 
the odds of their future commitment to the mining formalization process.
Q2/2 - The research showed support to the miners in the long and 
cumbersome procedures required by public agencies.
Q1/2 - Miners must comply with strict terms, but authorities disregard the 
ones that apply to them.
Q1/2 - Public servants are unaware of regulations or misapply them, which 
goes against the small miners.
Q1/2 - Without the commitment of all the agencies involved, formalization 
will not be possible.
Q2 - Formalization is not a national policy, and it does not have the strength 
of a law or a bill.
Q2 - Miners do not have to formalize their activities; this means they can 
drop the process and return to operate outside of the law like they have 
been doing since 1969 when the government nationalized the mines.
Q2/1 - Memorandums of understanding proved ineffective in reaching the 
set goals.
avoid blaming formalization mistakes on 
small miners.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 134
TABLE 12A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
Q2/1 - AGM has a more significant impact on miners and communities than 
on public agencies.
Q2/2 - The research showed limited capabilities of public agencies 
(environmental and mining).
Q2/2 - The lack of academic education of small miners hampers training 
activities.
Q2/2 - Short-term initiatives generate skepticism and restlessness in miners.
Q2 - Public servants have a preconception of miners and ASSM that, in most 
cases, is far from reality.
Q2 - It is unlikely that a small miner can succeed in claiming an area included 
in a forestry reserve defined by Law 2 of 1959.
Q2/1 - The complexity of the paperwork required to obtain a mining claim 
and an environmental license deter the possibility of a comprehensive 
formalization process.
4 Q1 - The future of AGM’s beneficiaries is highly uncertain as there is no 
clear exit strategy for the program.
Q1 - The licit income can only improve after obtaining a mining claim and an 
environmental license; without these documents, we can’t talk of lawful 
sales.
d. The end of the program, leaving most 
beneficiaries without administrative 
achievements (mining claim and 
environmental license), can cause setbacks 
in the formalization process.
4. Strengthen technical criteria for 
admission, establish the minimum stage 
that beneficiaries should achieve in the 
formalization process to guarantee 
compliance with the intervention cycle, 
and define the fate of those that fail to 
reach the program's required level.
5 Q1 - AGM could have underscored more the importance of gold marketing; 
this would have improved the beneficiaries’ disposition to insist on 
formalization. 
Q1 - Licit income only improves with the obtention of mining claims and 
environmental licenses; there are no licit sales without these tools.
Q1 - By dignifying ASSM, AGM promoted a will to pursue formalization and 
environmentally sound practices.
Q1/2 - Seeing the economic improvements associated with formalization 
guarantees the change towards legality.
Q1/2 - AGM has to increment the emphasis on gold marketing to improve 
the sustainability of formalization efforts.
e. It is important to have an approach 
inclined towards actions that entail 
current and future profits: the 
formalization process's success depends 
on marketing prosperity. Without this last 
condition, the miners will not find benefits 
in lawful alternatives and return to their 
former methods.
5. For new AGM-type programs, 
contemplate from the beginning efforts 
meant to open new marketing channels 
and forge alliances with organizations 
that encourage fair-trade and ethical 
markets that allow surcharges for 
environmental and social production 
costs.
135 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 12A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
6 Q1/1 - Any project requires a longer life span if trying to produce in 
beneficiaries (1) a profound change of their behaviors and habits (learned 
through generations), (2) the adoption of business methods, (3) the 
implementation of clean practices, (4) the acceptance to comply with 
regulations, expensive procedures, and due diligence.
Q1/1 - The costs, terms, and technical demands of formalization (defined in 
mining regulation) usually overshadow the upside of lawful behavior.
Q1/1 - Training offered by AGM favored compliance with environmental 
regulations and the implementation of measures to mitigate impacts.
Q1 - AGM’s intervention helped improve the environmental performance of 
beneficiaries.
Q1 - The lack of a coordinated effort from training organizations (AGM, 
SENA, universities, NGOs, public contractors, agents from the governors’ 
offices, mining companies, and public agencies) usually overwhelms the 
beneficiaries with demanding agendas that drive them away from their 
livelihoods.
Q2/2 - The lack of an exit strategy to guide beneficiaries after the program’s 
departure will alter AGM’s effectiveness in the short term.
Q2/2 - Organizations involved in formalization do not coordinate actions 
among themselves.
Q2/2 - Illicit alternatives tend to offer higher revenues to miners.
f. The research found different 
contributions to the J2SR, but it is 
necessary to have longer-lasting support 
to guarantee profound and enduring 
changes in the miner's operation.
6. Review the results obtained by the 
Bioredd+ and AGM programs to 
determine the most appropriate duration 
needed for similar initiatives to comply 
with USAID's expectations.
Coordinate activities with other trainers 
to optimize and maximize resources and 
reduce the burden on miners.
7 Q2 - Formalization is not a national policy, and it does not have the strength 
of a law or a bill.
Q2 - Mining formalization is voluntary; a beneficiary can withdraw at any 
time.
Q2 - Formalization procedures are long, cumbersome, and inefficient.
g. The current state of affairs of the 
formalization process within the Ministries 
and the stigmatization of ASSM are the 
main barriers to the initiative's success. 
Even more, the formalization process 
shows weaknesses regarding governance.
g. The current state of affairs of the 
formalization process within the 
Ministries and the stigmatization of ASSM 
are the main barriers to the initiative's 
success. Even more, the formalization 
process shows weaknesses regarding 
governance. 
8 Q2/1 - Focusing on small miners’ formalization subcontracts and special 
reserve areas (ARE) improved AGM’s management and logistic performance.
Q2 - Hiring local personnel made relationships easier and helped AGM train 
mining communities; it also played a part when divulging regulation and 
explaining the role of agencies in regional dynamics.
Q2/1 - Selection of professional personnel increased trust and eased the 
interaction among the program, public agencies, and communities.
h. Some of AGM's most significant 
achievements are: concentrating 
resources and efforts using subcontracts 
and special reserve areas; adapting to the 
needs, habits, and administrative 
specificities in targeted areas; empowering 
beneficiaries by dignifying their activity; 
and offering ongoing support to miners in 
their interactions with public agencies
8. Maintain the habit of hiring local 
technical personnel in the focused 
regions.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 136
TABLE 12B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
1 • Include measures to fight the stigmatization of ASSM in all the components of similar 
programs. 
• Hire local technical personnel in all the focused regions to expedite communication with 
miners, communities, and authorities.
• Identify the most helpful ASSM business practices to prepare training sessions for 
members of this sector.
• * Draft and produce POP (Point of Purchase) documents and booklets, and other 
dissemination tools that promote formalizing mining businesses’ benefits.
USAID, IP (Implementing 
Partner), MME (Ministry 
of Mines and Energy)
Medium
2 • Regularly monitor the issuance of regulations that have a positive or negative impact on 
AGM's management.
• * Through the Implementing Partner and in agreement with institutional stakeholders, 
design specific guidelines (containing objectives, scope, key-actors, and local 
commitments) to communicate and interact with public servants.
USAID, IP Short
3 • * Formalize meetings with authorities by taking minutes that reflect discussions, 
agreements, commitments, and responsible parties. If possible, involve USAID or other 
reliable stakeholders in the institutional meetings.
• * Draft documents analyzing the economic, social, and environmental impacts and 
solutions related to current procedures and the formalization policies, engaging media for 
dissemination activities.
• * Devise short courses aimed at public servants of mining and environmental agencies; the 
topic should be ASSM experiences from recent USAID and national and international 
organizations' actions.
USAID, IP Medium
4 • Stipulate the time needed to obtain the mining title and the environmental license as the 
shortest term for AGM-type programs.
• Incorporate in the program's exit strategy the necessary actions to guarantee that 
beneficiaries continue their formalization efforts after activities conclude
USAID, IP Short
5 • Specifically, request opening new formalization channels as an essential objective for 
AGM-type programs. To this end, identify potential allies from the get-go to make them 
part of the process and sign formal agreements with them to accept beneficiaries that 
comply with their environmental or social requirements.
USAID, IP Short
137 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT AND ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS (QUESTION 3)
HOW DO BENEFICIARIES INVOLVED IN OL’S VALUE CHAIN ACTIVITIES PERCEIVE THE IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS ON THEIR 
PRESENT AND FUTURE WELL-BEING OUTSIDE THE ASSM ACTIVITIES? AS A LAWFUL ALTERNATIVE INCOME SOURCE.
TABLE 13A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
9 The two value chains’ beneficiaries have different perceptions due to two associated 
factors: received income and commercialization perspectives for each product.
The beekeeping and annatto businesses supplement the miner’s domestic income 
and, in case they become a regular revenue, they would allow beneficiaries to 
transition to more attractive and viable activities.
a. Beneficiaries perceive the 
agribusinesses promoted by AGM 
as viable alternatives to generate 
revenue in mining areas, provided 
the consolidation of the respective 
agricultural and commercial chains
1. Continue to incentive the 
development of productive agricultural 
opportunities based on a 
comprehensive regional vocation and 
aptitude analysis allowing for a 
progressive transition of activity in 
mining areas.
10 AGM strengthened the beneficiaries' capacities, increased their productive potential, 
and improved their yields and product quality due to the investments and technical 
support provided.
AGM created a solid production base for beekeeping and annatto that may be the 
cornerstones for future productive clusters in the targeted regions.
AGM improved the professional skills of local technicians and left installed technical 
capacity. However, the proposed scheme does not guarantee continuity of the 
technical assistance to the farmers.
b. AGM achieved remarkable 
productive improvements in both 
value chains, endowed the 
productive units of the beneficiaries 
with assets and technical 
knowledge, and consolidated 
national and regional representative 
production hubs.
2. Continue to foster regional technical 
capacities and devise strategies that 
increase the sustainability and duration 
of technical assistance.
3. Arrange support for the continuity of 
technical assistance from 
COLTAPICOLA and from Community 
Council technicians to AGM 
beneficiaries.
6 • Reconcile AGM-type programs' length with efforts to support small miners to ameliorate 
structural changes that improve formalization and performance.
• Open a permanent communication line and forge alliances with training organizations and 
agencies like SENA, universities, NGOs, government contractors, governors' offices, 
mining companies, and mining and environmental authorities to improve ASSM training 
efforts' effectiveness.
USAID, IP Short
7 • Document and openly divulge USAID's results with AGM-type programs to promote 
mining formalization as a comprehensive national policy.
• Weigh the costs and benefits of a mandatory mining formalization policy to submit a 
proposal to the national government.
USAID, IP, MME Medium
8 • * Identify and systematize available professionals in the respective regions for eventual job 
opportunities.
USAID, IP Medium
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 138
TABLE 13A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
11 Beekeepers acknowledge an increase in their income due to an upsurge in their 
productive capacity and foresee eventual growth in this production line.
In the case of beekeeping, the program did not foster a regional chain or a unified 
strategy to strengthen farmers organizations with a business-oriented approach.
AGM did not offer Campo Dulce a chance to continue its consolidation process as 
a regional link in the beekeeping value chain; as they only came into play at the end 
of the program, there was not enough time to strengthen the business relation.
Starting with a traditional crop, AGM identified and validated an annatto variety 
with a technical production system suitable for Chocó.
AGM defined the basis for Chocó's annatto agribusiness production chain. 
However, there are still some critical unresolved issues that jeopardize its 
sustainability.
c. In the case of beekeeping, AGM 
focused on strengthening the 
farmers productive units and gave 
less emphasis to the consolidation 
of the chains within the regions to 
increase their competitivity.
d. In the case of annatto, AGM 
promoted a regional agribusiness 
chain that, in case it succeeds, it will 
become a benchmark for 
development for Choco.
4. Steer interventions towards 
promoting local and regional productive 
chains that add value, increase 
competitiveness, and connect available 
markets. 
12 Annatto growers are unhappy with the business revenue and the unfulfilled initial 
promise of having a guaranteed buyer.
The beekeepers have an issue with their associations and Campo Dulce that cannot 
buy all their production for cash, so they sell part of it to informal brokers and 
occasional buyers.
The lack of comprehensive business models capable of quantifying investments' 
repercussions caused an overproduction of annatto and a shortage of working 
capital for beekeepers.
e. The absence of comprehensive 
business models and a planned 
production created marketing, 
financial, and technical complications 
that burden the chains today and, in 
the case of annatto, bring about 
significant sustainability risks.
5. Guarantee that an actual commercial 
demand backs the incentives for small 
productive ventures (especially when 
they reach large scales), considering 
estimated production volumes and an 
associative business model that ensures 
sales.
6. Guarantee continuity of financial, 
technical, and entrepreneurial support 
to complete the annatto value chain's 
consolidation in Chocó.
TABLE 13B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
9 • Incorporate a comprehensive aptitude assessment (environmental, agricultural, 
logistic, commercial, cultural, and zoning) for each agricultural production chain 
to promote. 
• * Reach an understanding with the community and the regional government on 
the agricultural production chain to choose.
Governors' Offices, Mayors' Offices,
USAID, Departmental and Municipal 
Secretaries of Agriculture, 
Autonomous Regional 
Corporations (CARs), UPRA, 
Agrosavia, ICA
Medium
139 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 13B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
• * Define agreements between producers and public institutions regarding a 
gradual transition from mining to new activities that respond to development 
levels in local value chains.
10 • " Bring together regional professionals and technicians, training them in 
agricultural extension and unifying concepts regarding productive activities to 
contribute to local producers' technical assistance.
• Design technical assistance regional models looking to procure the necessary 
funding from the potential sources: Agricultural Extension Departmental Plan 
(PDEA), private sector, civil society, and self-funding from the business 
operation."
• " Advise COLTAPICOLA, Community Councils, and organizations to find 
technical assistance funding alternatives for producers, including self-funding by 
own agribusiness income, the regional PDEA, or soliciting resources from third 
parties. 
• Arrange the consolidation of COLTAPICOLA's and the Community Councils' 
technical assistance model with new or existing regional beekeeping and 
annatto projects."
"Governors' Offices, Mayors' 
Offices, USAID, Program 
Operators, Departmental and 
Municipal Secretaries of Agriculture, 
SENA, ADR, Technical and 
Commercial Allies
USAID, COLTAPICOLA, 
Community Councils, Beekeepers' 
Associations, Campo Dulce, 
Technical and Commercial Allies (of 
both value chains), Departmental 
and Municipal Secretaries of 
Agriculture, ADR
Long
Short
11 • Identify and define the project’s design phase the productive chain links that it 
will develop. This process will stem from a viability analysis that considers 
regional capacities, connections to current markets, actual and potential 
demand, available resources, and implementation time.
• Include in new regional interventions previous agribusiness development 
projects, giving preference to participants in the productive chain that add local 
value.
• Implement follow-up mechanisms that guarantee a systemic chain approach, 
acknowledging requirements, possibilities, and agreements in each step of the 
process, from production to marketing.
USAID, Program Operators Medium
12 • "In the planning phase, identify and approach the market or markets that will 
absorb the production to establish technical specifications, commercial 
conditions, and required volumes, involving commercial allies from the 
beginning.
• From the start, devise a business model with an integrated approach to 
account for contingencies, production times, costs, and prices for primary 
production, added value processes, logistics, and basic commercial agreements. 
This process should serve to allocate resources among the different stages in 
the productive chain.
USAID, Program Operators Medium
Medium
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 140
TABLE 13B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
• In the planning stages, estimate the number and size of the productive units 
according to the business model and define development phases, if necessary, 
to accommodate production and marketing."
• Assure support for A&ACH to complete the process with Acumen and, in case 
the funding falls through, help them find alternative sources.
USAID, A&ACH Short
HOW DO BENEFICIARIES INVOLVED IN OL’S VALUE CHAIN ACTIVITIES PERCEIVE THE IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS ON THEIR 
PRESENT AND FUTURE WELL-BEING OUTSIDE THE ASSM ACTIVITIES? AS A MEANS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE.
TABLE 14A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
13 AGM positively affected the quality of life of beekeeping and annatto beneficiaries.
Female participation was substantial in the first productive link of the two value 
chains, which increased their autonomy, recognition, and community and family 
cohesion.
Annatto as a regional agribusiness increases recognition and self-awareness of 
Chocó natives’ capabilities to boost their own regional development.
f. Farmers prefer agricultural chains 
over illegal gold mining activity due to 
the effects on their quality of life; they 
consider these alternatives as viable as 
long as they are profitable.
7.Strengthen incentives to 
promote women and youth's 
participation in agribusinesses; 
increase families' active 
involvement in productive chores.
TABLE 14B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
13 • In agricultural technical training strategies, accommodate family and social workshops that 
cultivate female leadership and youth participation in productive units.
• Design a plan that guarantees women's engagement in decision-making activities 
throughout all the project's business chain links.
USAID, Program 
Operators 
Medium
141 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
HOW DO BENEFICIARIES INVOLVED IN OL’S VALUE CHAIN ACTIVITIES PERCEIVE THE IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS ON THEIR 
PRESENT AND FUTURE WELL-BEING OUTSIDE THE ASSM ACTIVITIES? AS A WAY TO REDUCE PRESSURE FROM ILLICIT GROUPS AND 
CONSOLIDATE REGIONAL SAFETY
TABLE 15A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
14 AGM's productive alternatives strengthen the beneficiaries' resilience in the face of 
uncertain security conditions and increase hope towards future regional 
perspectives.
Beneficiaries perceive that the agricultural alternatives offer ways to use time that 
reduce the odds of being recruited by armed groups, especially for young people.
Beekeeping beneficiaries and stakeholders perceive that armed groups' proximity is 
the main obstacle and greatest threat for the business and its future development.
g. Promoting agribusinesses does not 
directly affect regional security or 
public order, but it does contribute to 
households’ resiliency, safety 
perceptions, and future regional 
expectations. 
8. Strengthen cultural and social 
appropriation strategies in 
projects, fostering empowerment 
of agribusinesses by local 
stakeholders and young community 
leaders' participation.
TABLE 15B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
14 • Identify and include, from the beginning, community representative organizations and 
leaders with the potential to manage the value chain's different links.
• Implement strategies to train young members of the producers’ families as leaders; 
training should include participating in innovation and value-adding activities.
• Implement training and experiential learning plans to strengthen organizational and its 
leaders' capacities to take over agribusiness operation gradually during project 
execution.
USAID, Program 
Operators, Mayors' 
Offices, SENA, Chambers 
of Commerce
Long
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 142
HOW DO BENEFICIARIES INVOLVED IN OL’S VALUE CHAIN ACTIVITIES PERCEIVE THE IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS ON THEIR 
PRESENT AND FUTURE WELL-BEING OUTSIDE THE ASSM ACTIVITIES? AS A MEANS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
TABLE 16A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
15 AGM improved environmental conditions through the value chains, avoiding more 
significant degradation and slowing illegal mining in the targeted areas.
The interdependence between beekeeping and the rehab model designed around 
Acacia Magnium strengthened both components' sustainability odds.
h. Beneficiaries widely recognize 
beekeeping and annatto's positive 
environmental effects, as they help 
restore degraded areas and prevent the 
expansion of illegal mining.
9. Continue to foster agricultural 
products that blend friendly with 
the regional agroecological 
systems.
TABLE 16B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
15 • Enrich the design with analysis and studies that identify the most viable and less damaging 
production systems suitable for the local environment.
• Carry out monitoring tasks during the implementation to guarantee that productive 
venues and agribusinesses are not crossing the agricultural boundary, are rationally using 
water, and properly dispose of waste.
• Carry out dissemination activities aimed at producers to make them aware of synergies 
between productivity and environmental management.
USAID, Mayors' Offices, 
Program Operators, 
CARs, UPRA
Medium
REHABILITATION OF AREAS DEGRADED BY ILLEGAL MINING (QUESTION 4)
FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW, HOW APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE HAVE BEEN THE 
DIFFERENTIATED REHABILITATION MODELS DEVELOPED BY ORO LEGAL IN ANTIOQUIA AND CHOCÓ IN AREAS PREVIOUSLY DEGRADED BY 
ILLEGAL MINING?
143 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 17A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
16 AGM chose the right areas for the implementation from an environmental 
standpoint as they are widely known for their ecological value; 
rehabilitation in those places contributes to national and international 
public policy goals.
AGM to carry out territorial analysis with geographic information systems 
to select the areas to be rehabilitated was appropriate.
a. The program selected worthy areas 
with valuable environmental resources 
and wealth.
1. In the design of AGM-type programs, to 
increase the impact of activities, include 
environmental considerations to choose areas 
aligned with national and local policy goals.
17 AGM worked in areas with high degradation levels posing significant risks 
to the communities due to the lack of ecosystemic services (provision of 
food and water) and the increased possibility of natural disasters; these 
issues make the election relevant from a social standpoint.
Beneficiaries acknowledge the need to revert the damages done by mining; 
that is why environmental rehabilitation is the program's justifies from a 
social point of view.
b. AGM worked in sites with high 
degradation levels posing significant 
risks to the communities due to the 
lack of ecosystemic services (provision 
of food and water) and the increased 
possibility of natural disasters.
2. Consider soil analysis in the design of the 
rehab component of AGM-type programs; 
these should serve to measure resource 
contamination and degradation.
18 From the beneficiaries' perspective, the rehabilitation reduce food 
insecurity and improve the quality of life of the local population.
c. Beneficiaries recognize positive 
effects on their livelihoods due to 
environmental rehabilitation.
3. In AGM-type programs, widely divulge the 
results and consequences of rehabilitation 
actions on the quality of life; this should 
increase the beneficiaries and local population 
appropriation and care of restored areas.
19 AGM developed the communities' awareness and improved their 
knowledge and technical capabilities; these changes eased the degraded 
areas' rehabilitation process.
d. AGM's support to rehab through 
local communities proved to be a 
success; especially in Chocó, the 
Community Councils played a relevant 
role in implementing actions.
4. Coordinate AGM-type programs' rehab 
activities with the local Ethnic Development 
Plans from the Community Councils to 
enhance Afro-Colombian communities' 
environmental governance.
5. Coordinate AGM-type program's rehab 
initiatives with local environmental leaders 
and movements.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 144
TABLE 17B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
16 • Emphasize area selection processes using available evidence from the IDEAM and 
local agencies: satellite images, information from the woods and carbon M&E 
system, early deforestation warnings, and identification of deforestation nuclei.
• Build an environmental liabilities baseline through social mapping exercises (should 
work as a collective method to do regional land research). These maps improve 
the relationship between the local community with the territory and increase 
awareness about environmental degradation.
USAID, Ministry of Environment 
and Social Development 
(MADS), IDEAM, CARs, IIAP, 
Mayors' Offices, Community
Medium/Long
17 • Draft an action plan to determine the soil's degree of deterioration and 
degradation and promote restoration through bio-remedies that diminish 
contamination risks (due to mercury, cyanide, fuel, and oil, among others) and 
increase fertility.
USAID, Universities, UMATA, 
Mayors' Offices, CARs, IIAP
Short
18 • Put into practice M&E mechanisms of outcome variables like health, food safety, 
and other social profits of rehab.
• Using AGM results, carry out campaigns to inform about the benefits of 
rehabilitation on life quality, emphasizing health and food safety.
USAID, Mayors' Offices, Think 
Tanks
Short/Medium
19 • " Concert with the Community Council Assemblies and determine the steps 
needed to harmonize rehab actions with the environmental chapter of the Ethnic 
Development Plan.
• Train Community Councils on ways to apply conservation incentives to augment 
commitment towards rehab actions."
• Map social and environmental organizations, trends, and leaders and integrate the 
result in the design of rehab actions.
• Instill new rehab actions in leading local movements and disseminate them through 
the program and USAID.
Community Councils, USAID
USAID, IP, SENA, NGOs, CARs
Short
Short
145 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
ARE THE REHAB MODELS SUITED FOR REGIONAL CONDITIONS?
TABLE 18A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
20 It was the right decision to implement different models for each region. In 
Antioquia, the Acacia magnum has a long history of use and is very well 
known.
AGM's rehabilitation model in Chocó agrees with the National Restoration 
Plan and the IIAP's guidelines (as a local research institute).
e. It was very appropriate to have 
differentiated approaches in the 
two departments, recognizing 
biological, environmental, and 
social differences.
6. In AGM-type programs, offer technical 
assistance on the use and substitution of Acacia 
to advance ecological succession (Antioquia).
7. In AGM-type programs that encompass 
passive rehabilitation, increase territorial 
control to enhance the outcome of 
environmental mining liabilities rehab (Chocó).
TABLE 18B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
20 • Design and implement a gradual substitution plan to achieve 
sustainable forestry exploitation; this plan should identify local species 
that allow a gradual substitution of Acacia magnium, establish a given 
ecosystem as a goal, contemplate synergies with productive chains 
(e.g., beekeeping), manage nurseries, and plant endemic species.
• Design and implement a control strategy covering passive rehab areas, 
identifying stressing factors that can hinder primary production.
• Integrate actions between Community Councils and local agencies 
(mayor's offices, CARs, and IIAP -Pacific Coast Environmental 
Investigation Institution-) to bolster territorial control.
• Procure funds as working capital or incentives to allow community 
members to maintain and preserve rehab areas, especially when they
are far from their homes or workplaces.
• Involve local agencies (mayor's offices, CARs, and IIAP) in the seedling 
selection and obtain leverage or matching funds from local 
governments (money, technical support, or land)."
USAID, IP, IIAP, CARs, Mayors' Offices 
USAID, IP, Community, IIAP, CARs, Mayors' 
Offices
Short/Medium
Short/Medium
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 146
ARE THE MODELS COST-EFFECTIVE IN COMPARISON TO OTHER APPROACHES EMPLOYED IN COLOMBIA AND ELSEWHERE?
TABLE 19A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
21 AGM filled the funding void left by the government to rehabilitate neglected 
environmental liabilities. AGM's resources allowed to obtain an ambitious 
extension.
f. AGM devised a strategic plan to 
accomplish an ambitious goal.
8. Determine and document the rehab costs 
to plan future projects of the same 
magnitude and scope.
TABLE 19B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE 
PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), MEDIUM 
(NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, LONG 
(MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
21 • Perform a detailed exercise to determine the rehab activity costs, discriminating by type of 
managed area (Type I, II, and III defined by AGM) and type of rehab (active or passive); this 
should use information from the IP and local operators. The resulting data should be available to 
related institutions.
USAID, Local 
Operators, IP
Short
HOW ROBUST ARE THE MODELS TO REESTABLISH VEGETATIVE COVER QUICKLY, REVERSING DEGRADATION, AND RESTORING BIODIVERSITY?
TABLE 20A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
22 In general, the vegetation cover in analyzed areas increased. However, in some 
of those shapes, the research found depletion.
On average, vegetation cover increased 4% in Antioquia, and degraded areas 
decreased by 13%.
On average, vegetation cover increased 9% in Chocó, and degraded areas 
decreased by 35%.
g. AGM's rehab models in 
Antioquia and Chocó increased 
the area with vegetation cover and 
reduced degraded areas.
9. Devise a regional control strategy with 
Community Councils to maintain passive 
rehab in targeted areas, in programs that 
encompass passive rehabilitation within 
collectively owned land.
10. Support efforts to define private plots' 
boundaries; this should improve regional 
control, bypass new stress factors to the 
ecosystem, and avoid losing benefits from 
initiatives promoted by AGM-type programs.
147 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 20B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
22 • Observing social or ethnic traditions carry out conflict resolution training sessions to 
strengthen the Community Council's role.
• Support the Community Councils when implementing activities that promote ethnic and 
cultural identity and encourage natural resources preservation.
• Coordinate the program's initiatives with the National Advisory Restoration board to 
improve the institutions' regional management.
• Improve relations of local agencies to better their overseeing role and avoid new human 
activities that deplete AGM's areas."
• Check the limits of the targeted plots and the Community Councils (extension of the 
social mapping exercise).
• Support the community and the plot owners when defining land boundaries; natural 
fences are encouraged."
USAID, IP, Community 
Councils, Universities, 
NGOs
USAID, IP, NGOs, 
CARs, Regional IGAC
Short
Medium
IN THE MEDIUM TO LONG TERM, HOW COMMITTED ARE BENEFICIARIES TO FUTURE MAINTENANCE OF THE MODELS?
TABLE 21A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
23 Maintenance for AGM's rehabilitated areas is at risk due to (1) the Community 
Councils' limited capacity to obtain funding and (2) coordination gaps with public 
agencies. 
The sustainability of AGM's models depends on projects that increase the 
beneficiaries' income and help extend the management of rehabilitated areas.
h. Coordination among local 
organizations is lacking, affecting the 
sustainability of the implemented 
actions. 
11. Implement plans to coordinate 
efforts with the mayor's offices, 
the CARs, and the IIAP to 
guarantee the AGM's continuity in 
these institutions and a proper 
transfer of knowledge.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 148
TABLE 21B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
23 • Sign agreements with local institutions and Community Councils to extend support to 
nurseries.
• Develop seedlings' donations from local institutions to advance with scheduled plantations.
• Undertake agricultural endeavors with the local dwellers to harvest wood-related 
products (and others) in rehabilitation areas. Also, train beneficiaries on the procedures 
and necessary paperwork required by government agencies to exploit resources; also 
show them how to draft and submit carbon-credit projects.
• Carry out inquiries to determine the feasibility of Forestry Incentive Certificate programs 
and design a funding strategy to verify reductions in greenhouse effect gases' emissions; 
this information should feed realistic projections and adjust the community's expectations.
• Facilitate agreements among businesspeople looking to apply to the carbon tax exemption 
(Decree 926/2017).
MADS, CARs, USAID, 
Local Mining 
Entrepreneurs, MADR
Medium
ELIMINATION/REDUCTION OF MERCURY FROM THE ASSM SUPPLY CHAIN (QUESTION 5)
WHAT COMBINATION OF INSTRUMENTS AND APPROACHES EMPLOYED TO REDUCE MERCURY USAGE IN THE ASSM HAVE PROVEN TO BE 
MOST EFFECTIVE, AND WHY? TO WHAT EXTENT DID EXTERNAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTE TO OR HINDER THE ACTIVITY’S INITIATIVES TO 
REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE USE OF MERCURY? WHAT COMBINATION OF INSTRUMENTS/APPROACHES EMPLOYED WAS MOST IMPACTFUL? 
HOW WAS THIS ACHIEVED, AND WHAT WERE THE MOTIVATIONS OF BENEFICIARY MPUS?
TABLE 22A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
24 The mercury ban entry into force (Law 1658) is the main external reason for 
reducing the use of this metal in the MPUs.
a. Regulations are the primary external 
reason that explains the miners' 
interest in reducing mercury use; they 
want to avoid penalties and other legal 
consequences.
1. Continue training miners on 
mercury use and its prohibition.
149 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 22A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
25 The best-combined approach to reduce mercury use involves supporting miners' 
formalization, training beneficiaries, promoting the use of new processing 
technologies, and carrying out awareness campaigns.
AGM's technical assistance (deposit exploration) within the PTOs (Work and 
Implementation Plans) guides the best practices no-mercury mining. As a 
consequence, exists a correlation between formalization and the use mercury.
AGM's initiatives helped beneficiaries comply with regulations as they 
systematically reduced the use of mercury in the region.
b. Support the formalization process, 
train beneficiaries emphasizing gold 
extraction efficiency with clean 
methods, and raise awareness on the 
impact’s mercury produces on human 
health and the environment is a 
powerful combination to reduce its 
use.
2. When designing AGM-type 
programs, include resources to 
support government agencies carrying 
out geological research in mining sites.
3. Create a program for trained 
miners to move towards technological 
reconversion.
26 The research found that the most significant reduction in the use of mercury (per 
gram of gold) occurred in alluvial mining (-9.3 Hg/t), with similar results in 
Antioquia and Chocó.
Avoiding adverse health and environmental impacts are some of the most common 
motivations for miners. Also relevant is evading legal complications when working 
in unlawful conditions.
The research found differences between the mercury reduction numbers reported 
by the beneficiaries and the ones stated by the authorities.
c. There is no certainty regarding 
miners' reduction of mercury in the 
gold mining process.
4. Increase regional mercury 
monitoring.
5. Conceive communication campaigns 
informing about the use of mercury 
and other pollutants typically used in 
mining (like cyanide).
27 The mercury ban has a tough challenge when trying to control its illegal traffic, 
which is very active in the region. Close to 1% of the beneficiaries still use it.
AGM fulfilled institutional gaps after the entry in force of Law 1658 (banning the 
use of mercury) and contributed to adopting new practices to process mined gold 
(offering training).
d. The mercury ban faces a tough 
challenge when trying to control its 
illegal traffic, which is very active in the 
region.
6. Discuss with local, regional, and 
national agencies a strategy to market 
mercury-free gold.
28 The formalization subcontracts help control the use of mercury. The 
commercialization of gold in informal markets diminishes control on the use of 
clean technologies.
e. The formalization subcontracts 
help prevent the use of mercury.
7. Continue to support and oversee 
subcontracts (related to formalization) 
to promote a fair benefits distribution 
of the gold mining activity.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 150
TABLE 22B: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS), 
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS, 
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
24 • Ask the local communities about the most effective communication channels to reach 
miners.
• Train local people to teach ASSM miners about mercury use and its prohibitions.
• Agree with mining secretaries (in mayors' offices) on a training program project 
about environmental and mining regulations.
USAID, NGOs, Local 
Organizations, Mining Board, 
Mayors' Offices
Short
25 • Carry out geological studies in ASSM miners' mining sites to contribute to their 
Work Program (PTO). 
• Develop funding strategies for ASSM miners' technological renewals.
• Commit support from companies and NGOs to ASSM miners' technical 
advancements.
USAID, Colombian 
Geological Service
MME, Mayors' Offices, Mining 
Businesses, NGOs, USAID
Medium
Medium
26 • Contrive a funding strategy to allow mining and environmental authorities to visit 
mines to oversee activities.
• In AGM-type programs, support implementing the sector's Mercury Environmental 
Action Plan through air and water quality studies.
• Take advantage of university research to increase the scope of previous campaigns 
about different pollutants used in gold mining.
• Agree with NGOs on new ways to raise awareness about gold-mining pollutants and 
their impact on the environment.
Local Organizations, Mayors' 
Offices , CARs, Governors' 
Offices, USAID
USAID, Universities, NGOs
Short/Medium
Short/Medium
27 • Include in AGM-type programs a plan to market gold with international buyers, 
specialized jewelers, and ethical consumers.
MME, MT, MADS, MCIT, 
Governors' Offices, USAID
Short/Medium
28 • Support the program's current beneficiaries to sign subcontracts with major mining 
companies.
• Inculcate interest in mining companies to take in small miners.
• In agreement with the mining authorities, create incentives for companies that 
contribute to processing mercury-free gold in ASSM mines.
Mining Businesses, USAID Short
151 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
PERCEIVED RELEVANCE AND IMPACT OF THE ACTIVITY (QUESTION 6)
WHAT ARE THE MAIN PERCEPTIONS OF THE RELEVANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USAID - ORO LEGAL’S INTERVENTION AMONG DIRECT 
AND INDIRECT STAKEHOLDERS - ASSM OPERATORS, GOLD MINING PRIVATE SECTOR, ACADEMIA, INTERNATIONAL DONORS, USG AGENCIES, 
GOC AGENCIES, ETC.?
TABLE 23A. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDNIGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
29 In general, beneficiaries are highly satisfied with the program and highlight OL 
strengths based on the effects observed.
All AGMs components are perceived as relevant and pertinent according to 
the context and regional and local needs.
Beneficiaries value AGM's supplies, machinery, training, and technical support 
as positive; however, the follow-up and ex-post assistance are considered vital 
to the sustainability of the results.
Some indirect beneficiaries are unaware of AGM's actions and goals and 
declare not receiving any support.
a. In general, beneficiaries perceive 
the intervention as relevant and 
pertinent to the regional conditions 
and underline its strengths; 
however, there are opportunities to 
improve the follow-up to guarantee 
sustainability after AGM's 
departure. 
1. Improve information management 
processes and deepen the 
characterization of beneficiaries to 
improve monitoring and 
measurement of the effectiveness of
interventions.
30 AGM contributed to change the way miners think, helping them embrace the 
possibility of sustainable mining (from an environmental, social, and economic 
perspective).
AGM filled a knowledge gap in miners and offered them support and tools for 
the formalization and mercury reduction processes.
AGM opened lines of communication between the MPUs and mining and 
environmental authorities to ease the formalization process. However, the 
insufficient institutional capacity still hinders the perception of trust and 
effectiveness.
b. AGM offered information 
regarding the formalization process 
and ways to reduce mercury use 
and contributed to dignify ASSM. 
Also, it strengthened the credibility 
of sustainable mining and increased 
coordination between miners and 
environmental and mining agencies. 
However, the frailty of these 
organizations still hinders trust and 
effectiveness.
2. Strengthen coordination efforts 
among USAID, the IP, the national 
government, and targeted regional 
agencies to improve the 
interventions' planning, 
complementarity, follow-up, and 
sustainability.
31 The research found signs indicating the recovery of native species and 
improvements in the landscape; data also shows a positive assessment of 
rehab interventions in areas exhausted by mining.
People are aware that some of the effects expected from the intervention are 
not yet visible due to their long-term nature.
Beneficiaries appreciate beekeeping as an alternative source of income and as 
an environmentally friendly activity.
Training had a positive bearing in adopting clean practices to manage waste 
from the value chains.
c. Although some rehab results are 
long-term, there is a positive 
perception regarding environmental 
effects like the restoration of native 
species, improvement of micro- climates, and increased community 
awareness that produces local 
appropriation. 
d. The promotion of agribusinesses 
contributes to improving 
environmental conditions due to 
training in beekeeping practices and 
3. Strengthen training and other 
initiatives that bolster 
environmental conditions in all the 
program's interventions.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 152
TABLE 23A. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. FINDNIGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
systems to treat waste coming from 
the intervention.
32 Agribusinesses prove to be a fruitful alternative for Agribusinesses prove to 
be a fruitful alternative for families; technical assistance and help with supplies 
have increased the families' income.
AGM created legal job opportunities.
The chosen value chains improve the beneficiaries' livelihoods; they incentivize 
collective work (family and community) and are alternatives to work, learn, 
and increase income.
The value chains promote community recognition and self-awareness, propel 
regional development, and are benchmarks for other regions and associations.
Lawful activities create benefits regarding legal peace of mind, a reduction of 
personal risks, higher self-esteem, a sense of belonging, lower costs, bigger 
sales, and no fines or law-enforcement interventions.
e. Agribusinesses are a viable 
economic option that creates 
additional income (when 
beneficiaries receive technical 
training and proper supplies) and 
offers new job opportunities.
f. AGM improves targeted 
communities' livelihood 
(recognition, community work, 
technical knowledge, and purchasing 
power), and lawfulness creates 
multiple benefits (legal and social 
peace of mind, self-esteem, and risk 
reduction).
4. Give continuity and increase 
communication efforts to inform 
about benefits and improvements in 
life quality following mining 
legalization and value chains 
initiatives.
33 Beneficiaries and local stakeholders have an increased sense of security (peace 
of mind) in targeted areas with AGM activities.
However, the security conditions in AGM areas are still uncertain and 
negatively affect the program's success.
g. Albeit beneficiaries' increased 
sense of security (peace of mind) in 
targeted areas, the security 
conditions in AGM areas are still 
uncertain and negatively affect the 
program's success.
5. Continue to hire technical staff in 
targeted areas to mitigate security 
barriers. In addition, include in the 
training sessions for beneficiaries, 
the dissemination of self-care 
protocols for vulnerable people and 
communities.
34 AGM created job opportunities for women, increased their income, fostered 
their empowerment, and strengthened community relations; all of this 
improved their families' livelihoods and well-being.
The research found it crucial to involve youth in the value chains to create a 
generational replacement and avoid the risks of getting involved with illicit 
activities.
Young people have few job opportunities and, sometimes, little interest in 
getting involved with agricultural activities.
h. AGM created job opportunities 
for women, increased their income, 
fostered their empowerment, and 
strengthened community relations; 
all of this improved their families' 
livelihoods and well-being. Young 
people have few job opportunities 
and, sometimes, little interest in 
getting involved with agricultural 
activities. The research found it 
crucial to encourage a generational 
replacement to avoid young 
people's risks of being lured to illicit 
activities.
6. Augment the gender perspective 
in of the program's interventions, 
increasing female participation, 
which has shown good results.
7. Consider outlining strategies to 
stimulate generational renewal in 
the productive value chains 
initiatives to increase young 
people’s permanence in the regions, 
prevent their involvement with illicit 
activities, and further the 
intervention’s sustainability.
153 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 23B. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
NO. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE 
PARTIES
TERM - SHORT (6 MONTHS)
MEDIUM (NO MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
LONG (MORE THAN 2 YEARS)
29 • Define protocols and standards, including a database structure, to trace and manage 
information.
• Choose variables and tools to measure the types of interventions (consider the income 
variable).
• Carry out measurements at the beginning, middle, and end of the program (baseline, half￾way, and end line).
USAID, IP Short
30 • Considering a scenario where AGM would continue, create a coordination board to bring 
together different stakeholders (USAID, the IP, Ministry of Mining, National Mining Agency, 
Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, and targeted regional agencies) so they 
can: define the scope of the interventions, foster complementarity among institutions, 
create follow-up scheme, and agree on periodic reports.
• Implement knowledge transfer sessions between the implementing partner and government 
officials aimed at improving knowledge of the reality of the territory and discuss 
opportunities to improve the procedures or support defined by the authorities.
USAID, IP, Local 
and Regional 
Government 
Agencies 
Short
31 • Increase the scope of training actions in better environmental practices in AGM-type 
projects (residue management, recycling, water use, alternative energies, multimodal 
transportation, etc.).
• Stimulate alliances with regional and local institutions (CARs, mayors' offices, NGOs, and 
businesses) and look for converging investments.
USAID, IP, Local 
and Regional 
Government 
Agencies 
Medium
32 • Through beneficiary associations and Community Councils, design and implement an 
outreach strategy with the respective tools (visual media, educational material, and 
gathering venues).
• Take advantage of beneficiaries' testimonies and experiences to improve educational 
actions and exemplify the benefits.
• Define strategies to inform allies about benefits and incentives.
USAID IP
33 • Hire local personnel for the program's local interventions to facilitate access to targeted 
areas and increase beneficiaries' confidence.
• Identify the National Protection Unit's protocols, manuals, and booklets (e.g., Self- protection and Security Manual).
• Identify social and emotional tools created by agencies and NGOs, supporting people 
endorsing local reconciliation and fostering leadership and peacebuilding skills.
USAID, IP Short
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 154
• Disseminate this material in the program among relevant beneficiaries.
34 • When determining criteria to select beneficiaries, define the minimum female participation 
percentage. 
• Continue with initiatives that empower women and disseminate the benefits of female 
participation in the program.
• Create opportunities for women to exchange their experiences.
• In meetings with the program's allies, emphasize the importance of initiatives that include 
women and explain the benefits.
• "Define a sensibilization strategy to inform about the importance of generational renewal in 
the value chains. 
• Include in the productive chain initiatives a component of knowledge transfer from adults 
to young people in the community (e.g., parents to children).
• * Through social service programs, forge alliances with the Secretaries of Education and 
schools to promote youth education and participation in the value chains.
USAID, IP
USAID, IP, Local 
Governments, 
Educational 
Institutions 
Short
Medium
155 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
ANNEX IV: DETAILED METHDOLOGY
WORK PLAN
INTRODUCTION90
Colombia’s gold mining sector is severely affected by illegal and informal activities fostering widespread 
deforestation, riverbanks sedimentation, and mercury contamination. Illegal and informal gold mining is a 
significant challenge growing faster than the institutional capacity to regulate and control mining 
activities. This situation poses a threat to public health, significantly limits the government’s tax 
revenues, and creates growing environmental liabilities. Alongside illicit economies such as coca 
cultivation, land appropriation, logging, trafficking in wildlife, extortion, and money laundering, illegal 
mining is part of the criminal structures that threaten Colombia’s peace consolidation.
Given the critical challenges posed by uncontrolled gold mining, USAID has responded with an ambitious 
artisanal gold mining activity aiming to help Colombia build sufficient governance capacity for gold mining 
activities, including enforcement of legislation and addressing illegal mining’s environmental impacts. The 
Artisanal Gold Mining - Environmental Impact Reduction Activity - Oro Legal – is implemented by 
Chemonics International. Since 2015 it supports Colombian efforts to reduce the social and 
environmental impacts of artisanal and small gold mining (ASGM) in twenty-two municipalities within the 
departments of Antioquia and Chocó. Oro Legal works through the legalization and formalization of 
illegal mining, capacity building, and strengthening, the endorsement of more appropriate technology and 
improved practices, development of new legal routes to market, and the promotion of sustainable 
alternatives to mining. Oro Legal works closely with the Government of Colombia (GOC), non￾governmental entities (NGOs), communities, and the private sector to achieve a set of indicator targets.
As part of the Activity, and after approximately five (5) years of implementation, USAID is conducting a 
final performance evaluation to assess: if Oro Legal has achieved its deliverables and objectives, to what 
extent the achievements at the different sub-objectives of the intervention are perceived effective and 
impactful, and which factors may be playing a role to modulate the performance toward those sub￾objectives, the Activity’s main goal, and USAID’s strategic development goals.
The evaluation will support USAID/Colombia and Oro Legal Implementing Partner (IP) accountability 
among stakeholders. The evaluation will also provide lessons learned and insightful recommendations to 
help USAID/Colombia make programming decisions for future similar activities. It will also share 
knowledge gained with relevant stakeholders in the Government of Colombia (GOC), Mining Sector, 
International Donors, and Communities.
This document describes the work plan for the final performance evaluation for the Oro Legal Activity. 
The plan has seven sections; the first one contains a timetable and logistical arrangements for this 
endeavor. The second section presents the evaluation team; the third lists the evaluation milestones; the 
fourth and fifth detail a schedule for the team’s data collection efforts, locations, and dates to pilot data 
90 We based this section on the project’s available documentation and the Scope of Work for the final Performance Evaluation 
of USAID/Colombia Artisanal Gold Mining Activity (Oro Legal).
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 156
collection; the sixth describes the evaluation’s general methodology; and the seventh contains an outline 
of the evaluation report.
CONTEXT91
ORO LEGAL GENERAL INFORMATION
The Activity has two main objectives. The first is to build effective governance capacity for gold mining 
activities via: (i) strengthening Colombian government capacity to enforce gold mining legislation; (ii) 
enhancing the participation of artisanal gold mining associations and Afro Colombian and indigenous 
communities in mining formalization programs and; (iii) providing training and technical assistance (TA) 
to artisanal miners. The second objective is to increase the capacity of Colombian government agencies, 
communities, and the private sector to address the environmental impact caused by illegal mining 
through: (i) rehabilitating degraded areas; (ii) generating diversified sources of income/alternative 
livelihoods for communities that cannot or should not be involved in gold mining and; (iii) improving 
drinking water quality in mining areas.
TABLE 24: INFORMATION SUMMARY
ACTIVITY NAME: Artisanal Gold Mining Environmental Impact Reduction - Oro Legal
USAID’S OFFICE: USAID/Colombia – Environmental Office
IMPLEMENTING PARTNER: Chemonics
CONTRACT NUMBER: AID-514-C-15-00003
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $22,122,365
LIFE OF PROJECT: 2015/09/23 – 2021/03/31
ACTIVE GEOGRAPHIC 
REGIONS:
Oro Legal Activity is implemented in 22 municipalities in the departments of 
Antioquia and Chocó: Barbosa, Buriticá, Cáceres, Caucasia, Don Matías, El 
Bagre, Nechí, Remedios, San Roque, Segovia, Tarazá, Zaragoza (Antioquia); 
Atrato (Yuto), Cértegui, Condoto, El Cantón San Pablo, Istmina, Nóvita, 
Quibdó, Rio Quito, Tadó, Unión Panamericana (Chocó).
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE:
DO 4: “Environmental resilience and low carbon development strengthened”.
Intermediate Results: IR 4.1 “Natural resource management strengthened”.
Sub-IR 4.1.1 “Legality, rehabilitation, and reduction of mercury use in small, 
artisanal mining operations improved.”
EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL 
EVALUATION: External
BACKGROUND
Colombia’s gold mining sector suffers from pervasive illegality. Most of the yearly average 50 metric tons 
of gold produced in Colombia are done by illegal and informal actors, driving widespread deforestation, 
riverbanks sedimentation, and mercury contamination. This reality poses a threat to public health and 
91 We based this section on the Scope of Work for the final Performance Evaluation of USAID/Colombia Artisanal Gold Mining 
Activity (Oro Legal) and the Activity’s MEL Plan.
157 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
costs the government tens of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues and environmental liabilities left 
behind. As a result, addressing illegal mining is a significant concern in Colombia’s post-conflict scenario. 
Gold mining in Colombia has increased by over 300% since 2006, and illegal and informal gold mining is a 
growing challenge. The scale of mining has grown faster than the institutional capacity to regulate and 
control mining activities adequately. Illegal mining is part of illicit economies that include coca cultivation, 
land appropriation, logging, trafficking in wildlife, trafficking in persons, and extortion and money 
laundering by the criminal organizations involved in these activities. According to the GOC, illegal gold 
mining replaced drug trafficking as the primary source of income for organized crime, armed groups, and 
illicit actors. This situation is fueling violence as there is a strong link between the criminal organizations 
responsible for coca crops and those involved in trading the gold from illegal mining. At the national 
level, 43 percent of Colombia’s area affected by illegal mining is also affected by illicit coca cultivation, 
and Antioquia and Chocó bear the heaviest lift of the phenomenon.
Uncontrolled gold mining is a major stimulus for Colombia’s illicit economy and a significant driver of 
environmental degradation, causing large-scale deforestation, riverbanks destruction, and mercury 
contamination. It also scars the landscape with a legacy of highly degraded and contaminated abandoned 
mining sites. In 2019, alluvial gold exploitation degraded an estimated 98,000 hectares of land at the 
national level, and the departments of Antioquia and Chocó concentrated 78% of this area. The resulting 
biodiversity loss in Chocó is of particular concern as this is one of the most biodiverse regions in the 
world. Besides, these highly degraded sites are so devastated that they cease to be part of the 
productive economy, no longer providing viable livelihood options unless and until they receive 
significant investments for remediation and restoration.
Due to mercury to amalgamate gold in artisanal gold mining, Colombia is the world’s largest mercury 
polluter per capita. As a result, some Antioquia towns are among the highest urban per capita air￾mercury polluted in the world. The country has passed legislation banning mercury in mining; it went 
into effect in July 2018. But full implementation of this ambitious goal presents yet significant challenges 
along the chain of control.
USAID’s strategic development goals have two levels: 1) An Agency’s overarching objective known as 
“Journey to Self-Reliance” -J2SR- which looks for (a) helping countries to build capacity and (b) to impact 
behaviors triggering positive changes; so the ultimate goal of foreign assistance is ceasing to exist in the 
future. 2) A USAID/Colombian Mission’s Environmental Development Objective of improving the 
environmental resiliency by strengthening the management of natural resources [Intermediate Result 4.1 
/ CDCS 2014-2020]. 
USAID supports the GOC’s efforts to create a durable and inclusive peace in the wake of the country’s 
50-year armed conflict. Tackling illegal activities, including illegal mining, and providing alternative 
incomes through the licit economy, is paramount for sustainable and participatory peace. Given the 
important challenges posed by uncontrolled gold mining, USAID has responded with the Agency’s 
largest and most ambitious artisanal gold mining activity to build effective governance capacity for gold 
mining activities, aimed to strengthen Colombian Government capacity to enforce gold mining legislation 
and address the environmental impact caused by illegal mining. Oro Legal promotes responsible legal 
mining, alternative livelihoods, and environmental rehabilitation.
The main goal of Oro Legal Activity is to help the GOC’s mining sector and the communities to address 
the informality of the ASGM to reduce its environmental liabilities through:
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 158
1. Building effective governance capacity for gold mining activities via:
a. Strengthening Colombian government capacity to enforce gold mining legislation.
b. Enhancing the participation of artisanal gold mining associations and Afro Colombian and 
indigenous communities in mining formalization programs.
c. Providing training and technical assistance to artisanal miners.
2. Increasing the capacity of GOC entities to address the environmental impact caused by illegal 
mining through:
a. Restoration of degraded areas.
b. Generating alternative livelihoods for communities that cannot or should not be 
involved in gold mining.
c. Improve drinking water quality in mining areas.
This Oro Legal Activity contract totaling almost $22.1 million follows the mining component of the 
previous USAID/Colombia BioREDD+ activity implemented by Chemonics from July 2013 to May 2015.
DESCRIPTION OF THE THEORY OF CHANGE AND RESULTS FRAMEWORK
The Theory of Change (TOC) underlying the Oro Legal Activity is that if the program strengthens 
government capacity to manage gold mining and address environmental damages effectively, that will 
improve the social, environmental, and economic performance of gold mining operations, thereby 
supporting the GOC to create sustainable and inclusive peace. Each of the two objectives of Oro Legal 
has a TOC.
The Oro Legal Activity has two Objectives: the first objective focuses on supporting mining sector 
institutions and organizations to improve and/or better enforce regulations covering gold mining in 
target regions, thus reducing the negative environmental and social impacts often implied by these 
activities. The second objective seeks to increase the capacities of the GOC, communities, and the 
private sector to address the environmental degradation caused by unauthorized gold mining.
The results framework (see Exhibit 67) is the guide for Oro Legal to implement USAID’s vision for the 
Activity and links USAID/Colombia’s Strategy at CDCS 2014-2020. It incorporates crosscutting 
responses to tasks, including the differentiated approach to gender inequity and vulnerable populations.
159 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Exhibit 67: The Oro Legal Results Framework
PURPOSE
The purpose of this final performance evaluation is to conduct a systematic analysis of the performance 
of the Oro Legal Activity to assess to what extent the achievements at the different sub-objectives of 
the intervention are perceived effective and impactful, and which factors may be playing a role to 
modulate the performance toward those sub-objectives, the Activity´s main goal, and USAID´s strategic 
development goals. We will assess Objective 1 and Objective 2 concerning the following five expected 
results:92
Expected result 1.1: Capacity in government entities to enforce gold mining legislation strengthened
Expected result 1.2: Participation of ASGM organizations and indigenous and Afro-Colombian 
communities in formalization programs strengthened
92 We will not assess Expected result 2.3 (Drinking water quality improved) in this evaluation.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 160
Expected result 1.3: Environmental impacts reduced through technical assistance and training
Expected result 2.1: Reforestation NAMA supported in areas degraded by unauthorized ASGM 
operations 
Expected result 2.2: Alternative livelihoods for ASGM communities promoted
To this end, the methodological approach considers the support provided by Oro Legal (OL) to the 
following targets:
1. Reduce illegal activity and environmental devastation caused by illegal mining.
2. Generate economic alternatives to illegal mining (honey production in Antioquia and annatto 
production in Chocó).
3. Rehabilitate highly degraded lands using reforestation with Acacia maginum in Antioquia and assisted 
natural regeneration in Chocó.
4. Introduce technologies and practices capable of eliminating the use of mercury.
In the evaluation we also contemplate contextual information that may affect the sustainability of results 
and identifies the main perceptions regarding OL intervention’s relevance and effectiveness among direct 
and indirect stakeholders.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS93
Considering the Oro Legal Activity purpose stated above, we will conduct a systematic analysis of the 
Activity’s performance and progress towards its main goals to answer six (6) main questions. Each of the 
questions will examine several contextual elements to guide the answers. The questions are the 
following:
1. Mining Formalization: To what extent do the application by Mining Production Units (MPU) of the 
formalization standards, improved operational efficiency, and access to legal markets gained through 
Oro Legal’s intervention provide sufficient incentives for miners involved in ASGM to remain 
legal/formal and improve the environmental performance of their mining operations? 
Context and guidelines to answer the question: This is a follow-on to question #3 from the Mid￾term Evaluation, adjusted to capture the outcome of the contribution of mining formalization towards 
one of the main goals of the Activity. Given a national context marked by a steady increase in 
international gold prices, local pressure from illegal actors, and a widespread culture of unlawfulness, 
have formalized gold miners been able to change their behavior in ways that demonstrate USAID´s 
contribution in this sector to the J2SR? If the benefits of formalization cited above have not provided 
sufficient incentives for ASGM miners to change mining and environmental behavior in a majority of 
93 We based this section on the Scope of Work for the final Performance Evaluation of USAID/Colombia Artisanal Gold Mining 
Activity (Oro Legal).
161 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
cases, what underlying factors are preventing uptake of formalization and what other approaches can be 
identified/suggested to increase interest/uptake and under what requisite conditions?
2. Mining Governance and Policy: What have been the main factors (internal to Oro Legal or external 
arising from the sector context, stakeholder attitudes/behaviors, or existing government policy and 
capacity) that have contributed to or hindered OL’s progress in strengthening Colombian mining and 
environmental governance, and policies at national, regional, and municipal levels? 
Context and guidelines to answer the question: This is a follow-on to question #2 from the Mid￾term Evaluation. OL’s Theory of Change (ToC) proposes that the Activity will strengthen mining 
governance and policy, including at the municipal level. However, mining policy is a national purview, 
which is a flaw in the ToC not identified during the Mid-term Evaluation. Municipal authorities are only 
responsible for administration of the mining registry (RUCOM), have limited environmental authority, 
and lack the budget and means to enforce the mining and other laws against illicit armed groups linked 
to gold mining. Also, Antioquia is the only department with a Mining Secretariat with delegated mining 
authority by the Ministry of Energy (ME), whereas the department of Chocó does not enjoy similar 
status. Additionally, central government capacity to facilitate formalization is limited because of the sheer 
number of ASGM and other informal/illegal mining operations in Colombia, difficulties experienced in 
transferring operational responsibility for ASGM formalization from the ME to the National Mining 
Agency (ANM), and hesitant political will for effective mining policy reform. Given this context, it is 
critical to understand how effective OL’s approaches (both formal and informal) have been to policy and 
institutional capacity strengthening and what factors supported or hindered the Activity’s effectiveness in 
this area. The evaluation will suggest or recommend other approaches where it is relevant to do so.
3. Value Chain Development and Alternative Livelihoods: How do beneficiaries involved in OL´s 
value chains activities perceive the impact of alternative livelihoods on their present and future well￾being outside the ASGM activities? 
Context and guidelines to answer the question: This is a follow-on to question from the Mid￾term Evaluation. The economic (not simply financial) and/or environmental rationale for offering 
alternative livelihoods to ASGM families is to: (i) provide an alternative licit source of income; (ii) reduce 
the disproportionate environmental impact of ASGM in tropical ecosystems; (iii) reduce the pressure on 
vulnerable populations from illegal armed groups linked to illicit gold mining; and (iv) consolidate 
broader regional security.
Economic reconversion includes a set of real and perceived values, benefits, and costs beyond 
investment in time and inputs and income generation from the economic activity per se; e.g., peace of 
mind, quality of life, more time to devote to the family (particularly relevant for single women heads of 
household), personal health and safety, higher productivity, participation in a legal marketplaces, etc., 
which are often hard to quantify, but are paramount for stakeholders and contribute to broader 
Government of Colombia (GOC and USAID/Colombia development goals, objectives and priorities and, 
therefore, should be considered in answering this question.
4. Rehabilitation of Areas Degraded by Illegal Mining: From the environmental, social, and 
economic point of view, how appropriate and effective have been the differentiated rehabilitation 
models developed by Oro Legal in Antioquia and Chocó in areas previously degraded by illegal mining?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 162
Context and guidelines to answer the question: Rehabilitation initiatives are one of the most 
visible and potentially valuable USAID contributions under Oro Legal that were not properly addressed 
during the Mid-term Evaluation. Large-scale degradation of land and water resources by unregulated 
alluvial mining and river dredging is one of the most significant environmental problems in Antioquia and 
Chocó, with particularly serious impacts to critical and fragile ecosystems along the Cauca and Atrato 
and Quito rivers and tributaries, respectively. Most rehabilitation or reclamation models are complex 
and costly, and not suitable or economically viable for remedying impacts in degraded areas considered 
“environmental orphans” by the state, communities, and landowners. The Oro Legal models were 
purposely designed to be low-cost, practical approaches that are appropriate for private landowners and 
collective communities, and particularly relevant for global and national initiatives in forest restoration 
and climate change mitigation. Are the models cost-effective in comparison to other approaches 
employed in Colombia and elsewhere? Are they good for each regional reality? How robust are the 
models in quickly reestablishing vegetative cover, reversing degradation, and recovering biodiversity? 
How committed are beneficiaries to future maintenance of the models over the medium to long term? 
What conditions are required and/or what changes could be made to the models to make them more 
effective and replicable? 
5. Elimination/Reduction of Mercury from the ASGM Supply Chain: What combination of 
instruments and approaches employed in the effort to reduce mercury usage in the ASGM have proven 
to be most effective and why?
Context and guidelines to answer the question: Mercury has historically been used in ASGM, 
particularly by small-scale alluvial miners and river dredgers, as a cheap and effective amalgam to recover 
fine gold. Exposure to mercury is extremely harmful to humans and one of the major public health and 
environmental risks both in and downstream from areas where gold mining and processing are 
concentrated. Colombia is a signatory to the MINAMATA Convention on Mercury, a global treaty to 
protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury. Colombia also 
promulgated its own Mercury Law that bans all use of mercury in mining as of July 2018 and mandates 
financial support to mining operators for the transition to non-mercury processing, a provision of the 
law that has not been implemented. Through rigorous monitoring methods and documentation, Oro 
Legal beneficiary MPUs have eliminated or significantly reduced the amount of mercury used per gram of 
gold produced. How was this achieved and what were the motivations of beneficiary MPUs? What 
combination of instruments/approaches employed was most impactful? To what extent did external 
factors contribute to or hinder the Activity’s initiatives to reduce or eliminate the use of mercury? 
6. Perceived Relevance and Impact of the Activity: What are the main perceptions of the relevance 
and effectiveness of the USAID - Oro Legal’s intervention among direct and indirect stakeholders - 
ASGM operators, gold mining private sector, academia, international donors, USG agencies, GOC 
agencies, etc.?
Context and guidelines to answer the question: The end of Oro Legal is an appropriate time for 
objective reflection and to seek honest feedback from all key stakeholders on the Activity’s contribution 
to ASGM, impact on the environment, and the socio-economic development in its two main geographies 
and in Colombia more generally. Stakeholders’ perceptions are influenced by three factors: (i) their 
personal circumstances and world view; (ii) their interests and expectations; and (iii) how well informed 
and knowledgeable they are about the Activity’s objectives, implementation, and outcomes. Assessment 
of key stakeholder opinions and feedback on specific components or activities, as well as incorporating 
163 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
broader cross-cutting considerations may uncover needs, expectations, and ideas that are otherwise 
hard to capture, which, in turn, could trigger awareness, adaption, recognition, innovation, and learning 
for improvement in the future.
DATA SCHEDULE AND LOGISTICAL ARRANGEMENTS
The evaluation approach has four phases; the first one is planning, where we define the work plan and 
the evaluation methodology. The second one is the fieldwork, where we collect, compile, and tabulate 
the data for further analysis. The third one is analyzing the data and producing the report and 
presentations. The final phase is divulging the information, where dissemination and final adjustments 
take place. The steps for each phase are the following:
1. Planning and trust-building between teams and the CLA approach
a. Producing the work plan
b. Defining the evaluation schedule and responsibilities
c. Reviewing the information and scheduling meetings with the Implementing Partner
d. Developing the evaluation design
e. Presenting the methodology to the COR team
f. Defining the requirements to hire the firm that collects the quantitative information
g. Preparing and translating the work plan document: the CLA methodology will provide an 
opportunity to present the material and help identify critical messages
h. Writing and translating the methodological document
2. Fieldwork
a. Carrying out national-level interviews
b. Presenting the Early Report to the COR team
c. Hiring the firm that collects the quantitative and qualitative information from direct 
beneficiaries
d. Developing, testing, adjusting, validating, and preparing quantitative and qualitative 
instruments for fieldwork
e. Gathering qualitative information
f. Gathering quantitative information
3. Information analysis and report production (report writing)
a. Structuring the qualitative codebook
b. Coding of qualitative data (NVIVO)
c. Processing quantitative data (Stata)
d. Analyzing information: the CLA team will help identify preliminary findings and unintended 
outcomes and consequences and triangulate evidence and reach conclusions
e. Structuring the presentation with findings and conclusions
f. Structuring the presentation of recommendations
g. Preparing an introductory workshop to discuss the recommendations and implementation 
measures: the CLA approach helps to guide this workshop
h. Drafting the preliminary assessment report
i. Writing the final evaluation report
j. Submitting databases and documentation
4. Socialization and final adjustments
a. Implementing the dissemination plan: the CLA approach will help identify and engage 
stakeholders to increase the use of results and recommendations and package and share 
evaluation findings in accessible formats
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 164
b. Giving the final presentations
c. Submitting the final report to the DEC
Exhibit 68 shows an estimated schedule with each activity’s duration and the delivery dates for the 
products. The evaluation should take no longer than seven months. After submitting the work plan and 
the evaluation design reports, we will begin with fieldwork. For this purpose, an external consulting 
team will collect quantitative and qualitative information.
We will inform USAID about any delays caused by external sources and constraints related to, for 
example, the COVID-19 pandemic or security conditions on the field. We will seek USAID’s approval if 
there is any need to reschedule activities and products. We may alter, move, or change the agenda in 
case some circumstances postpone actions. We can comply with the activities with fixed dates as long as 
none of the previous tasks/activities change. If any activity suffers a delay for any reason, we will 
postpone the scheduled dates by the same number of days of the delay.
165 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 166
Exhibit 68: Timetable
167 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
MEMBERS OF THE EVALUATION TEAM
The people, positions, and responsibilities listed hereafter and contained in Exhibit 69 comprise the team 
assembled for this evaluation. In Annex: Members of the Evaluation Team there is a more detailed 
description of the evaluation team.
1. Evaluation Team Leader (Manuel Fernando Castro):
• Lead the performance evaluation design, including the work plan, data collection and analysis 
methods, the sampling strategy, data collection tools, data analysis plan, and report outline.
• Serve as the primary contact with USAID counterparts and the Implementing Partner.
• Lead and manage the evaluation team operation.
• Implement the methodology, the work plan, and the data analysis. 
• Lead the writing of the main technical deliverables and technical communications, including 
the Performance Evaluation. 
• Oversee the quality and timeliness of the data collection implemented by a local firm.
• Oversee the anonymization process of qualitative and quantitative data.
• Lead debriefs and presentations to USAID and the Implementing Partner.
• Facilitate participatory evaluation methods with the Implementing Partner and other key 
stakeholders to promote collaboration, learning, and adapting.
• Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data 
collection.
2. Mining affairs Specialist (Jairo Herrera):
• Support the methodology and instruments’ design to assess the mining affairs in the targeted 
municipalities receiving interventions.
• Review of primary and secondary sources of information related to mining issues.
• Contribute to the analysis of data for the performance evaluation, with ownership of the 
mining affairs issues analysis.
• Support the Evaluation Leader in preparing reports and presentations for USAID and the 
Implementing Partner.
• Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data 
collection.
• Oversee the anonymization process of qualitative and quantitative data.
3. Environmental Specialist (María Andrea Rueda):
• Support the methodology and instruments’ design to assess the environmental issues in the 
targeted municipalities receiving interventions. 
• Review of primary and secondary sources of information related to environmental issues.
• Contribute to the analysis of data for the performance evaluation, with ownership of 
environmental issues analysis.
• Support the Evaluation Leader in preparing reports and presentations for USAID and the 
Implementing Partner.
• Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data 
collection.
• Oversee the anonymization process of qualitative and quantitative data.
4. Value Chain Specialist (Luis Fernando Monroy):
• Support the methodology and instruments’ design to assess the value chain issues in the 
targeted municipalities receiving interventions. 
• Review of primary and secondary sources of information related to value chain issues.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 168
• Contribute to the analysis of data for the performance evaluation, with ownership of the 
value chain issues analysis.
• Support the Evaluation Leader in preparing reports and presentations for USAID and the 
Implementing Partner.
• Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data 
collection.
• Oversee the anonymization process of qualitative and quantitative data.
5. Social Specialist (Juliana Moreno):
• Support the methodology and instruments’ design to assess the social issues in the targeted 
municipalities receiving interventions. 
• Review of primary and secondary sources of information related to social issues.
• Contribute to the analysis of data for the performance evaluation, with ownership of the 
social aspect analysis.
• Support the Evaluation Leader in preparing reports and presentations for USAID and the 
Implementing Partner.
• Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data 
collection.
• Oversee the anonymization process of qualitative and quantitative data.
6. Quantitative methods specialists (Oscar Quiroz):
• Support the Evaluation Leader designing the Work Plan methodology, including a sampling 
methodology, designing the instruments for quantitative data collection, analysis, and drafting 
the final quantitative report.
• Help oversee and ensure the quality of data collection for the performance evaluation.
• Lead the analysis of quantitative data for the evaluation.
• Support the triangulation of sources of information for the performance evaluation.
• Support the Evaluation Director in preparing reports and presentations for USAID and the 
Implementing Partner.
• Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data 
collection.
• Oversee the anonymization process of qualitative and quantitative data.
7. Evaluation Specialist (Mauricio Aguilar):
• Lead the evaluation’s design and methodology, sampling, and technical analyses.
• Guide and coordinate the qualitative and quantitative data collection efforts with the data 
collection firm and the MEL Activity’s staff.
• Lead planning in each stage of the evaluation, including a detailed list of activities, inputs 
needed, and a schedule. 
• Coordinate the deliverables and reporting, including the data, reports, and presentations.
• Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data 
collection.
• Oversee the anonymization process of qualitative and quantitative data.
8. Qualitative methods specialist (Camila Chavarría):
• Support the Evaluation Leader designing the Work Plan methodology, including a sampling 
methodology, designing the instruments for quantitative/qualitative data collection, analysis, 
and final report drafting.
• Help oversee and ensure the quality of data collection for the performance evaluation.
• Support the analysis of quantitative/qualitative data for the evaluation.
• Support the triangulation of sources of information for the performance evaluation.
169 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
• Support the Evaluation Director in preparing reports and presentations for USAID and the 
Implementing Partner.
• Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data 
collection.
• Oversee the anonymization process of qualitative and quantitative data.
9. MEL’s Lead Evaluation Expert (Orlando Gracia):
• Serve as a liaison between the Evaluation Team and MEL’s COP and USAID’s COR.
• Responsible for staffing, SoW development, financial management and reporting, staff 
direction, and oversight.
10. MEL’s Evaluation Specialist (Juan Guillermo Bedoya):
• Support the Lead Evaluation Expert when liaising with MEL’s COP and USAID’s COR.
• Give support to evaluation management.
• Analyze indicators and Monitor data.
11. MEL’s Quantitative Specialist (Luisa Fernanda Cardona):
• Support the Lead Evaluation Expert when liaising with MEL’s COP and USAID’s COR.
• Give support to evaluation management.
12. MEL’s Qualitative analyst Specialist (Javier Rodríguez):
• Refine the evaluation’s coding system based on the methodological design.
• Sort and classify fieldwork information.
• Encode and integrate interviews and other information.
• Analyze qualitative data.
13. MEL’s GIS Specialist: 
• Provide technical expertise on spatial data collection, map series creation, compile available 
geospatial data sets, conduct spatial analysis and data visualization, and interpret aerial 
photos or satellite images.
14. MEL’s CLA Specialist:
• Lead the tasks and efforts to ensure the evaluation findings and recommendations are 
transparent and disseminated to relevant stakeholders.
• Lead the actions to ensure the evaluation is designed and implemented with a collaborative 
approach.
15. MEL’s Monitoring Specialist:
• Analyze indicators and Monitor data.
• Carry out an initial assessment of Monitor indicators for the evaluation.
16. Data collection firm (TBD):
• Quantitative data collection.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 170
Exhibit 69: Evaluation Team94
EVALUATION MILESTONES
As milestones for the present evaluation, the SoW specifies some essential deliverables, documents, and 
meetings; we will deliver the products in the sequence described below, taking all the necessary steps. 
The proposed milestones are:
1. Evaluation Work Plan. It will include:
i. Draft schedule and logistical arrangements
ii. List of members of the evaluation team, describing their roles and responsibilities
iii. Evaluation milestones
iv. Anticipated schedule of efforts to collect evaluation team data
v. Locations and dates for piloting data collection efforts (if applicable)
vi. Proposed evaluation methodology including selection criteria for comparison groups, if 
applicable; and
vii. Evaluation Report outline (if different from the attached template)
2. Evaluation Design. We will deliver this document at the same time as the Work Plan. It should 
contain:
i. A detailed evaluation design matrix
ii. Draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments
iii. A list of potential interviewees, the sites to be visited, and the proposed selection criteria 
with a justification
iv. The limitations of the design
v. The dissemination plans
94 Own source.
171 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
3. Briefing and Interim Meetings. We should hold a mid-term presentation with the COR, the MEL 
Specialists, and the implementing partner to report the evaluation’s progress, potential challenges, 
and emerging opportunities. We will also provide the COR/AOR periodic briefings and feedback on 
the team’s findings.
4. Workshop for Recommendations discussion. This workshop aims to discuss the summary of findings 
and conclusions with USAID and draft any requested recommendations collaboratively.
5. Draft Evaluation Report. This delivery should address each of the questions identified and follow the 
guidance provided in the SoW.
6. Final Presentations. We should hold a final presentation to discuss the summary of findings and 
conclusions (and recommendations, if applicable) with USAID.
7. Final Evaluation Report. The final evaluation report will respond and incorporate USAID’s comments 
to the final draft evaluation report and the presentations.
8. Submission of Dataset to the Development Data Library. The contractor must submit to the COR 
and the Development Data Library (DDL) a copy of any dataset created or obtained during or for 
this award.
9. Submission of Final Evaluation report. The contractor must submit the final evaluation report and its 
summary to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) within three months of USAID’s 
final approval.
ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE OF TEAM DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
The data collection schedule has two phases. The first is related to the analysis of secondary sources 
that include, at least, the following documents:
1. The activity, monitoring, evaluation, and learning plan – AMELP for OL
2. Award documents, including the modification to include humanitarian assistance
3. The Quarterly Reports
4. The Annual Reports
5. The Annual Work Plans
6. Baseline Reports
7. The background information on OL components
8. Other secondary information provided by OL
The second phase involves obtaining primary information. To this purpose, the evaluation team, through 
the Panagora counterpart, will carry out the due diligence and hire a firm to collect quantitative and 
qualitative data from direct beneficiaries. Also, the evaluation team will design, pilot qualitative 
instruments to make corresponding adjustments, and will train the firm interviewers Later, the 
evaluation team will gather the field information at different levels; in other words, it will conduct 
interviews, and other instruments to national and regional institutions, like government agencies, private 
companies, Afro-Colombian and indigenous organizations, as well as direct Oro Legal MPU. All the field 
information collected by the firm will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed.
LOCATIONS AND DATES TO PILOT THE DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
Between November 9 and 20 (two weeks), we will carry out a pilot exercise to collect data; this activity 
will target stakeholders such as OL’s regional members, representatives from the Antioquia’s 
Governor’s office and several municipalities, national government agencies, and Afro-Colombian and 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 172
indigenous associations participating in the program. Concerning OL’s members, we will conduct a CLA 
workshop to address the evaluation questions. These interviews will provide inputs to fine-tune the data 
collection instruments and prepare an Early Report that we will draft in the second week of December. 
The Early Report will contain institutional interviews at the national level and others at the departmental 
(Antioquia) and local levels in some municipalities of Antioquia and Chocó For the following steps, it is 
relevant to mention that a data collection firm hired for this purpose will pilot the survey instruments 
with mining production units – MPU (MPU surveys) and direct beneficiaries (surveys and interviews) in 
2021. 
PROPOSED EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation focuses on five of the six expected results of Oro Legal Activity, namely:
Objective 1: Building effective governance capacity for gold mining activities
• Capacity in government entities to enforce gold mining legislation strengthened (O1 - R1) 
• Participation of ASM organizations and indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities in formalization 
programs strengthened (O1 - R2)
• Environmental impacts reduced through technical assistance and training (O1 - R3)
Objective 2: Increasing the capacity of the Colombian Government (GOC) entities to address the 
environmental impact caused by illegal mining
This evaluation comprises four stages to achieve its goals. The first stage is designing and planning; it 
involves reviewing and collecting available information and developing the evaluation matrix, the 
stakeholder map, the information collection instruments, and presenting the methodology. The second 
stage is carrying out the fieldwork; this begins with a pilot test of qualitative information collection and 
an early report. In this stage, we prepare and carry out the fieldwork. The third stage, called analysis and 
report, comprises coding, processing, and analyzing collected data. These actions should result in a 
workshop to present and discuss preliminary recommendations and prepare the final report based on 
their validation. The fourth and final stage is adjusting and communicating results. In this phase, we will 
produce final observations and adjustments and complete the dissemination plan.
It is worth clarifying that Oro Legal works with a complex context, dealing with stakeholders from 
different sectors, nature, and hierarchy, and this evaluation should consider these nuances. An accurate 
contextual assessment will help us understand how OL achieves results, complies with deliverables, and 
satisfies programmatic objectives.
Additionally, we recognize that the strategy’s actions are not independent of their context. In other 
words, Oro Legal acts in regions that have dynamics of their own, thus demanding us to evaluate and 
determine if the activities are relevant to the local context.
We will make use of mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) to achieve our objectives, and we will 
receive support from both MEL’s CLA (Communications, Learning and Adapting) and GIS (Geographic 
Information Systems) teams. Quantitative and qualitative tools are complementary, compensate 
limitations of each used separately, and allow for further triangulation of sources; primary and secondary 
information sources will supply both tools.
173 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Quantitative methods allow for detailed and inferential data analysis to record and interpret data and 
their relationships. As a result, information reported will allow characterization and interpretation, 
leading to a descriptive analysis covering different variables, such as socio-demographic characteristics. 
We will complement this analysis with econometric variations analysis, associated factor models, and 
quasi-experimental methods. To that purpose, we will use primary information such as beneficiaries’ 
surveys, and administrative records.
Qualitative methods focus on narratives and perceptions that beneficiaries and stakeholders may have of 
the intervention, its significance, and the perceived influence from the environment. These will also help 
identify the strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats of the intervention. Moreover, we will 
collect primary information through semi-structured interviews at national, regional, and local levels, 
while secondary information will consist of strategic documents, diagnostic documents, and annual 
performance reports.
Furthermore, we will manage all the information under the highest data quality control standards. Also, 
the CLA approach will inform the whole process, using confidence-peer-review strategies. 
Consequently, we expect to learn from the fieldwork and put together relevant recommendations for 
decision-makers designing an upcoming activity to build on OL’s actions. Finally, we will use GIS tools to
interpret available spatial and geostatistical information for a georeferenced analysis.
EVALUATION REPORT SUGGESTED OUTLINE
Abstract
Executive Summary
1. Evaluation Purpose
2. Activity Description and Background 
3. Evaluation Questions and Methodology 
4. Evaluation Findings and Conclusions
5. Evaluation Recommendations
6. Annexes 
I. Recommendations Matrix
II. Supplemental Analysis and Data
III. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations Table
IV. Detailed Methodology
V. Instruments 
VI. Sources of Information 
VII. Evaluation SOW
VIII. Summary Information about Evaluation Team Members
IX. Signed Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest from Evaluation Team Members.
X. Statement of Differences (when applicable)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 174
MEMBERS OF THE EVALUATION TEAM
Exhibit: 70: Evaluation Team
175 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
EVALUATION DESIGN
INTRODUCTION
The Artisanal Gold Mining - Environmental Impact Reduction Activity - Oro Legal – is financed by the 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by Chemonics 
International. It supports Colombian efforts to reduce the social and environmental impacts of artisanal 
and small gold mining (ASGM) in twenty-two municipalities within the departments of Antioquia and 
Chocó. Oro Legal works through the legalization and formalization of illegal mining, capacity building and 
strengthening, the endorsement of more appropriate technology and improved practices, development 
of new legal routes to market, and the promotion of sustainable alternatives to mining. Oro Legal works 
closely with the Government of Colombia (GOC), non-governmental entities (NGOs), communities, 
and the private sector to achieve a set of indicator targets.
As part of the Activity, and after approximately five (5) years of implementation, USAID is conducting a 
final performance evaluation to assess: if Oro Legal has achieved its deliverables and objectives, to what 
extent the achievements at the different sub-objectives of the intervention are perceived effective and 
impactful, and which factors may be playing a role to modulate the performance toward those sub￾objectives, the Activity’s main goal, and USAID’s strategic development goals.
The evaluation will support USAID/Colombia and Oro Legal Implementing Partner (IP) accountability 
among stakeholders. The evaluation will also provide lessons learned and insightful recommendations to 
help USAID/Colombia make programming decisions for future similar activities. It will also share 
knowledge gained with relevant stakeholders in the Government of Colombia (GOC), Mining Sector, 
International Donors, and Communities.
This document describes the designed methodology for the Activity’s performance evaluation. The 
report has seven sections.
1. The Evaluation Matrix includes a synthesis of the questions to be answered. It also lists the 
indicators, agents involved, information sources, and the instruments for the evaluation.
2. The Quantitative Approach
3. The Qualitative Approach
4. The Triangulation Strategy
5. The Spatial-analysis Approach
6. The Evaluation’s Limitations
7. The Dissemination Plan
BACKGROUND95
Before implementing Oro Legal, gold production in the country had a growth of 327% between 2007 
and 2012, going from 15.5 tons to 66.2 tons due to the increase in international prices of this mineral. 
95 We based this section on the revised MEL Plan of USAID/Colombia Artisanal Gold Mining Activity (Oro Legal).
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 176
This disproportionate increase overwhelmed the authorities’ institutional capacity to manage and 
regulate the mining resource exploitation.
The Departmental Mining Census, produced between 2010 and 2011 by the Ministry of Mines and 
Energy (MME), showed that 72% of the Mining Productive Units (MPU) surveyed were small-scale, and 
63% did not have a mining title, despite the different mining legalization programs carried out between 
1969 and 2013. On the other hand, Law 99 of 1993, which created the National Environmental System -
SINA-, established the obligation to obtain an environmental license for projects that may damage 
natural resources; however, this mining census reported that 75.7% of the MPUs did not have any 
environmental authorization.
Governance flaws are evident in mining regions, where mining or environmental authorities do not 
oversee mining practices. This lack of supervision and high business informality created an opportunity 
for different illegal actors to hijack vulnerable gold exploitations. This situation led to a significant 
environmental and socio-economic deterioration in the unlawful mining regions, which adds to pre￾existing risks to human health generated by artisanal mining practices.
Along with the above, the most recent report on Evidence of Alluvial Gold Exploitation –EVOA-, 
carried out by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime –UNODC- (2019), highlights that 57% of 
the exploitation of alluvial gold is outside the law. This exploitation increased in the targeted areas, going 
from 83,620 hectares in 2016 to 98,028 hectares in 2019; 78% of these areas are in the departments of 
Chocó and Antioquia (UNODC, 2020).
Additionally, the first alert on money laundering through illegal mineral extraction was reported by the 
National Tax and Customs Directorate -DIAN- in 2012, indicating that illicit groups launder at least ten 
billion dollars per year using the gold market, which to date represented 3% of the country’s GDP.
According to official production records, about 80% of the gold comes from artisanal and small-scale 
miners through illicit extractors; however, by the beginning of the 2010 decade, there were no technical 
or legal tools to differentiate these two actors. Two investigations laid the foundations to develop these 
tools: the first, published by the United Nations Environment Program -UNEP- and the Ministry of the 
Environment in 201296; and the second published by the Inter-American Development Bank -BID- and 
Fedesarrollo, between 2012 and 2014 (Sabogal, 201297; Goñi, Sabogal and Asmat98, 2014). The results
presented in these reports set the foundations for the Mining Formalization Policy issued by the MME in 
201499, modified in 2016100 due to the National Development Plan 2014-2018 (Law 1753 of June 9, 2015 
) regarding the need to characterize artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) and to differentiate it 
from so-called illegal mining.
96 PNUM and MADS (2012). National synopsis of artisanal and small-scale gold mining. Bogotá 97 Sabogal, A. (2012). Creating a baseline for illegal gold mining in Colombia: methodological report. Economic and Social 
Research Center – Fedesarrollo, Bogotá. 98 Goñi, E., Sabogal, A., and Asmat, R. (2014). Informal gold mining in Colombia: main results creating a baseline. Bogotá, D.C., 
Fedesarrollo and IADB. 99 MME, (2014). Resolution 90719, July 8, 2014. 100 MME, (2016). Resolution 40391, April 20, 2016.
177 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
In support of the Mining Formalization Policy, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development 
(MADS) produced an environmental guide101 for traditional mining activities. This guide was recently 
modified by Resolutions 447 and 448 of May 2020, which issue the terms of reference to prepare the 
environmental impact study –EIA- required in the global or definitive licensing process for small mining 
projects and the environmental temporary license process for mining formalization.
As stated by the BID and Fedesarrollo (Goñi, Sabogal, and Asmat, 2014), ASGM takes place 
fundamentally in regions with armed groups that control illegal economies such as illicit mineral 
extraction, mercury trafficking, cocaine production, logging, and land appropriation, among others.
Regarding the use of mercury, according to studies carried out by the United Nations Industrial 
Development Organization -ONUDI-,102 the urban area of the municipality of Segovia in Antioquia 
showed the highest levels of mercury in air recorded in the world. This problem motivated Colombia to 
sign the Minamata Agreement and issue Law 1658 of 2013, which granted a non-extendable period of 
five years, completed in July 2018, to eliminate this chemical element from the gold extraction process.
In addition to the significant governance conflicts in the country’s mining regions due to groups outside 
the law, there are also the environmental impacts generated by illegal extractors and small producers 
not trained in appropriate extractive techniques. Deforestation and contamination of water currents are 
two of the biggest concerns, especially in regions like Antioquia’s Bajo-Cauca basin and Chocó. Other 
significant environmental impacts are related to areas previously mined and now abandoned without the 
proper mitigation measures, named environmental liabilities.103
Finally, mining tends to discourage other rural activities; people in these areas tend to put aside other 
ventures to pursue an improved livelihood through mining projects, and many times this path does not 
lead to better conditions.104 This situation leaves behind an impoverished community with fewer licit 
economic alternatives and the pressure of illegal armed groups.
Faced with this reality, USAID supports the Colombian government’s efforts to confront illegal activities, 
promote mining formalization, and provide alternative, sustainable, and participatory solutions to 
affected communities, promote responsible mining, and develop alternative economic activities and 
ecological restoration. This initiative complies with USAID’s strategic objectives that seek to contribute 
to capacity building and generate positive changes in behaviors with negative impacts and improve 
environmental resilience by strengthening the management of natural resources.105
The main goal of Oro Legal Activity is to help the GOC’s mining sector and the communities to address 
the informality of the ASGM to reduce its environmental liabilities through:
101 MADS, (2015). Resolution 1258, June 2015. 102 VEIGA, M. (2010). Antioquia, Colombia: the world’s most polluted place by mercury: impressions from two field trips. 
Report prepared by UNIDO (ONUDI).
103 Environmental liabilities refer to the environmental damages that group water, soil, and air pollution, and the destruction of 
resources and ecosystems caused by a business venture’s everyday work or sudden accidents (MADS).
104 Ayala, H. et al. (2019). Diagnosis of environmental and social information regarding mining activity and illegal extraction of 
minerals in the country. Scientific and sociological research document regarding the impacts of mining activity and the illicit 
exploitation of minerals in Colombia’s ecosystems.
105 Intermediate result 4.1 – CDCS 2014-2020.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 178
1. Building effective governance capacity for gold mining activities via:
a. Strengthening Colombian government capacity to enforce gold mining legislation.
b. Enhancing the participation of artisanal gold mining associations and Afro Colombian and 
indigenous communities in mining formalization programs.
c. Providing training and technical assistance to artisanal miners.
2. Increasing the capacity of GOC entities to address the environmental impact caused by illegal mining 
through: 
a. Restoration of degraded areas.
b. Generating alternative livelihoods for communities that cannot or should not be involved in 
gold mining.
c. Improve drinking water quality in mining areas.
This Oro Legal Activity contract totaling almost $22.1 million follows the mining component of the 
previous USAID/Colombia BioREDD+ activity implemented by Chemonics from July 2013 to May 2015.
Oro Legal has two main objectives. The first is to build effective governance capacity for gold mining 
activities via: (i) strengthening Colombian government capacity to enforce gold mining legislation; (ii) 
enhancing the participation of artisanal gold mining associations and Afro Colombian and indigenous 
communities in mining formalization programs and; (iii) providing training and technical assistance (TA) 
to artisanal miners. The second objective is to increase the capacity of Colombian government agencies, 
communities, and the private sector to address the environmental impact caused by illegal mining 
through: (i) rehabilitating degraded areas; (ii) generating diversified sources of income/alternative 
livelihoods for communities that cannot or should not be involved in gold mining and; (iii) improving 
drinking water quality in mining areas.
Oro Legal works with a diverse group of stakeholders, including national and regional governments, 
municipal administrations, Regional Autonomous Corporations (CAR), mining and producer 
associations, private mining companies, and other initiatives working in the regions related to Oro 
Legal’s activities. 
Oro Legal’s two main objectives group together a set of activities under the six expected results 
described below:
ER1.1. Provide selective support to the GOC aimed at political and legal reform to create a 
strengthened framework to enforce mining laws and regulations more effectively.
ER 1.2. Identify and support mining production units (MPUs), associations, and community councils 
(CCs) to strengthen their participation in mining formalization in compliance with the current GOC 
regulatory framework and strengthen their administrative and technical capacities.
ER 1.3. Provide technical assistance (TA) and training for MPUs and associations and CCs to improve 
their environmental and social performance, especially to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of 
Mercury (Hg) in gold (Au) extraction.
ER 2.1. Strengthen nationally appropriate mitigation activities (NAMAs) through the rehabilitation of 
areas degraded by mining via public-private partnerships under long-term agreements and benefit 
179 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
distribution schemes involving vulnerable populations, reducing environmental liabilities, and increasing 
carbon capture forestry plantations. 
ER 2.2. Support a limited portfolio of value chains that can be taken to scale to provide diversified 
incomes for communities and families in target areas.
ER 2.3. Support municipal agencies and other stakeholders to adopt sound integrated water resources 
management (IWRM) activities to improve water resources’ quality in targeted municipalities. 
The activities mentioned above will incorporate crosscutting elements related to gender equality, social 
inclusion, and the communication and dissemination of improved methodologies and practices. The 
implementation of activities will prioritize support for women with high exposure to environmental 
health risks resulting from their mining activities. Oro Legal will also develop strategies to promote 
income diversification/alternate livelihoods, particularly those that expand women’s economic 
opportunities. 
PURPOSE
The purpose of this final performance evaluation is to conduct a systematic analysis of the performance 
of the Oro Legal Activity to assess to what extent the achievements at the different sub-objectives of 
the intervention are perceived effective and impactful, and which factors may be playing a role to 
modulate the performance toward those sub-objectives, the Activity´s main goal, and USAID´s strategic 
development goals.
To this end, the methodological approach considers the support provided by Oro Legal (OL) to the 
following targets:
1. Reduce illegal activity and environmental devastation caused by illegal mining.
2. Generate economic alternatives to illegal mining (honey production in Antioquia and annatto 
production in Chocó).
3. Rehabilitate highly degraded lands using reforestation with Acacia maginum in Antioquia and assisted 
natural regeneration in Chocó.
4. Introduce technologies and practices capable of eliminating the use of mercury.
In the evaluation, we also contemplate contextual information that may affect the sustainability of results 
and identifies the main perceptions regarding OL intervention’s relevance and effectiveness among direct 
and indirect stakeholders.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS106
Considering the Oro Legal Activity purpose stated above, we will conduct a systematic analysis of the 
Activity’s performance and progress towards its main goals to answer six (6) main questions. Each of the 
106 We based this section on the Scope of Work for the final Performance Evaluation of USAID/Colombia Artisanal Gold 
Mining Activity (Oro Legal).
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 180
questions will examine several contextual elements to guide the answers. The questions are the 
following:
1. Mining Formalization: To what extent do the application by Mining Production Units (MPU) of the 
formalization standards, improved operational efficiency, and access to legal markets gained through 
Oro Legal’s intervention provide sufficient incentives for miners involved in ASGM to remain 
legal/formal and improve the environmental performance of their mining operations? 
Context and guidelines to answer the question: This is a follow-on to question #3 from the Mid￾term Evaluation, adjusted to capture the outcome of the contribution of mining formalization towards 
one of the main goals of the Activity. Given a national context marked by a steady increase in 
international gold prices, local pressure from illegal actors, and a widespread culture of unlawfulness, 
have formalized gold miners been able to change their behavior in ways that demonstrate USAID´s 
contribution in this sector to the J2SR? If the benefits of formalization cited above have not provided 
sufficient incentives for ASGM miners to change mining and environmental behavior in a majority of 
cases, what underlying factors are preventing uptake of formalization and what other approaches can be 
identified/suggested to increase interest/uptake and under what requisite conditions?
2. Mining Governance and Policy: What have been the main factors (internal to Oro Legal or external 
arising from the sector context, stakeholder attitudes/behaviors, or existing government policy and 
capacity) that have contributed to or hindered OL’s progress in strengthening Colombian mining and 
environmental governance, and policies at national, regional, and municipal levels? 
Context and guidelines to answer the question: This is a follow-on to question #2 from the Mid￾term Evaluation. OL’s Theory of Change (TOC) proposes that the Activity will strengthen mining 
governance and policy, including at the municipal level. However, mining policy is a national purview, 
which is a flaw in the TOC not identified during the Mid-term Evaluation. Municipal authorities are only 
responsible for administration of the mining registry (RUCOM), have limited environmental authority, 
and lack the budget and means to enforce the mining and other laws against illicit armed groups linked 
to gold mining. Also, Antioquia is the only department with a Mining Secretariat with delegated mining 
authority by the Ministry of Energy (ME), whereas the department of Chocó does not enjoy similar 
status. Additionally, central government capacity to facilitate formalization is limited because of the sheer 
number of ASGM and other informal/illegal mining operations in Colombia, difficulties experienced in 
transferring operational responsibility for ASGM formalization from the ME to the National Mining 
Agency (ANM), and hesitant political will for effective mining policy reform. Given this context, it is 
critical to understand how effective OL’s approaches (both formal and informal) have been to policy and 
institutional capacity strengthening and what factors supported or hindered the Activity’s effectiveness in 
this area. The evaluation will suggest or recommend other approaches where it is relevant to do so.
3. Value Chain Development and Alternative Livelihoods: How do beneficiaries involved in OL´s 
value chains activities perceive the impact of alternative livelihoods on their present and future well￾being outside the ASGM activities? 
Context and guidelines to answer the question: This is a follow-on to question from the Mid￾term Evaluation. The economic (not simply financial) and/or environmental rationale for offering 
alternative livelihoods to ASGM families is to: (i) provide an alternative licit source of income; (ii) reduce 
the disproportionate environmental impact of ASGM in tropical ecosystems; (iii) reduce the pressure on 
181 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
vulnerable populations from illegal armed groups linked to illicit gold mining; and (iv) consolidate 
broader regional security.
Economic reconversion includes a set of real and perceived values, benefits, and costs beyond 
investment in time and inputs and income generation from the economic activity per se; e.g., peace of 
mind, quality of life, more time to devote to the family (particularly relevant for single women heads of 
household), personal health and safety, higher productivity, participation in a legal marketplaces, etc., 
which are often hard to quantify, but are paramount for stakeholders and contribute to broader 
Government of Colombia (GOC and USAID/Colombia development goals, objectives and priorities and, 
therefore, should be considered in answering this question.
4. Rehabilitation of Areas Degraded by Illegal Mining: From the environmental, social, and 
economic point of view, how appropriate and effective have been the differentiated rehabilitation 
models developed by Oro Legal in Antioquia and Chocó in areas previously degraded by illegal mining?
Context and guidelines to answer the question: Rehabilitation initiatives are one of the most 
visible and potentially valuable USAID contributions under Oro Legal that were not properly addressed 
during the Mid-term Evaluation. Large-scale degradation of land and water resources by unregulated 
alluvial mining and river dredging is one of the most significant environmental problems in Antioquia and 
Chocó, with particularly serious impacts to critical and fragile ecosystems along the Cauca and Atrato 
and Quito rivers and tributaries, respectively. Most rehabilitation or reclamation models are complex 
and costly, and not suitable or economically viable for remedying impacts in degraded areas considered 
“environmental orphans” by the state, communities, and landowners. The Oro Legal models were 
purposely designed to be low-cost, practical approaches that are appropriate for private landowners and 
collective communities, and particularly relevant for global and national initiatives in forest restoration 
and climate change mitigation. Are the models cost-effective in comparison to other approaches 
employed in Colombia and elsewhere? Are they good for each regional reality? How robust are the 
models in quickly reestablishing vegetative cover, reversing degradation, and recovering biodiversity? 
How committed are beneficiaries to future maintenance of the models over the medium to long term? 
What conditions are required and/or what changes could be made to the models to make them more 
effective and replicable? 
5. Elimination/Reduction of Mercury from the ASGM Supply Chain: What combination of 
instruments and approaches employed in the effort to reduce mercury usage in the ASGM have proven 
to be most effective and why?
Context and guidelines to answer the question: Mercury has historically been used in ASGM, 
particularly by small-scale alluvial miners and river dredgers, as a cheap and effective amalgam to recover 
fine gold. Exposure to mercury is extremely harmful to humans and one of the major public health and 
environmental risks both in and downstream from areas where gold mining and processing are 
concentrated. Colombia is a signatory to the MINAMATA Convention on Mercury, a global treaty to 
protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury. Colombia also 
promulgated its own Mercury Law that bans all use of mercury in mining as of July 2018 and mandates 
financial support to mining operators for the transition to non-mercury processing, a provision of the 
law that has not been implemented. Through rigorous monitoring methods and documentation, Oro 
Legal beneficiary MPUs have eliminated or significantly reduced the amount of mercury used per gram of 
gold produced. How was this achieved and what were the motivations of beneficiary MPUs? What 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 182
combination of instruments/approaches employed was most impactful? To what extent did external 
factors contribute to or hinder the Activity’s initiatives to reduce or eliminate the use of mercury? 
6. Perceived Relevance and Impact of the Activity: What are the main perceptions of the relevance 
and effectiveness of the USAID - Oro Legal’s intervention among direct and indirect stakeholders - 
ASGM operators, gold mining private sector, academia, international donors, USG agencies, GOC 
agencies, etc.?
Context and guidelines to answer the question: The end of Oro Legal is an appropriate time for 
objective reflection and to seek honest feedback from all key stakeholders on the Activity’s contribution 
to ASGM, impact on the environment, and the socio-economic development in its two main geographies 
and in Colombia more generally. Stakeholders’ perceptions are influenced by three factors: (i) their 
personal circumstances and world view; (ii) their interests and expectations; and (iii) how well informed 
and knowledgeable they are about the Activity’s objectives, implementation, and outcomes. Assessment 
of key stakeholder opinions and feedback on specific components or activities, as well as incorporating 
broader cross-cutting considerations may uncover needs, expectations, and ideas that are otherwise 
hard to capture, which, in turn, could trigger awareness, adaption, recognition, innovation, and learning 
for improvement in the future.
STRATEGY
The evaluation focuses on five of the six expected results107 of Oro Legal Activity, namely:
Objective 1: Building effective governance capacity for gold mining activities
• Capacity in government entities to enforce gold mining legislation strengthened (O1 - R1) 
• Participation of ASM organizations and indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities in formalization 
programs strengthened (O1 - R2)
• Environmental impacts reduced through technical assistance and training (O1 - R3)
Objective 2: Increasing the capacity of the Colombian Government (GOC) entities to address the 
environmental impact caused by illegal mining
• Reforestation NAMA supported in areas degraded by unauthorized ASM operators (O2 - R1)
• Alternative livelihoods for ASM communities promoted (O2 - R2)
This evaluation comprises four stages to achieve its goals. The first stage is designing and planning; it 
involves reviewing and collecting available information and developing the evaluation matrix, the 
stakeholder map, the information collection instruments, and presenting the methodology. The second 
stage is carrying out the fieldwork; this begins with a pilot test of qualitative information collection and 
an early report. In this stage, we prepare and carry out the fieldwork. The third stage of analysis and 
report comprises the coding, processing, and analysis of collected data. This stage includes a workshop 
to present and discuss preliminary recommendations and prepare the final report after validation. The 
107 USAID/Colombia (2020). Scope of work (SOW) for the final performance evaluation of USAID/Colombia artisanal gold 
mining activity (Oro Legal).
183 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
fourth and final stage sets the final presentations and communicates the results, conclusions, and 
recommendations; this phase includes refining the dissemination plan.
Several other elements are essential to clarify. First, it is vital to point out that Oro Legal deals with a 
complex context, encompassing different stakeholders. Thus, on the one hand, this evaluation must 
comprise the agencies at the national, departmental, and municipal levels; it must also involve all 
pertinent actors, including groups enabling the strategy and direct beneficiaries in the targeted regions. 
This work will help determine if OL is achieving results, complying with deliverables, and assessing the 
intervention’s added value.
It is worth clarifying that Oro Legal works with a complex context, dealing with stakeholders from 
different sectors, nature, and hierarchy, and this evaluation should consider these nuances. An accurate 
contextual assessment will help us understand how OL achieves results, complies with deliverables, and 
satisfies programmatic objectives.
Additionally, we recognize that the strategy’s actions are not independent of their context. In other 
words, Oro Legal acts in regions that have dynamics of their own, thus demanding us to evaluate and 
determine if the activities are relevant to the local context.
We will make use of mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) to achieve our objectives, and we will 
receive support from both MEL’s CLA (Communications, Learning and Adapting) and GIS (Geographic 
Information Systems) teams. Quantitative and qualitative tools are complementary, compensate 
limitations of each used separately, and allow for further triangulation of sources; primary and secondary 
information sources will supply both tools.
Quantitative methods allow for detailed and inferential data analysis to record and interpret data and 
their relationships. As a result, information reported will allow characterization and interpretation, 
leading to a descriptive analysis covering different variables, such as socio-demographic characteristics. 
We will complement this analysis with econometric variations analysis, associated factor models, and 
quasi-experimental methods. For that purpose, we will use primary information such as beneficiaries’ 
surveys and administrative records.
Qualitative methods focus on narratives and perceptions that beneficiaries and stakeholders may have of 
the intervention, its significance, and the perceived influence from the environment. These will also help 
identify the strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats of the intervention. Moreover, we will 
collect primary information through semi-structured interviews at national, regional, and local levels, 
while secondary information will consist of strategic documents, diagnostic documents, and annual 
performance reports.
Furthermore, we will manage all the information under the highest data quality control standards. Also, 
the CLA approach will inform the whole process, using confidence-peer-review strategies. 
Consequently, we expect to learn from the fieldwork and put together relevant recommendations for 
decision-makers designing an upcoming activity to build on OL’s actions. Finally, we will use GIS tools to 
interpret available spatial and geostatistical information for a georeferenced analysis.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 184
DETAILED EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX
We will use the evaluation design matrix (Table 18) to link the evaluation questions to the 
programmatic components of Oro Legal. It describes the variables, indicators, and tools proposed to 
measure, the stakeholders to interview, the main and ancillary data sources, and the quantitative and 
qualitative instruments intended to apply.
The matrix summarizes/condenses the evaluation’s scope and objectives; it serves as a roadmap for the 
ET to address each question systematically. Once finished the technical peer-review of the matrix, the 
pilot test and fieldwork will take place. 
185 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
1 To what extent do 
the application by 
Mining Production 
Units of the 
formalization 
standards, 
improved 
operational 
efficiency, and 
access to legal 
markets (MPU) 
gained through 
OL’s intervention 
provide sufficient 
incentives for 
miners involved in 
artisanal and small 
gold mining 
(ASGM) to remain 
legal/formal and 
improve the 
environmental 
performance of 
their mining 
operations?
Participation of 
ASM 
organizations in 
formalization 
programs -O1 
R2
* Operational efficiency 
 -Banking of MPUs and 
miners
 -Administrative and 
financial management
 -Mining technification
 -Reduction in operating 
costs
* Access to legal markets
 -Mining titles and license 
 -Occupational health and 
safety (Formal jobs by 
MPUs)
* Environmental 
performance
 -Dumping management
 -Disposal of tailing 
(mercury and cyanide)
 -Technification of clean 
practices 
* Incentives for 
legality/formality 
 -Price stability
 -Increase in the sale price
 -Perception of security
 -Type of buyer and new 
buyers
 -Increase in MPU 
production due to 
formalization 
Mixed National:
*OL Staff
* ANM
* MME - Mining Formalization Coordination
* MADS - Sectional Directorate
* BGI-Better Gold Initiative
* WWF Colombia
* Anexpo SAS
* Sun Valley – Mining formalization project
Regional-Departmental: 
* OL Staff in Antioquia
* OL Staff in Chocó
* Antioquia Governor's Office (Antioquia's 
Mining Secretary and Antioquia´s 
Environment Secretary)
* Chocó Governor's Office (Chocó´s 
Development Secretary)
* Corantioquia
* Cornare
* Codechocó
* IIAP: Pacific Environmental Research 
Institute 
Municipal:
* Mining Secretaries 
(Mining/Planning/Environment/Development 
Secretaries)
* Gramalote
* MEL Plan
* Monitor
* SIME (OL's information 
system)
* Data bases (O1 y O2)
* Annual and quarterly 
reports 
* White Paper
* MPU information 
(participants and non￾participants) 
* Institutional stakeholders' 
interviews
* Beneficiarie’s interviews
* Mining cadaster (ANNA 
MINERÍA)
*Commitments/Agreements 
between MPUs and buyers
*Monthly briefings
*OL communication 
material 
*Surveys
* Surveys and 
databases 
- Descriptive 
analysis, 
proportion z-test 
and t-student 
test 
- Econometric 
model of mining 
formalization 
determinants: 
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with national, 
regional, and 
municipal 
agents 
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with direct and 
indirect 
beneficiaries
* Perception 
analysis 
(context and 
meanings) 
* SWOT
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 186
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
 -Monthly income from 
MPUs and households
 -Profitability of MPU
* Mineros S.A.
* Mining Projects
* Mining formalization/legalization 
beneficiaries
2 What have been 
the main factors 
(internal to Oro 
Legal or external 
arising from the 
sector context, 
stakeholder 
attitudes/behaviors, 
or existing 
government policy 
and capacity) that 
have contributed 
to or hindered 
OL’s progress in 
strengthening 
Colombian mining 
and environmental 
governance, and 
policies at national, 
regional, and 
municipal levels?
Government 
capacity to 
enforce gold 
mining legislation 
strengthened - O1-R1
* Internal factors
 -MPUs linked to the 
program (Beneficiary linkage 
strategy) 
 -Quality and scope of 
technical 
assistance 
 -Relationship of OL’s MPUs 
with public agencies and 
external actors
 -Linking mining and 
environmental authorities to 
the OL formalization 
process
 -Internal organization and 
technical capacity of OL
 -Adaptability of OL to 
environmental conditions 
and needs of the territory 
(knowledge of beneficiaries and background)
 -Contribution to 
institutional and regulatory 
strengthening processes
 -Funders' perception of 
trust (USAID)
* External factors
 -Clarity of the mining and 
environmental regulatory 
framework
Qualitative National: 
* OL Staff
* MME
* MADS
* Ministry of the Interior
* ANM
Regional-Departmental: 
* OL Staff in Antioquia
* OL Staff in Chocó
* Antioquia Governor's Office (Antioquia's 
Mining Secretary and Antioquia´s 
Environment Secretary)
* Chocó Governor's Office (Chocó´s 
Development Secretary)
* Corantioquia
* Cornare
* Codechocó
* IIAP: Pacific Environmental Research 
Institute 
Municipal:
* Municipal mayor's office
* Mining projects
* Institutional interviews
* Interviews to participants 
and non-participants 
* Annual and quarterly 
reports
* Monitor
* SIME (OL's information 
system)
* Data bases (O1 y O2)
* Monthly briefings
* OL communication 
material 
* White Paper
* Secondary 
information 
- Text mining 
analysis
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with national, 
regional, and 
municipal 
agents 
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with direct and 
indirect 
beneficiaries
* Perception 
analysis 
(context and 
meanings) 
* SWOT
187 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
 -Mining and environmental 
regulatory knowledge 
(officials and miners)
 -Management processes 
and transparency and 
accountability framework
 -Technical and financial 
capacity of institutions and 
officials
 -Social and environmental 
perception of mining in the 
regions, before and after the 
intervention of OL.
 -Knowledge of the reality 
of the territory by officials
 -Trust in state institutions
 -Security and peace 
conditions in the OL 
municipalities
* Implementers
* OL Beneficiaries
3 How do 
beneficiaries 
involved in OL´s 
value chains 
activities perceive 
the impact of 
alternative 
livelihoods on their 
present and future 
well-being outside 
the ASGM 
activities?
Alternative 
livelihoods of 
ASM 
communities 
promoted – O2-
R2
* Alternative legal sources of 
income
 -New household income 
derived from value chains
 -Regular sales of 
associative productive 
initiatives
 -Size and productivity of 
the UPA (Agricultural 
Production Unit) 
 -Technification of the 
productive activity
 -Working household 
members
 -Women's economic 
participation 
Mixed National: 
* Oro Legal
* ACUMEN
* Fundación IC
* WWF Colombia
* ICCO
Regional-Departmental: 
* OL Staff in Antioquia
* OL Staff in Chocó
* MEL Plan
* Monitor
* SIME (OL's information 
system)
* Data bases (O1 and O2)
* Annual and quarterly 
reports
Information from 
participants and non- participants 
* Interviews to participants 
and non-participants 
* Interviews to institutional 
stakeholders
* Surveys and 
databases 
- Descriptive 
analysis, variable 
association and 
grouping 
observations
-Econometric 
model of income 
determinants for 
beekeeping and 
annatto 
production
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with national, 
regional, and 
municipal 
agents 
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with direct and 
indirect 
beneficiaries
* Perception 
analysis 
(context and 
meanings) 
* SWOT
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 188
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
*Sustainability of legal 
production alternatives
 -Sustainability perception 
of the productive chain 
supported
 -Linkages with formal 
markets 
 -Social and business skills 
of the beneficiaries and 
organizations
 -Access to technical 
assistance 
*Reduction of environmental 
impact
 -Perception of local 
environmental improvement
 -Perception of mining 
labor reconversion by 
productive alternatives of 
OL
 -Perception of 
socioeconomic stability 
associated to the productive 
activity of OL
*Regional security 
consolidation due to OL
 -Security perception of the 
environment
*Reduction of pressure on 
vulnerable populations by 
illegal armed groups linked 
to illegal gold mining
 -Perception of pressure 
from illegal armed groups on 
beneficiaries
* Antioquia Governor's Office (Antioquia's 
Mining Secretary and Antioquia´s 
Environment Secretary)
* Chocó Governor's Office (Chocó´s 
Development Secretary)
* Fundación Mineros
* Fundación Oleoductos de Colombia
* Custodiar SA
Municipal:
* Mining Secretaries (Mining/Planning/Environment/Development 
Secretaries)
* Annatto’s implementers
* Beekeeper's implementers
* Annatto’s beneficiaries
* Beekeeper's beneficiaries
Commercial allies:
*Naranja Madura (annatto) 
*Color Química (annatto) 
*Campo Dulce (honey) 
*LOK (honey)
* Baselines
*Monthly briefings
*OL communication 
material 
*Surveys
189 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
 -Perception of trust and 
strengthening of social 
relations 
*Effects on well-being and 
quality of life
 -Perception of 
improvement in the 
household economy
 -Perception of 
improvement in time 
dedicated to the family 
(gender approach)
 -Perception of 
improvement in access to 
basic services
 -Perception about 
tranquility (social peace)
 -Perception of 
improvement in physical and 
personal safety (decrease of 
occupational risks)
4 How appropriate 
and effective since 
the environmental, 
social, and 
economic point of 
view have been the 
differentiated 
rehabilitation 
models developed 
by Oro Legal in 
Antioquia and 
Chocó in areas 
previously 
degraded by illegal 
mining?
Rehabilitation of 
Areas Degraded 
by Illegal Mining. 
– O2 – R1
*Relevance of rehabilitation 
models
 -Adaptation to territorial 
realities
 -Model of assimilation by 
beneficiaries
 -Areas intervened by 
degradation of gold 
extraction 
 -Alignment with sectoral 
policy
*Environmental rehabilitation 
effectiveness
Mixed National: 
* OL Staff
* MADS
Regional-Departmental: 
* OL Staff in Antioquia
* OL Staff in Chocó
* Antioquia Governor's Office (Antioquia's 
Mining Secretary and Antioquia´s 
Environment Secretary)
* Chocó Governor's Office (Chocó´s 
Development Secretary)
* Interviews to participants 
and non-participants 
* Interviews to institutional 
stakeholders
* Annual and quarterly 
reports
* Monitor
* SIME (OL's information 
system)
* Data bases (O1 y O2)
*Monthly briefings
*OL communication 
material 
* Surveys and 
databases 
- Descriptive 
analysis of 
rehabilitation of 
degraded areas.
- Econometric 
model of 
rehabilitation of 
degraded areas 
effectiveness 
(optional).
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with national, 
regional, and 
municipal 
agents 
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with direct and 
indirect 
beneficiaries
* Perception 
analysis 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 190
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
 -Replicability of 
rehabilitation models
 -Rehabilitated areas due to 
gold extraction degradation 
 -Reduced environmental 
degradation 
 -Consolidated Acacia 
forest plantations (cost of 
plantations) 
 -Biodiversity recovered 
(Birds, amphibians, insects, 
etc) 
 -Natural regeneration 
(Chocó) (perceptions of 
inhabitants) 
*Sustainability of 
rehabilitation models
 -Commitment and 
ownership by the 
beneficiaries to maintain 
actions in the medium and 
long term (territorial 
approach)
 -Beehives productivity
 -Community monitoring 
(gender focus)
 -Sustainability incentives 
(REDD projects)
 -Perception of social 
benefits associated with 
rehabilitation (territorial 
approach)
 -Complexity of 
rehabilitation models
* Corantioquia
* Cornare
* Codechocó
* IIAP: Pacific Environmental Research 
Institute 
Municipal:
* Mining Secretaries 
(Mining/Planning/Environment/Development 
Secretaries)
* Rehabilitation implementers
* Rehabilitation beneficiaries
* Secondary 
information
- Text mining 
analysis
(context and 
meanings) 
* SWOT
191 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
 -Costs of rehabilitation 
models
 -Linkage of private and 
public actors
5 What combination 
of instruments and 
approaches 
employed in the 
effort to reduce 
mercury usage in 
the ASGM have 
proven to be most 
effective and why?
Environmental 
impacts reduced 
(mercury use) 
through technical 
assistance and 
training – O1- 
R3
*Effect of legal prohibition
*Education and training 
*Variation in price of 
mercury
*Awareness of health risks
*Awareness to 
environmental risks
*Fostering the use of new 
technologies
*Adoption / appropriation of 
new technologies by 
beneficiaries
*Miners linked to the Zero 
Mercury Project
*Changes in perception and 
behavior regarding the use 
of mercury
*Mercury elimination or 
reduction motivation 
*Zero mercury pilot 
effectiveness
* Degree of satisfaction of 
the MPU with the 
production after the 
implementation of the 
cleaner production 
techniques indicated by OL
* Degree of technical or 
economic difficulty in 
Mixed National: 
* OL Staff
* ANM
* MADS
* MME
* WWF Colombia
* Anexpo SAS
* BGI-Better Gold Iniciative
* CIIGSA
Regional-Departmental: 
* OL Staff in Antioquia
* OL Staff in Chocó
* Antioquia Governor's Office (Antioquia's 
Mining Secretary and Antioquia´s 
Environment Secretary)
* Chocó Governor's Office (Chocó´s 
Development Secretary)
* Corantioquia
* Cornare
* Codechocó
* IIAP: Pacific Environmental Research 
Institute 
Municipal:
* MEL Plan
* Monitor
* SIME (OL's information 
system)
* Data bases (O1 y O2)
* Annual and quarterly 
reports 
* Information of 
participants and non￾participants 
* Interviews to participants 
and non-participants 
* Interviews to institutional 
stakeholders
* Baselines
* White paper
* Monthly briefings
* OL communication 
material 
* Environmental 
Assessment 
* Surveys
* Surveys and 
databases 
- Descriptive 
analysis of 
mercury 
reduction in the 
ASGM supply 
chain
- Econometric 
model of the 
determinants of 
mercury use in 
ASGM (optional)
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with national, 
regional, and 
municipal 
agents 
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with direct and 
indirect 
beneficiaries
* Perception 
analysis 
(context and 
meanings) 
* SWOT
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 192
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
implementing the cleaner 
production techniques 
indicated by OL
*Clearness of the mining and 
environmental regulatory 
framework
*Mining and environmental 
regulatory knowledge 
(officials and miners)
*Security and peace 
conditions in OL 
municipalities
*Internal organization and 
technical capacity of OL
* Mining Secretaries 
(Mining/Planning/Environment/Development 
Secretaries)
* Gramalote
* Mineros S.A
* Mining projects
* Mining formalization/legalization 
beneficiaries
6 What are the main 
perceptions of the 
relevance and 
effectiveness of the 
USAID - Oro 
Legal´s 
intervention among 
direct and indirect 
stakeholders - 
ASGM operators, 
gold mining private 
sector, academia, 
international 
donors, USG 
agencies, GOC 
agencies, etc.?
Perceived 
relevance and 
impact of OL –
Crosscutting 
elements O1 y 
O2
*Knowledge of the activity
* Formalization and 
legalization of mining
 -Level of relevance 
(environmental, socio- economic, mining activity)
 -Level of effectiveness 
(environmental, socio￾economic, mining activity)
*Governance and mining 
policies
 -Level of relevance 
(environmental, socio- economic, mining activity)
 -Level of effectiveness 
(environmental, socio￾economic, mining activity)
*Value chain development 
and alternative livelihoods
Mixed National: 
* OL Staff
* ANM
* MADS
* MME
Ministry of the Interior
* WWF Colombia
*ACUMEN
*Fundación IC
*ICCO
*Anexpo SAS
*BGI-Better Gold Iniciative
*CIIGSA
Regional-Departmental: 
* OL Staff in Antioquia
Interviews to participants 
and non-participants 
* Interviews to institutional 
stakeholders
*Annual and quarterly 
reports
*Stakeholder mapping and 
relationship strategy
*Monthly briefings
*OL communication 
material 
*Surveys
* Surveys
- Descriptive 
analysis and 
factor analysis
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with national, 
regional, and 
municipal 
agents 
* Semi 
structured 
interviews 
with direct and 
indirect 
beneficiaries
* Perception 
analysis 
(context and 
meanings) 
* SWOT
193 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
 -Level of relevance 
(environmental, socio￾economic)
 -Level of effectiveness 
(environmental, socio￾economic)
*Rehabilitation of degraded 
areas 
 -Level of relevance 
(environmental, socio￾economic, mining activity) 
 -Level of effectiveness 
(environmental, socio￾economic, mining activity)
*Mercury elimination / 
reduction
 -Level of relevance 
(environmental, socio￾economic, mining activity)
 -Level of effectiveness 
(environmental, socio￾economic, mining activity)
* OL Staff in Chocó
* Antioquia Governor's Office (Antioquia's 
Mining Secretary and Antioquia´s 
Environment Secretary)
* Chocó Governor's Office (Chocó´s 
Development Secretary)
* Corantioquia
* Cornare
* Codechocó
* IIAP: Pacific Environmental Research 
Institute 
* Fundación Mineros
* Fundación Oleoductos de Colombia
* Custodiar SA
Municipal:
* Municipal Mayor’s Office 
(Mining/Planning/Environment/Development 
Secretaries)
* Gramalote
* Mineros S.A.
* Mining projects
* Beekeepers Executors
* Annatto Executors
* Rehabilitation areas Executors
*Mining formalization/legalization 
beneficiaries
* Beekeeping beneficiaries
* Annatto beneficiaries
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 194
TABLE 25: Design Matrix
NO. EVALUATIONS 
QUESTIONS
LINES OF 
INTERVENTION 
(COMPONENT)
MAIN EVALUATION 
INDICATORS
METHOD AGENTS DATA SOURCE QUANTITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
QUALITATIVE 
INSTRUMENT
* Rehabilitation areas beneficiaries
Commercial allies: 
* Naranja Madura (annatto)
* Color Química (annatto)
* Campo Dulce (honey)
* LOK (honey)
195 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
It is proposed six methods for the quantitative analysis: a) descriptive analysis, b) Proportion Z-test and 
T-Student test, c) econometric approaches, d) multivariate methods, and e) text mining analysis. The 
quantitative methodology should answer, entirely or partially, all the evaluation questions listed in the 
Purpose section.
MINING FORMALIZATION (QUESTION1)
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS, PROPORTION Z-TEST AND T-STUDENT TEST
According to OL’s reports for FY19, out of the 643 initially contacted MPUs, 215 MPUs (33.4%) decided 
to take part of the formalization process. Among these, 26.5% (57 MPUs) reached formalization and 
156 MPUs make up the remaining current portfolio. Using this information as a starting point, we will do 
a descriptive analysis to explore the formalization rate patterns and dynamics over time and between 
departments. We will also calculate the proportion Z-test to evaluate significant differences in the 
formalization ratio between the previous analysis units.
Based on Lopez (2017)108, to establish if there are significant differences between the percentages 
reported by the qualitative variables comparing two or more groups, the assessment will use the Z-test 
proportion comparison. This test uses the binomial distribution to calculate the value or proportion P of 
some event of interest. If the evaluation will proceed to compare this P proportion for two groups or 
categories (A and B), the result would be PA and PB. In this case, the null hypothesis Ho: 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 = 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 can be 
contrasted through the following test statistic: 𝑍𝑍 = 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴−𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵
�𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴×𝑄𝑄𝐴𝐴
𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 +𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵×𝑄𝑄𝐵𝐵
𝑛𝑛𝐵𝐵
where 𝑄𝑄𝐴𝐴 = 1 − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 and 𝑄𝑄𝐵𝐵 = 1 −
𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵. If the results reject the null hypothesis, there would be significant differences in the proportion of 
interest between the groups analyzed.
Considering the primary and secondary information related to question Q1, we will develop T-Student 
tests to corroborate significant differences in the MPU’s average production (in metric tons) and income 
between 2016 and 2018 and between groups of beneficiaries by regions. Based on Lopez (2017)109, the 
T-Student test will be used for independent samples to establish if there are significant differences 
between the averages reported in the different information characterization analyses.110 Mathematically, 
these tests start from two samples n1 and n2 that come from populations with means 𝜇𝜇1 and 𝜇𝜇2 and 
variances 𝛿𝛿1
2 𝑎𝑎 𝛿𝛿2
2. 
The random variable 𝑍𝑍 = �𝑋𝑋1−𝑋𝑋2�−(𝜇𝜇1−𝜇𝜇2)
�𝛿𝛿1
2
𝑛𝑛1+
𝛿𝛿2
2
𝑛𝑛2
follows a standard normal distribution.
108 Lopez, L (2017). Bioestadística. Ed. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Chapter 9. Page. 72
109 López, L (2017). Bioestadística. Ed. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Chapter 9. Page. 70 110 We will perform statistical tests to check testable assumptions when required.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 196
Since it is unknown whether both samples have the same variance, a variation of the T-test statistic is 
used instead: 𝑇𝑇:𝑡𝑡 = �𝑋𝑋1−𝑋𝑋2�−𝑑𝑑0
𝑆𝑆𝑝𝑝� 1
𝑛𝑛1+ 1
𝑛𝑛2
where 𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝
2 = 𝑠𝑠1
2(𝑛𝑛1−1)+𝑠𝑠2
2(𝑛𝑛2−1)
𝑛𝑛1+𝑛𝑛2−2 have the sample standard deviation 𝑠𝑠1 and 
𝑠𝑠2. 
In this case, the null hypothesis can be described as Ho: 𝜇𝜇1 − 𝜇𝜇2 = 𝑑𝑑0, that is if 𝑑𝑑0 = 0, it would 
contrast averages with no significant differences. The null hypothesis is rejected when −𝑡𝑡𝛼𝛼
2,𝑛𝑛1+𝑛𝑛2−2 <
𝑡𝑡 < 𝑡𝑡𝛼𝛼
2,𝑛𝑛1+𝑛𝑛2−2 concluding that there are significant differences between the averages reported in both 
samples.
ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF MINING FORMALIZATION DETERMINANTS
Using primary information, monitoring and follow-up information from the Performance Information 
Reference Sheets (PIRS) and the M&E plan, and secondary information from official sources111, we 
propose to estimate the following econometric model to answer the evaluation’s Q1.
The first econometric model uses observations at the MPU level; in this model the dependent variable 
would be 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 (formalization and legalization levels indicators).112 The independent variables would be the 
following:
• A vector made of the MPU’s variables and attributes, 𝑋𝑋1𝑖𝑖: type of mining (alluvial, underground, 
dredges), the length of the mining exploitation, number of miners, and entry-level of the formalization 
indicator, among others.
• M&E variables from the formalization strategy, 𝑋𝑋2𝑖𝑖: technical assistance, mining training, and clean 
production training for processing mercury, among others.
• Municipal and departmental control variables, external to the program, that can help explain regional 
formalization progress, 𝑋𝑋3𝑖𝑖: demographic variables, specific traits, illicit economy indicators, and CAR 
management indicators, among others113. 
In line with the above, we propose the following econometric specification:
𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 = 𝛾𝛾0 + 𝛾𝛾1𝑋𝑋1𝑖𝑖 + 𝛾𝛾2𝑋𝑋2𝑖𝑖 + 𝑋𝑋3𝑚𝑚 + 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 (1) 
Where:
• 𝑖𝑖: Mining Production Unit
111 (1) Alluvial Gold Exploitation – Evidence from remote perception 2018. UNODC. Nov. 2019”, (2) Due diligence in 
Colombian gold supply chain: gold mining in Antioquia; 2016, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 
(OECD). (3) Goñi, E., Sabogal, A., and Asmat, R., 2014; Informal gold mining in Colombia: main results creating a baseline. 
Bogotá, D.C., Fedesarrollo, and IADB. (4) Sabogal, A., 2012; Creating a baseline for illegal gold mining in Colombia: 
methodological report. Economic and Social Research Center – Fedesarrollo, Bogotá. 112 These indicators are calculated from PIRS and M&E information. The legalization indicator corresponds to 60 points of the 
100 possible points of the monitoring and follow-up scheme; This indicator responds to the variables evaluated by OL’s 
technical staff. The formalization indicator corresponds to 40 points out of the 100 possible points and responds to the 
indicators associated with the miner’s commitment to the process. 113 Specific indicators are presented in ANNEX 1.
197 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
• 𝑚𝑚: Municipalities
• 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖: Error
The second econometric model will use MPU-level observations and shares the same explaining variable 
set valid for equation (1). The difference with that model has to do with its dependent variable 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖: 
dichotomic variable that can be 1 if the MPU graduated with 75% of the required points or 0 in any 
other case. Due to the binary nature of the dependent variable, we postulate equation (2) to model the 
probability of MPUs graduating.114
𝑃𝑃(𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 = 1) = 𝛬𝛬(𝛾𝛾0 + 𝛾𝛾1𝑋𝑋1𝑖𝑖 + 𝛾𝛾2𝑋𝑋2𝑖𝑖 + 𝑋𝑋3𝑚𝑚 + 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 (2) 
It is important to limit the scope of the results and the possible limitations of these econometric models. 
As mentioned above, 26.5% of the project’s MPUs achieved 75 out of 100 points in the formalization 
scale. This situation means that the program’s use of direct beneficiaries may have selection bias115 and 
not represent the total universe of informal MPUs. Therefore, it is important to point out that these 
analyses’ results will be valid for MPUs accompanied by OL and cannot be extrapolated to the total 
universe. Likewise, although these models will establish conditional associations of variables, it is possible 
that the problem of omitted variables116 exists, which together would make these models not measure 
causal effects or quantitatively evaluate impacts of the intervention.
The econometric specification of equations (1) and (2) are subject to adjustment depending on primary 
and secondary information availability. In any case, this type of model depends on the collection of 
primary information available on February 12th (2021), which may be at risk due to the current COVID￾19 pandemic and timing of data collection. The information that is subsequently collected will be 
included at the final written report, however it will not be included in the presentation of results117. In 
case the data changes significantly, an erratum will be made describing the adjustments that are 
necessary.
MINING GOVERNANCE AND POLICY (QUESTION 2)
TEXT MINING ANALYSIS
Using as input the qualitative information from the transcription of interviews related to the 
development of Q2, we propose to prepare a textual data analysis called Word Cloud and Hierarchical 
Clustering. We will use these tests to detect the most frequent words and word associations, searching 
for strategic messages that summarize the information regarding adopting good practices in gold mining 
to control, mitigate, and prevent the negative environmental impacts.
VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT AND ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS (QUESTION 3)
114 We will assess the Probit and Logit models; the model’s selection will depend on the best fit and fulfilling these two 
econometric specifications’ assumptions.
115 We had to modify the strategy and locate active miners within company properties or community council areas; this does 
not represent most small, informal miners.
116 One example is the formalization progress (graduation) as related to business ownership and community council areas. 117 In case the information collected is not enough to allow econometric estimations, descriptive analyses of survey information 
will be conducted making use of module V. Mining Formalization 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 198
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS, VARIABLE ASSOCIATION AND GROUPING OBSERVATIONS
This analysis starts with a descriptive study based on primary information from achiote and apiculture 
value chains’ direct beneficiaries. Then we use this survey to conduct multivariate analyzes known as 
multiple correspondence analysis and cluster analysis. This examination will help us find multiple 
relationships between qualitative attributes to summarize the information from the components and 
outline the conclusions regarding alternative licit income sources, sustainability of legal productive 
alternatives, reducing environmental impacts, and beneficiaries’ well-being and livelihoods.
Following guidelines by Peña (2002) to analyze and represent possible associations in contingency tables, 
we will develop a multiple correspondence analysis to conclude about qualitative variables118. This analysis 
begins with an F matrix of relative frequencies of the form:
∑𝐼𝐼
𝑖𝑖=1 ∑𝐽𝐽
𝑗𝑗=1 𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖 = 1, 
Which we use to construct a data matrix:
𝑍𝑍 = 𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓
−1/2
𝐹𝐹𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶
−1/2
Whose components are:
𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖 = � 𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
�𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖.𝑓𝑓.
�
Through matrix operations, it is possible to establish a joint projection of row profiles 𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑓 = 𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓
−1/2
𝑍𝑍𝐴𝐴2
and column profiles 𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐 = 𝐷𝐷𝑐𝑐
−1/2
𝑍𝑍𝐵𝐵2, where 𝐴𝐴2 contains the vectors of 𝑍𝑍′𝑍𝑍. The result of projecting these 
coordinates is a graph called a perceptual map that represents the association between the categories 
summarized in a contingency table.
Additionally, with the same datasets, there is a possibility for the use of other multivariate analyzes such 
as the following methodologies: (i) K-means cluster, (ii) Two-step cluster, or (iii) Heretical Cluster. We 
will use these tools to identify clustering patterns among beneficiaries of the Oro Legal program’s 
different action lines.
ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF INCOME DETERMINANTS FOR BEEKEEPING AND ANNATTO 
PRODUCTION:
We propose the following econometric approach to analyze Q3, particularly regarding the perceived 
effect of alternative livelihoods regarding licit income generation and sustainability of productive options.
To understand income from alternative licit sources, we will estimate an econometric model to measure 
the determinants of compensation received by achiote and apiculture value chains’ direct beneficiaries. 
We will record income as the average periodic value of production, sales, or revenue for 2020 from the 
118 Among others, computed qualitative variables from the primary beneficiary’s survey include:
• Families and/or individual members participation in OL annatto supported activities
• Individual or family economic activity before the OL program
• Motivation to participate in OL’s annatto activities
• Individual/family commitments with OL while joining beekeeping/annatto activities
• Obstacles to the development of beekeeping/annatto in the targeted regions
199 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
productive activity. This way, the model will have as the dependent variable 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖: income received by the 
productive chains.119 We will try to quantify the effect of different determinants from this proceeding 
through control variables in econometric models.
Concerning the determinants of this income, we propose to control the model with microeconomic 
determinants present in the economic literature (𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖: the size of the UPA, returns on the UPA, 
investment level, use of installed capacity, number of people dedicated to productive activity, seniority 
or experience in production, technical assistance, associativity, among others). Additionally, we propose 
to control the model through territorial determinants of income generation such as (𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖: the distance 
between the place of production and the market place, access to demand, transportation costs, 
dispersion of UPAS, access to public goods and infrastructure120, among others)121. It is important to 
note that the MEL-GIS team will calculate the territorial determinants of income through productive 
activities and their level of access to tertiary roads, which will allow analyzing the distances and times 
involved to transport the products to the centers market. 122
Following this logic, we propose the following general econometric specification:
𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 = 𝛾𝛾0 + 𝛾𝛾1𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 + 𝛾𝛾2𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖 + 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 (3) 
Where:
● 𝑖𝑖: OL’s beekeepers and annatto farmers
● 𝑚𝑚: Municipalities
● 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖,
: Error
The model contained in equation (3) includes a yield definition by UPA understood as the ratio of 
annatto tons over hectares in equation (4) and honey kilograms over beehives in equation (5), as shown 
by the following equations:
𝑌𝑌 𝑌𝑌 𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = 𝑇𝑇 𝑖𝑖
𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖
(4)
𝑌𝑌 𝑌𝑌 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑖𝑖 = 𝐻𝐻 𝐾𝐾 𝐾𝐾 𝑖𝑖
𝐵𝐵 ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖
(5)
119 The effect of the price is in the income received by the beneficiaries. Although the price is a determining factor in producers’ 
income, it is neither the only nor the main one. The productive projects with small producers try to manage variables to 
improve their income; these include yield, the quality of their products, the efficiencies in their production, and logistics costs. 
Price behavior is taken into account to define, together with the expected yields and estimated costs, the size of the minimum 
productive unit (number of hives or number of hectares) such that it guarantees a sufficient income to the producer and that 
they can overcome foreseen price changes based on estimated market behavior. 120 Secondary information at the municipal level will be explored to approximate the variable. 121 Specific indicators are presented in ANNEX 2. 122 We will consider the number of operational units (active beehives or hectares of achiote in the productive phase) and the 
current development stage to estimate the yields and evaluate the income, which is part of the information to collect with OL.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 200
The econometric specifications of equation (3) are subject to adjustment depending on primary and 
secondary information availability. In any case, this type of model depends on the collection of primary 
information available on February 12th (2021), which may be at risk due to the current COVID-19 
pandemic. The information that is subsequently collected will be included as an annex of descriptive 
tables, however it will not be included in the final presentation of results.
REHABILITATION OF AREAS DEGRADED BY ILLEGAL MINING (QUESTION 4)
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS – REHABILITATION OF DEGRADED AREAS
The analysis of the rehabilitation of degraded areas will combine secondary and primary information. 
Using information from satellite images between 2016 and 2020, we will prepare a descriptive analysis to 
analyze the mining areas targeted by OL for rehabilitation in the departments of Antioquia and Chocó. 
We can use this to analyze the mining areas intervened by OL’s and examine if there is noticeable 
regrowth and identify mining areas not benefited from OL and examine vegetation cover.
On the other hand, we will review OL’s documents on the proposed process to restore the two areas 
and conclude about the pertinence of the implemented strategy. We will also review secondary 
information on alternative interventions to diagnose and rehabilitate mining affected areas, define 
environmental liabilities, identify and classify environmental impacts on natural elements, erosion, and 
determine the effects on the ecosystem and the landscape, among others that can provide valuable 
references for the analysis.
We will also collect primary information from direct beneficiaries of the rehabilitation projects in 
Antioquia and Chocó. This research will include inquiring about the people’s perception of the targeted 
areas regarding the improvements, including landscape and ecosystem restoration, the accompaniment 
of the public institutions, the intervention’s length, the feasibility of replication and its sustainability in the 
future. Similarly, based on the qualitative sampling and analysis we will gather and wage opinions from 
different organizations: public agencies, universities, and NGOs.
TEXT MINING ANALYSIS
Using as input the qualitative information from the transcription of interviews related to the 
development of Q4, we propose to prepare a textual data analysis called Word Cloud and Hierarchical 
Clustering. We will use these tests to detect the most frequent words and word associations, searching 
for strategic messages that summarize the information regarding adopting good practices in gold mining 
to control, mitigate, and prevent the negative environmental impacts.
We will review documents prepared with primary information and the “fichas ambientales” for OL’s 
sub-activities recorded on the Monitor System to determine the effectiveness of the environmental 
intervention before and during the project’s execution. We will also consider in the analysis the available 
parameters from existing tests and samples regarding water, biological resources and the abiotic 
component. 
The quality of the information that we receive will determine our environmental component analysis; if 
the information is insufficient, we will consider additional fieldwork to validate the data.
MERCURY ELIMINATION/REDUCTION FROM THE ASGM SUPPLY CHAIN (QUESTION 5)
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS – MERCURY REDUCTION IN THE ASGM SUPPLY CHAIN
201 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
According to OL’s information for 2017, the amount of mercury used to produce 1 ounce of gold 
amounted to 8.62 Hg/t. Taking this baseline and monitoring information from the PIRS and the M&E 
plan, we will prepare a descriptive analysis to detail mercury use between 2017 and 2020 among all 
MPUs supported by the program. This analysis will confirm significant differences between MPUs by 
municipalities and define the variables associated with higher or lower mercury consumption in the 
ASGM chain.
MERCURY DETERMINANTS IN ASGM (OPTIONAL)
To highlight probable links between mercury, use in ASGMs and the variables observed in MPUs, we 
propose to use an econometric model to find plausible determinants.
This econometric model uses as observations units the MPUs targeted by OL in the formalization 
program and the dependent variable would be 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 (mercury used by 1 MPU to produce 1 ounce of gold). 
This model would assess:
• A vector of independent variables from OL’s M&E system, 𝑋𝑋1𝑖𝑖: availability of chemical supplies, 
productivity of the mining methods, type of mining (alluvial, underground, dredges), the length of the 
mining exploitation, number of miners, and MPU’s formalization indicator, among others.
• Direct beneficiaries’ perception variables, 𝑋𝑋2𝑖𝑖: specific traits, perception of regulations, and variables 
associated with the mercury use behavior.
• Municipal and departmental control variables, external to the program, that can help explain regional 
the ASGM use of mercury, 𝑋𝑋3𝑖𝑖: environmental variables, demographic variables, illicit economies 
indicators, and CAR management indicators, among others123. 
In line with the above, we propose the following econometric specification:
𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 = 𝛾𝛾0 + 𝛾𝛾1𝑋𝑋1𝑖𝑖 + 𝛾𝛾2𝑋𝑋2𝑖𝑖 + 𝑋𝑋3𝑚𝑚 + 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 (6) 
Where:
● 𝑖𝑖: Mining Production Unit
● 𝑚𝑚: Municipalities
● 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖: Error
The model described in equation (7) is optional because its results depend on the availability of primary 
information and obtaining MPU data to explain the use of mercury in gold production. In any case, this 
type of model depends on the collection of primary information available on February 12th (2021), which 
may be at risk due to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The information that is subsequently collected 
will be included as an annex of descriptive tables, however it will not be included in the final 
presentation of results.
123 Specific indicators for X1i, X2i and X3m are presented in ANNEX 2.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 202
PERCEIVED RELEVANCE AND IMPACT OF THE ACTIVITY (QUESTION 6)
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS AND FACTOR ANALYSIS
Concerning the primary quantitative information that we will collect in this evaluation, we suggest a 
descriptive analysis to characterize the perception variables of OL’s impact on the mining. This analysis 
aims to compare groups of beneficiaries (mining formalization, reconversion, and rehabilitation of 
degraded areas) concerning the same set of perception variables124 and look for differences between 
their qualifications. Likewise, we will evaluate the perception of institutional actors associated with OL 
using the same set of variables. In a complementary way, we will use Factor Analysis to provide 
quantitative elements on the data’s underlying structure and provide the possibility of summarizing 
perception information about the importance of OL’s impacts among its beneficiaries. In any case, this 
type of analysis depends on the collection of primary information available on February 12th (2021), 
which may be at risk due to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The information that is subsequently 
collected will be included as an annex of descriptive tables, however, it will not be included in the final 
presentation of results.
DATA COLLECTION CONSIDERATIONS
The quantitative approach will answer 5 questions of the intervention (Q1, Q3, Q4, Q5, and Q6) using 
primary information. According to the Activity’s data, there are 1,245 direct beneficiaries in 20 
municipalities of Antioquia and Chocó that are this evaluation’s universe. Direct beneficiaries, mine 
owners, or representatives of community councils, usually are the ideal source to supply information. 
The mining component has 167 beneficiaries, annatto has 345, apiculture 318, and rehabilitation of 
degraded areas 415 (see Table 26).
TABLE 26: DIRECT BENEFICIARIES BY COMPONENT AND MUNICIPALITY 
DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY MINING ANNATTO BEEKEEPING REHAB TOTAL
Antioquia
Barbosa 3 3 
Buriticá 10 10
Cáceres 23 24 47
Caucasia 103 30 133
Don Matías 5 5 
El Bagre 72 315 387
Nechí 57 57
Remedios 11 11
124 The module (IV. Legal Gold Program) will be used, which contains perception variables associated with the program. Specific 
questions such as:
132. Before you joined the Oro Legal program, which of the following activities represented a source of income in your 
household?
133. Today, which of the following activities represent a source of income in your household?
134. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied. How satisfied are you with the ORO LEGAL 
program?
203 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 26: DIRECT BENEFICIARIES BY COMPONENT AND MUNICIPALITY 
DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY MINING ANNATTO BEEKEEPING REHAB TOTAL
San Roque 11 11
Segovia 1 1 
Tarazá 16 29 45
Zaragoza 1 57 43 101
Total Antioquia 81 0 318 412 811
Chocó
Atrato (Yuto) 111 111
Cantón San Pablo 74 74
Certegui 11 2 13
Condoto 5 5 
Quibdó 20 1 21
Río Quito 127 2 129
Tadó 41 41
Unión Panamericana 29 11 40
Total Chocó 86 345 0 3 434
Total 167 345 318 415 1,245
Given the characteristics of the universe of analysis, below are some guidelines to design quantitative 
samples by the information gathering firms125: 
1. Mining: There is a database with the list of the 167 MPU of OL’s direct beneficiaries; for this universe, 
we expect a survey of census information. Of these beneficiaries, it is essential to mention that 121 have 
a contact telephone number, and the proposals must contemplate gathering the missing information to 
contact all the beneficiaries, either in person or virtually.
2. Annatto and Beekeeping: There is a database of the 345 families benefitting directly from annatto and 
320 families benefitting directly from beekeeping in 11 municipalities in Antioquia and Chocó. We 
expect face-to-face or virtual surveys with this group included in the sample design.
In general, the proposed sample must guarantee a margin of error of less than 5% and a confidence level 
equal to or greater than 95%. Indicatively, using these parameters, the minimum sample sizes for Achiote 
and Beekeeping beneficiaries are defined through the simple random sampling strategy, as illustrated in 
Table 27. If possible, we expect that the sample proposal contains data from all the targeted 
municipalities. The values included in 21 may vary with the proposed sampling strategy’s efficiency from 
125 The firm must deliver a database with the information collected on February 12, 2020. This database will be the input for the
quantitative analysis of the evaluation. Subsequently, the delivery of a final database with the results of the entire field work is 
expected according to the initial work plan.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 204
the gathering firms. Similarly, the proponents must present an oversampling percentage to account for 
possible replacements in non-responsive cases. Finally, the proponent should consider adjustments in 
the databases with expansion factors for non-responses.
TABLE 27: MINIMUM SAMPLE
ANNATTO BEEKEEPING
Indicative 
Sample 261 245
One of the main challenges in collecting information is that, of the total of 345 beneficiaries of annatto, 
there are only 154 telephone numbers. Likewise, of the 320 beekeeping beneficiaries, there are only 234 
telephone contacts. Therefore, the proposals must contain a face-to-face or virtual strategy to contact 
the direct beneficiaries selected in the samples that do not have telephone numbers, or their numbers 
are out of date.
3. Rehabilitation: According to the data, 2019 reports a portfolio of 16,813 rehabilitation hectares. Of 
this total, 1,781 are in Antioquia and 15,032 in Chocó. On the other hand, 412126 direct beneficiaries 
are in Antioquia and three direct beneficiaries in Chocó. We can explain this situation because the 
rehabilitation projects in the department of Chocó brought together several community councils, 
and their extension was considerably greater than the projects in Antioquia. Each rehabilitation 
project was developed with one council. They bring together the community but are implemented 
through their collective organization: the council. Considering these particularities, the proposed 
sample must guarantee a margin of error of less than 5% and a confidence level equal to or greater 
than 95%. Indicatively, with these parameters, using the simple random sampling strategy, the 
samples’ minimum sizes for rehabilitation beneficiaries in Antioquia are defined as illustrated in Table 
28. 
TABLE 28: REHAB SAMPLE IN ANTIOQUIA 
REHABILITATION
Indicative Sample 297
QUALITATIVE APPROACH
METHODOLOGY
We based the qualitative methodology on the phenomenology of perception and will use it to answer all 
the evaluation questions. In this approach, “the researcher identifies the essence of human experiences 
around a phenomenon according to how it is described by the study participants” (Creswell, 2003, p. 
15). Therefore, the phenomenology of perception is useful for understanding and making sense of the 
everyday experiences and meanings that beneficiaries and stakeholders associated with Oro Legal have. 
We will complement the analysis with a review of the intervention’s Strengths, Weaknesses, 
126 According to the program, nine reforestation beneficiaries are also beekeepers. The firm should decide if they would use the 
instruments designed for each component.
205 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT). This strategy identifies whether internal or external factors 
contribute to the perceived and effective success of the activity.
We will use both primary and secondary information to meet the objectives of the qualitative approach. 
For that purpose, we will carry out semi-structured interviews. In this regard, we will collect all 
information, protecting the privacy of the interviewees. We will record each survey with the previous 
consent from the participants. Moreover, the evaluation will emphasize the importance of safeguarding 
interviewees’ rights and following the fieldwork protocol.
All participants will receive an explanation of the principles that guide the evaluation, to which they will 
give consent, verbally, or in writing. This consent also states that participation is deliberate, participants 
can withdraw from the activity if they wish, and there is a plan to safeguard their privacy and 
confidentiality. It is also essential to clarify interviewees that the interviewers will handle data under 
statistical guidelines without disclosing the source.
Additionally, we will use secondary information: mainly Oro Legal documentation and annual and 
quarterly reports. We will also employ OL bulletins, briefings, communication pieces, and diagnostic 
documents related to indexes and context information produced by national and local government 
agencies. These documents will help answer the evaluation’s questions and assess the activity’s 
performance and progress towards its main goals.
The methodological strategy associated with the analysis will incorporate principles of the grounded 
theory. We will systematize, code, and analyze the information to identify findings and subsequent 
recommendations in a SWOT structure. We will use a codebook to sort the data (DeCuir-Gunby, 
Marshall, & McCulloch, 2011; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; MacQueen, McLellan, Kay, & Milstein, 
1998). We can modify this code later with the categories that arise from the analysis process (Auerbach 
& Silverstein, 2003; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). To accomplish this task, we will make use of the NVivo 
12 Plus software.
We select this software as it supports the organization, coding, visualization, and analysis of results. 
NVivo has several easy-to-use options (folders, sets, and attributes) that allow us to group data by 
subject, cross-section, geographic location, or document type. In terms of encoding processes, NVivo 
allows creating thematic nodes or analysis categories, case nodes, and sentiment nodes that help classify 
textual information and an easy way to merge different files containing encoded information from 
various actors under the categories defined in the evaluation codebook. Among the main visualization 
and analysis tools are word frequency queries and text search. Another tool that will be useful is the 
cluster analysis that will allow identifying whether there are associations between categories and 
thematic components through clusters that group categories either by the similarity of words or the 
coding of each node. In this same sense, the comparison diagrams will quickly identify between two case 
nodes: the categories they share, and which are not. Finally, NVivo can create three types of maps that 
will be useful throughout the coding and analysis process. The choice and degree of use of each of these 
tools will always support the organization, coding, visualization, and analysis of results, seeking to fully 
respond to the evaluation’s objectives and questions.
We will use this coding process as the foundation to report the participants’ views and perceptions. In 
the qualitative analysis, it is worth clarifying that the frequency does not determine the value of a point 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 206
of view or an opinion (number of times it occurs) since this methodology tries to prioritize the 
interviews’ diversity and nuances.
Finally, we will compare the qualitative strategy outcomes with those of the quantitative approach. The 
latter ensures that the results, findings, and recommendations of this evaluation will be sufficiently 
robust and confident.
PRIMARY INFORMATION
For the primary sources, we will conduct semi-structured interviews at national, regional, and local 
levels for all components of the assessment (O1 and O2). A data collection firm will be hired to 
interview participants and direct beneficiaries. The interviewers from this firm will receive a training 
session by the evaluation team, so that they understand OL context. All the actors interviewed will 
answer the context questions prepared by the evaluation team. Also, across all components, we will 
conduct semi-structured interviews with Oro Legal staff, including the Programmatic and Operational 
DCOPs and previous component managers, in charge of relevant tasks at the beginning of program 
operation. These actors will be contacted once again, if necessary, through or after the fieldwork, to 
discuss related issues further.
Next, we present the qualitative sample for the evaluation, dividing between institutional actors and 
beneficiaries. We highlight the number of suitable informants to answer each guiding question in the 
matrix. Each actor will answer the modules that correspond to them according to their OL activities’ 
participation, with question 6 intended for all the actors. We expect a maximum of 102 applications.
TABLE 29: SAMPLE FOR QUALITATIVE APPROACH127
INSTITUTIONS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Academia 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Mayor’s Offices 9 9 9 9 9 9 
Commercial Allies 4 4 
National Allies 4 4 4 7 
Associations 1 1 1 1 
CARs 4 4 4 4 4 
Grantees 3 3 
Governor’s Offices 2 2 2 2 2 2 
National Government 3 4 1 3 4 
National Operator 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Regional Operator 2 2 2 2 2 2 
127 Source: Own Production (2020).
207 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
SENA Regional 2 2 
Formalization Subcontracts 2 2 2 
Total 29 24 28 21 28 42
BENEFICIARIES 
Miners 4 4 4 4 4 
Farmers 4 4 
Rehab operators 4 4 4 4 4 
Mining Beneficiaries* 16 16 16 16 16
Productive Projects Beneficiaries* 16 16
Rehab Beneficiaries* 16 16 16 16 16
Total 40 40 20 40 40 60
* The data collection firm will be in charge of carrying out these interviews
TRIANGULATION
When triangulating, we compare different types of data analysis with the same objective (Rodríguez, 
Pozo & Gutiérrez, 2006) as a way to validate, question, or expand the results found by contrasting 
different perspectives and sources of information (Turner & Turner, 2009). In this evaluation, 
triangulation becomes a means to analyze data to avoid bias and increase validity by comparing the 
results obtained by different research methods (Blaikie, 1991 and Gavira & Osuna, 2015).
Therefore, we carried out the triangulation, as shown in Figure 1. In the first place, we will compare the 
quantitative methods establishing whether a result is met with the qualitative methods establishing the 
perceptions about the same phenomenon and why. This procedure will also allow strengthening the 
arguments in terms of findings and conclusions. Likewise, the evaluation team will triangulate the 
information from different types of actors involved in the project, such as national, regional, and local 
level actors or institutional actors, executors, and beneficiaries, so that the findings are enriched. Finally, 
the analyzes will integrate primary sources of information from interviews and surveys and secondary 
sources such as documents and information from the monitoring and evaluation system to contrast and 
strengthen the results.
To carry out this work, the evaluation team used the question matrix in work sessions; the evidence will 
be classified, organized, and analyzed to compare the different findings according to the methods, agents, 
or sources of information and thus arrive at draw conclusions. Finally, it is important to mention that 
there will also be a triangulation exercise in the CLA meetings according to the review and analysis of 
each of the members of the evaluation team, which will allow to discuss the findings and conclusions and 
generate consensus.
Triangulation compares systems eliminated biases associated with using a single method. This purpose 
also involves contrasting different types of stakeholders to help enrich findings. We will also collate 
primary and secondary information sources. We will carry out this work using the evaluation design 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 208
matrix to fill, classify, and organize the interviews’ answers to compare the different findings according 
to the methods, agents, or information sources.
Exhibit 71: Triangulating the Information128
PILOT AND EARLY REPORT
We will carry out a pilot for collection of qualitative information through virtual means between 
November 9th and 20th; this decision responds to the measures prescribed by the Government to 
reduce COVID-19 contagion. Additionally, on November 4th we will perform a CLA workshop with 
OL’s members to go in depth into the activity. We will use the pilot data to evaluate the degree of 
functionality, completeness, and coherence of the qualitative and quantitative collection instruments. We 
will also evaluate clarity, phrasing, the order of topics, the sequence of application and relevance of 
questions, performance, non-response rates, the suitability of informants, the duration of the application 
of the instruments, familiarize the team and data collectors with the instruments and identify advantages 
and difficulties that may arise during the operation regarding the handling of the samples129 and to 
produce an early report with some secondary information analysis; we will submit no later than Monday, 
December the 7th. Based on the guidelines outlined in this document, we will choose interviewees 
suitable for evaluating the two OL components stakeholders from national, regional, and local levels 
128 Source: Own production (2020). 129 The evaluation team will carry out a meeting to assess all of these issues.
209 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
such as ANM, National Ministries, OL’s regional members, representatives from the Antioquia’s 
Governor’s office, CARs, and some municipalities. It is relevant to mention that a data collection firm 
hired for this purpose will pilot the quantitative survey instruments with mining production units (MPU) 
and the quantitative survey and the qualitative interviews instruments with direct beneficiaries in January 
2021. MEL will hire this firm for such a purpose. Thus, we will implement an alternative process, 
described as follows, to produce the early report:
a) Definition: MEL, USAID, and Implementing Partner agreed that the early report covers the analysis 
of secondary data and some primary qualitative information (we will gather this data virtually).
b) Analysis of secondary information: At this point, we reviewed OL documentation (for example, the 
annual work plans and quarterly reports). We also revised qualitative data from the components 
(indicators) and administrative records (databases).
c) Fieldwork: As part of the qualitative instruments piloting exercise, we will meet with OL 
representatives from all the components through the CLA workshop. Some of this work already 
began. Similarly, we propose to conduct the pilot with municipalities of Antioquia and Choco where 
the USAID team considers it likely to attend based on the local security conditions.
d) Analysis and report: We will do a preliminary quantitative analysis, including detailed statistical and 
inferential data reports and a correspondence study. This work also involves studying geo￾referenced information and transcribing and analyzing qualitative data derived from the interviews. 
We will compare and triangulate all this information to further findings and inform discussions and 
conclusions. 
e) Limitations: After obtaining the preliminary results, we will address the restrictions found during the 
pilot. By doing so, the pilot exercise will help to improve information collecting tools for future 
fieldwork.
LIMITATIONS
OL’s evaluation must address some constraints that stem from its methodological design. One possible 
limitation in the assessment’s phenomenological approach occurs when it favors subjective experience 
over local social, economic, and political structures. However, we will address this issue using secondary 
information and triangulating research data to determine each region’s context.
Another possible limitation is related to the exclusive use of a single methodology; the idea is to 
contrast diverse information to solve this issue. Furthermore, another concern has to do with the 
relevance of the chosen tools; the evaluation will use the pilot exercise to screen and improve 
quantitative and qualitative instruments.
The evaluation might also face complications associated with beneficiaries: for example, problems may 
arise when trying to summon or make them participate in programmed activities. In this case, a 
methodological design with a sample that is more extensive than necessary may help resolve eventual 
difficulties.
Likewise, other limitations have to do with the public order situation, exacerbated in some of the 
municipalities intervened by OL. For this purpose, MEL Activity will follow its security firm protocol, as 
well as USAID guidelines, additionally, the data collection firm will communicate with local authorities 
before the field-visit. Likewise, it is essential to mention that given the evaluation team’s experience in 
similar investigations, small miners tend to change contact numbers rapidly, which is the cause of a rapid 
outdating of this contact information. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 210
An additional limitation is related to the project’s end date, which implies a risk to gather information 
from people who end their contractual relationship in December 2020. Given this, the evaluation team 
will perform the CLA workshop in order to gather in one session, relevant OL members to establish 
open discussions for a better understanding of the activity. Only in exceptional cases will interviews be 
carried out in 2021.
Another challenge is collecting primary environmental information, a task involving technology and 
specialists for each of the natural resources analyzed. The evaluation will use the primary information 
collected by the IP in the design and execution phases as a reference to overcome this issue. It is worth 
clarifying that if we have quality, reliable, standardized, and homologated environmental data, it may be a 
sufficient input to evaluate the activity’s environmental performance. However, suppose we find quality 
gaps or drawbacks in the information received from the IP. In that case, we will have to consider the 
need to subcontract a scouting team to assess the environmental effects, using primary information to 
determine geophysical, biotic, and abiotic consequences.
In any case, we will use secondary information generated by public institutions (official country 
information) to mitigate this limitation. In conclusion, piloting the instruments and building the early 
report will help to highlight some limitations. Likewise, it is crucial to do a rigorous evaluation of some 
information sources to consider whether it is necessary to carry out primary information surveys. Some 
restrictions have to do with limited access to beneficiaries, lack of inclusion of some stakeholders, and 
organizing or systematizing some databases.
Finally, one significant limitation affecting the evaluation is related to COVID-19. To mitigate 
participants’ risks of contamination, the evaluation team will work on early reporting and desk-based 
tasks from Bogotá. The evaluation team will also use video chatting apps, such as Meet, Teams, Skype, or 
Zoom, for meetings and interviews. For the time being, travel and tool testing will be suspended, 
especially with beneficiaries. Each week the situation will be assessed to make new decisions.
CLA APPROACH AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGYCLA APPROACH 
Practices derived from the CLA methodology contribute to a more useful evaluation. This approach 
helps USAID and the team to learn during the process. In particular, the team will benefit from the CLA 
methodology in the following steps of the evaluation:
1. Planning 
First, the CLA component will create an atmosphere of trust among MEL, USAID, and the IP. This 
confidence-building will occur through meetings, where the evaluation team discusses the intervention, 
what the evaluation is for, and paths to its implementation.
2. Information analysis and report production
Second, the CLA component will promote learning among MEL Activity actors, including the evaluation 
team members, and other related components. For this purpose, the learning approach will assure the 
alignment across findings, conclusions, and recommendations, through different pause and reflect 
moments that promote collaboration. 
211 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
3. Presentation and final adjustments
The CLA component will assist the evaluation team when preparing presentations, like the evaluation 
recommendations. It will also coordinate a learning workshop among the evaluation team, USAID, and 
the Implementing Partner to discuss recommendations and possible action plans arising from them.
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
Assertive and effective communication that promotes the exchange of knowledge requires a strategic 
approach.
The evaluation is useful to grasp the activity’s performance and results and share lessons and 
recommendations that contribute to give feedback to Oro Legal and provide data to inform future 
USAID/Colombia’s programming decisions. Therefore, it is essential to have a strategy that allows the 
correct dissemination of the evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
The exercise of disseminating analytical products or the lessons learned from an evaluation implies 
systematizing previous steps, such as identifying primary and secondary audiences and constructing key 
messages based on their expectations. The dissemination and use plan will be prepared in February with 
the participation of Oro Legal´s COR, the Development Assistance Specialist, and the MEL Activity.
INDICATORS FROM THE ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF MINING FORMALIZATION DETERMINANTS
TABLE 30: INDICATORS FROM THE ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF MINING FORMALIZATION 
DETERMINANTS
ECONOMETRIC 
MODEL 
COMPONENT
VARIABLES AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR MEASUREMENT
Response variables (𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖) • Formalization and legalization levels indicator (equation 1)
• Dichotomic variable that can be 1 if the MPU graduated with 75% of the required 
points or 0 in any other case (equation 2) 
• These indicators are calculated directly from information from the PIRS and M&E.
MPU’s variables and 
attributes (𝑋𝑋1𝐼𝐼) • Type of mining:
P203. ¿Por favor indique el tipo de operación minera en su Unidad de Producción 
Minera (UPM)?
P204. ¿Qué tipo de explotación es desarrollada en su UPM?
P205. ¿Cuál es la principal actividad que se desarrolla en su UPM?
● Length of the mining exploitation:
Indicador tamaño de la UPM basado en información de M&E
● Number of miners:
P209. ¿Incluido usted cuántas personas trabajaron en la UPM en el año 2020?
● Entry-level of the formalization indicator:
Este indicador es calculado directamente a partir de la información de los PIRS y M&E.
● Use of installed capacity:
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 212
INDICATORS FROM THE ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF INCOME DETERMINANTS FOR BEEKEEPING AND 
ANNATTO PRODUCTION
TABLE 31: INDICATORS FROM THE ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF INCOME DETERMINANTS 
FOR BEEKEEPING AND ANNATTO PRODUCTION
ECONOMETRIC 
MODEL COMPONENT
VARIABLES AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR MEASUREMENT
Response variables (𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖) ● Income received by the productive chains (equation 3):
P320: ¿Cuál fue el valor de la producción de miel o ingresos operacionales de la 
Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) para el año 2020? 
P421: ¿Cuál fue el valor de las ventas de Achiote o ingresos operacionales de la 
Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) para el año 2020?
P213. De 1 a 100 donde 100 significa que la UPM se encuentra en su máxima 
capacidad de producción (capacidad instalada). ¿Cómo calificaría el nivel de capacidad 
instalada en su UPM?
P212. ¿En promedio cuantos días del mes se trabaja en la UPM? 
● Seniority or experience in production:
P206. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo inició operaciones estas UPM?
Variables from the 
formalization strategy
(𝑋𝑋2𝐼𝐼)
● Technical assistance
240. ¿Para usted cuales son las principales ventajas de la formalización minera? 
Opciones: Acceso a capacitaciones
● Mining training
P207. ¿Cuántos años de experiencia tiene USTED en la minería de oro? Opciones: 
Acceso a mejores prácticas.
240. ¿Para usted cuales son las principales ventajas de la formalización minera? 
● Clean production training for processing mercury
P223. ANTES de la participación en el programa Oro Legal ¿Por cada gramo 
de oro producido en su UPM cuantos gramos de mercurio se utilizaban?
P224. ACTUALMENTE ¿Por cada gramo de oro producido en su UPM 
cuantos gramos de mercurio se utilizan?
P226. En una escala de 1 a 5, donde 1 es muy en DESACUERDO y 5 es muy 
DE ACUERDO ¿Qué tan de acuerdo se encuentra con las siguientes afirmaciones?
● Other variables:
P228. ¿El municipio de venta del oro producido es diferente al municipio donde se 
realizó la producción?
P229. ¿La UPM cuenta con título minero?
P230. ¿La UPM guarda registros de sus facturas de ventas o compras de insumos?
P231. ¿La UPM cuenta con el Plan de Trabajo en Obras – PTO?
P232. ¿En el PTO se orientó el beneficio de oro libre de mercurio?
P233. ¿El Programa facilitó la implementación de las técnicas y tecnologías 
determinadas en el PTO?
P234. ¿La UPM cuenta con Estudio de Impacto Ambiental? 
P235. ¿La UPM cuenta con Guía Ambiental?
P243. ¿Continuaría con la actividad minera ante cambios en precios del oro que 
afectaran sus ingresos actuales (hasta que sus ingresos se reduzcan al X%)?
P245. ¿La UPM cuenta con alguno de los siguientes servicios públicos?
213 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Microeconomic 
determinants (𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖) 
● Size of the UPA: 
P317_a: ¿Qué forma de tenencia tiene el lote que ocupa la actividad (Unidad de 
Producción Agropecuaria) de apicultura del programa Oro Legal? (Desagregue el 
área de esos lotes o predios según la forma de tenencia)
P418_a: ¿Qué forma de tenencia tiene el lote que ocupa la actividad (Unidad de 
Producción Agropecuaria - UPA) de cultivo de achiote del programa Oro Legal? 
(Desagregue el área de esos lotes o predios según la forma de tenencia)
● Returns on the UPA (equation 4 & 5): Razón entre (P322/P321 & P423/P18_a) 
P321: En promedio ¿Cuántas colmenas tuvo la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria 
(UPA) durante el año 2020? 
P322: ¿Cuál fue el total de kilogramos de miel producidos en la Unidad de 
Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) durante el año 2020? 
P423: ¿Del total de toneladas producidas en 2020, ¿cuál fue el total de toneladas de 
Achiote vendidas en la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) durante el año 
2020? 
● Investment level:
P319: ¿Cuál es el valor de los activos totales con los que cuenta la Unidad de 
Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) dedicada a Apicultura para el año 2020?
P420: ¿Cuál es el valor de los activos totales con los que cuenta la Unidad de 
Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) dedicada a Achiote para el año 2020? Valor en 
pesos:
● Use of installed capacity:
P323: De 1 a 100 donde 100 significa que la UPA se encuentra en su máxima 
capacidad de producción (capacidad instalada). ¿Cómo calificaría el nivel de 
capacidad instalada en la (UPA)?
P424: De 1 a 100 donde 100 significa que la UPA se encuentra en su máxima 
capacidad de producción (capacidad instalada). ¿Cómo calificaría el nivel de 
capacidad instalada en la (UPA)?
● Number of people dedicated to productive activity:
P318: En promedio ¿Incluido usted cuántas personas trabajaron en la Unidad de 
Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) Apícola durante el año 2020?
P419: En promedio ¿Incluido usted cuántas personas trabajaron en la Unidad de 
Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) dedicada al cultivo de Achiote durante el año 
2020?
● Seniority or experience in production
P303: ¿Hace cuánto tiempo es beneficiario o participante de la actividad de 
apicultura del programa Oro Legal?
P404: ¿Hace cuánto tiempo es beneficiario o participante de la actividad de cultivo 
de achiote del programa Oro Legal?
● Technical assistance, associativity, among others: 
P324: ¿Qué aporta el programa Oro Legal a la actividad de apicultura en el convenio 
firmado con usted y su familia? y ¿Cómo califica en una escala de 1 a 5 siendo 1 Muy 
insatisfecho y 5 Muy satisfecho cada uno de estos aportes?
P425: ¿Qué aporta el programa Oro Legal a la actividad de cultivo de achiote en el 
convenio firmado con usted y su familia? y ¿Cómo califica en una escala de 1 a 5 
siendo 1 Muy insatisfecho y 5 Muy satisfecho cada uno de estos aportes?
Territorial determinants 
(𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖) 
● The distance between the place of production and the marketplace, 
access to demand:
P310: ¿Qué medios de transporte usa la mayoría de las veces para transportar su 
producto de la actividad de apicultura para comercializarlo?
P412. ¿Qué medios de transporte usa la mayoría de las veces para transportar su 
producto de la actividad de cultivo de achiote para comercializarlo?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 214
P312: ¿Cuánto tiempo le toma, en promedio, transportar su producto de la 
actividad de apicultura para comercializarlo? 
P414: ¿Cuánto tiempo le toma, en promedio, transportar su producto de la 
actividad de cultivo de achiote para comercializarlo? 
● Transportation costs:
P311: ¿Cuánto le cuesta transportar habitualmente la producción de apicultura en 
toneladas para su comercialización?
P412: ¿Cuánto le cuesta transportar habitualmente la producción de achiote en 
toneladas para su comercialización?
● Dispersion of UPAS:
P326: ¿Para usted cuales de los siguientes factores son obstáculos para el desarrollo 
de la actividad apícola en su región? Opción: Aislamiento geográfico (las colmenas 
quedan en zonas muy alejadas)
P427: ¿Para usted cuales de los siguientes factores son obstáculos para el desarrollo 
de la producción de Achiote en su región? Opción: Aislamiento geográfico (los 
cultivos de Achiote quedan en zonas muy alejadas)
REFERENCES
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New 
York, NY, US: New York University Press.
Bernal, R & Peña, X. (2011). Guía práctica para la evaluación de impacto. Universidad de los Andes. 
Facultad de Economía. Chapter 6.
Blaikie, N. W. H. (1991): A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality and Quantity. 
N. 25. Pp. 115-136. 
Creswell, J. (2003). Qualitative inquiry and research design: among five approaches. (2ª. ed) EUA: SAGE
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and Using a Codebook for 
the Analysis of Interview Data: An Example from a Professional Development Research Project. Field 
Methods, 23(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10388468
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid 
Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. International Journal of 
Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Gavira, S. A., & Osuna, J. B. (2015). La triangulación de datos como estrategia en investigación educativa. 
Pixel-bit. Revista de medios y educación, (47), 73-88. 
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). The Practice of Qualitative Research. SAGE.
Lopez, L (2017). Bioestadística. Ed. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Chapter 9.
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., & Milstein, B. (1998). Codebook Development for Team-Based 
Qualitative Analysis. CAM Journal, 10(2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X980100020301
Peña, D. (2002). Análisis de datos multivariantes. Editorial Mc Graw Hill. Chapter 7. P. 201-218. 
215 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Rodríguez, C., Pozo, T. & Gutiérrez, J. (2006). La triangulación analítica como recurso para la validación 
de estudios de encuesta recurrentes e investigaciones de réplica en Educación Superior. RELIEVE. 
Revista electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 12 (2), p. 289-305. 
Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2009). Triangulation in practice. Virtual Reality, 13(3), 171-181.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 216
ANNEX V: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
QUANTITATIVE INSTRUMENT
Oro Legal -OL
Centro Nacional de 
Consultoría 
Calle 82 N° 6-51 Bogotá
Teléfono: 339 4888
Instrumento Cuantitativo
Centro de Costos:
6206_01 
Fecha: enero 2021
Requirió Pr. 
Piloto
Si [x] No []
SI
N
O
O
b
Elaborado por: Panagora Revisado por: Juliana Márquez Revisado en Campo por: 
Antonio Ñungo
PRESENTACIÓN AL ENCUESTADO
Saludo a la persona seleccionada. Buenos días, tardes, mi nombre es (nombre y apellido), y pertenezco al Centro 
Nacional de Consultoría. Actualmente nos encontramos desarrollando un estudio sobre el proyecto Oro Legal y 
su información como beneficiario sería valiosa para los propósitos de la investigación. Su participación es voluntaria 
y su identidad, así como las respuestas suministradas serán de carácter confidencial y los datos se utilizarán 
únicamente para fines estadísticos. El beneficio de su participación es hacer valer en el estudio la opinión de personas 
que piensan como usted. 
 
El Centro Nacional de Consultoría pide su autorización para recolectar y compartir sus datos personales con fines 
de contacto para la aplicación de encuestas. Esta solicitud se hace de conformidad con la Ley 1581 de 2012. 
Con estas precisiones, le pido su autorización para tomar sus datos y hacer la encuesta, que nos tomará 
aproximadamente __30____ minutos. Autoriza: Sí______ No______
I. PREDILIGENCIAMIENTO 
100. ¿A qué segmento pertenece la persona a encuestar, según la base de datos?
Formalización Minera 01
Apicultura y Miel 02
Achiote 03
Rehabilitación con Acacia/Especies Nativas 04
217 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
II. CARACTERÍSTICAS DEMOGRÁFICAS
101. ¿Cuál es su Municipio de residencia?: 
Departamento Municipio
Antioquia
Barbosa 01
Buriticá 02
Cáceres 03
Caucasia 04
Don Matías 05
El Bagre 06
Nechí 07
Remedios 08
San Roque 09
Segovia 10
Tarazá 11
Zaragoza 12
Chocó
Atrato (Yuto) 13
Cantón San Pablo 14
Certegui 15
Condoto 16
Quibdó 17
Rio Quito 18
Tadó 19
Unión Panamericana 20
Otro ¿cuál? Departamento_______________________
Municipio________________
102. Nombre:
103. Sexo: Hombre 1 // Mujer 2 
104. ¿Cuántos años cumplidos tiene usted?
Años Cumplidos: |__|__|
105.
SE ELIMINÓ ESTA PREGUNTA
106. ¿Usted presenta alguna discapacidad? 
Sí 01 
No 02
107. Vive en la cabecera municipal: 
Sí 01
No 02
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 218
108. ¿Cuál es su estado civil? (R.U.)
Soltero(a) 01
Casado(a) 02
En unión libre 03
Divorciado(a) 04
Viudo(a) 05
109. ¿Cuántas personas componen su hogar?? |__|__|
110. ¿Es usted el/la jefe del hogar?
Sí 01 
No 02
111. ¿Alguien en su hogar ha sido beneficiario de alguno(s) de 
los siguientes programas o ayudas? (R.M.) LEER respuestas)
Familias en Acción 01
Programas para el adulto mayor 02
Programas de formación para el trabajo 03
Jóvenes en Acción 04
Red Juntos/Unidos 05
Programas del ICBF 06 
Subsidio al desempleo 07 
Ayudas para desastres naturales 08 
Ayudas para desplazados 09
Programa Nacional Integral de Sustitución de 
cultivos (PNIS)
10
Programa de restitución de tierras 11
Antioquia Libre de Minas 12
Ninguno 13
Otro, ¿Cuál? 88
. 
112. De acuerdo con su cultura, pueblo o rasgos físicos . . . es 
o se reconoce como: (R.U.)
Indígena 1
Gitano(a) o Rrom 2
Raizal 3
Palenquero(a) 4
Negro(a), mulato(a), afrodescendiente,
afrocolombiano(a)
5
Ningún grupo étnico 6
113. ¿Sabe leer y escribir?
Sí 01
No 02 
114. ¿Cuál es el nivel educativo más alto aprobado por usted? 
(R.U) (E: El último año o grado aprobado.)
Ninguno o preescolar 01
Básica primaria o básica 
secundaria 02
Media 03
Superior o universitario (1 a 4 
años) 04
Superior o universitario (5 años 
o más) 05
115. ¿Está afiliado a salud y pensiones?
 
Sí 01 
No 02
116. ¿A cuál de los siguientes regímenes de seguridad social 
está afiliado?
 
Contributivo (EPS) 1
Especial 2
Subsidiado 3
No sabe, no informa 4
. 
219 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
III. INGRESOS
117. ¿A cuál de las siguientes actividades se dedica usted principalmente? (RM)
Formalización Minera 01
Apicultura y Miel 02
Achiote 03
Rehabilitación con Acacia/Especies Nativas 04
118. Durante los últimos 12 meses, ¿cuánto es el ingreso 
promedio mensual de las actividades productivas o de 
generación de ingresos a la que usted se dedica 
principalmente? 
MINERÍA: _________________________
APICULTURA: _____________________
ACHIOTE:_________________________ 
REHABILITACIÓN:___________ (PROG: CAMPO 
NUMERICO RANGO DE 10.000 EN ADELANTE) 
(ENC: RECUERDELE A LA PERSONA QUE ESTA 
HABLANDO DEL PROMEDIO DE LA ACTIVIDAD 
PRODUCTIVA PRINCIPAL REALIZADA DURANTE 
LOS ULTIMOS 12 MESES, PEDIR EL MONTO 
MENSUAL EN PESOS) 
119. ¿Algún otro miembro de su hogar aporta ingresos para el 
hogar?
 
Sí 01 
No 02
120. ¿De cuánto es el aporte en dinero que los otros 
miembros hacen al hogar? _____________(PROG: 
CAMPO NUMERICO RANGO DE 10.000 EN 
ADELANTE) (Aplica si (1) en la pregunta 119)
121. ¿Hay alguna otra fuente de ingresos para el hogar? RU 
(ENC: INDIQUE AL ENCUESTADO QUE SE 
HABLA DE INGRESOS EN DINERO DIFERENTES A 
LOS QUE APORTAN LOS MIEMBROS DEL 
HOGAR) 
Sí 01 
No 02
122. ¿Cuál es el valor en dinero de estos ingresos adicionales? 
_____________(PROG: CAMPO NUMERICO 
RANGO DE 10.000 EN ADELANTE) (ENC: PEDIR 
RESPUESTA EN PESOS) (Aplica si (1) en la pregunta 
121)
123. ¿Cuál es el ingreso promedio mensual de su hogar en 
pesos durante los últimos 12 meses? 
_____________(PROG: CAMPO NUMERICO 
RANGO DE 10.000 EN ADELANTE, EL MONTO 
REGISTRADO NO DEBE SER MENOR A LA SUMA 
DE LAS RESPUESTAS DADAS EN Q20; Q22 Y Q25) 
(ENC: RECUERDELE AL ENCUESTADO QUE ESTA 
HABLANDO DE TODOS LOS INGRESOS EN 
DINERO QUE HA TENIDO EL HOGAR EN EL 
ULTIMO AÑO, EJEMPLO SUELDOS O APORTES 
DE LOS MIEMBROS DEL HOGAR, SUBSIDIOS, 
VENTAS, ETC.)
124. ¿Cuál es su ingreso promedio mensual individual en pesos durante los últimos 12 meses? _____________
(PROG: CAMPO NUMERICO RANGO DE 10.000 EN ADELANTE) (ENC: RECUERDELE AL ENCUESTADO 
QUE ESTA HABLANDO DEL INGRESO QUE HA RECIBIDO DE TODAS LAS ACTIVIDADES QUE REALIZA) 
125. ¿Qué proporción de los ingresos en su hogar se dedica al 
pago de deudas?
Menos de la mitad 01
La mitad 02
126. ¿Indique el tipo de deudas que tiene su hogar en este 
momento?
Créditos de consumo 01
Créditos para compra de insumos para actividad minera 02
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 220
Más de la mitad 03 Créditos para la actividad agrícola 03
Créditos de libre inversión 04
Créditos de vivienda / automóviles 05
Créditos educativos 06
IV. PROGRAMA ORO LEGAL
E leer: A continuación, voy a hacerle unas preguntas sobre el programa Oro Legal del cual usted o su familia es 
beneficiario. El Programa Oro Legal busca formalizar la actividad minera y ayudar al cuidado del medio ambiente.
129. ¿Cómo se enteró por primera vez del programa de Oro 
Legal?
A través de una Unidad de producción Minera 1
Por una asociación a la que pertenece 2
Por líderes de su comunidad 3
A través de la alcaldía 4
A través de los funcionarios del programa Oro 
Legal 
5
Por un miembro de familia o amigo 6
Otro ¿Cuál? 7
Ns/Nr 99
130. ¿Cuántos miembros del hogar son beneficiarios del 
programa de Oro Legal? (E: esto significa que trabajan en 
actividades apoyadas por el programa Oro Legal)
|__|__| 
(E: verificar que este número sea menor o igual a la 
respuesta 109)
131. ¿Es usted miembro de alguna asociación? (R.M)
1 Sí� 1 Minería
2 Productores
3 Consejo Comunitario
4 Cabildo indígena
5 Asociación de mujeres
6 Deportiva
7 Cultural
8 Víctimas
88 Otra. ¿Cuál?
2 No
99 Ns/Nr
132. Antes de que perteneciera al programa Oro Legal, 
¿Cuáles de las siguientes actividades representaban una fuente 
de ingresos en su hogar? (R.M) (E: Leer respuestas)
Minería 01
Agropecuario (diferente a apicultura o achiote) 02
133. Hoy en día, ¿Cuáles de las siguientes actividades 
representan una fuente de ingresos en su hogar? (R.M) (E: 
Leer respuestas)
Minería 01
221 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Apicultura y miel 03
Siembra y comercialización de Achiote 04
Siembra de Acacia 05
Artesanías 06
Comercio 07
Transporte 08
Servicios sociales, comunales y personales 09
Otro. ¿Cuál? 88
Ns/Nr 99
Agropecuario (diferente a apicultura y achiote) 02
Apicultura y miel 03
Siembra y comercialización de Achiote 04
Siembra de Acacia 05
Artesanías 06
Comercio 07
Transporte 08
Servicios sociales, comunales y personales 09
Otro. ¿Cuál? 88
Ns/Nr 99
134. En una escala de 1 a 5, donde 1 es muy insatisfecho y 5 es muy satisfecho ¿Qué tan satisfecho se encuentra con el programa 
ORO LEGAL? RU (ENC. NO LEER OPCIONES)
1.MUY 
INSATISFECHO
2. 3. 4. 5. MUY SATISFECHO
V. FORMALIZACIÓN MINERA
Solo para los que respondieron 01 en la pregunta 117 
201. ¿Usted y su familia participan en la actividad minera del programa Oro Legal?
1 Sí Continúe
2 No Finalice la encuesta
202. ¿La principal actividad económica suya o de su familia estaba relacionada con minería antes de la llegada del 
programa Oro Legal?
Sí 01 
No 02
203. ¿Por favor indique el tipo de operación minera en su 
Unidad de Producción Minera (UPM)? RU: (Leer respuestas)
Aluvial 01
Socavón 02
Minidragas 03
204. ¿Qué tipo de explotación es desarrollada en su UPM? 
RU: (Leer respuestas)
Mecanizado 01
Semi-Mecanizado 02
Manual (artesanal) 03
.
205. ¿Cuál es la principal actividad que se desarrolla en su 
UPM? RU (LEER OPCIONES)
Exploración 01
Construcción 02
Extracción 03
Beneficio 04
206. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo inició operaciones estas 
UPM? 
Años |__|__| Meses |__|__|
207. ¿Cuántos años de experiencia tiene USTED en la 
minería de oro? 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 222
Años |__|__| Meses |__|__|
208. ¿Por favor indique cuantos trabajadores tiene la UPM en 
este momento? |__|__|
209. ¿Incluido usted cuántas personas trabajaron en la UPM 
en el año 2020? |__|__|
210. ¿De las personas que trabajan en la UPM cuantas hacen 
parte de su núcleo familiar? |__|__|
211. ¿Qué tipo de familiares suyos trabajan o han trabajado 
en la UPM? (R.M: Leer opciones)
Padres 01
Hermanos 02
Hijos 03
Cónyuge 04
Otros:_______________________________ 05
212. ¿En promedio cuantos días del mes se trabaja en la UPM? 
|__|__| (Nota: No debe superar 30 días)
213. De 1 a 100 donde 100 significa que la UPM se 
encuentra en su máxima capacidad de producción 
(capacidad instalada). ¿Cómo calificaría el nivel de 
capacidad instalada en su UPM? |__|__|__| (Nota: No debe 
superar 100)
214. ¿Los trabajadores de esta mina están afiliados a seguridad 
social (salud y pensiones)?
Sí 01 
No 02
215. ¿Con que implementos de seguridad industrial cuenta 
la UPM para sus trabajadores? 
Cascos 01
Lámparas 02
Botas 03
Audífonos 04
Gafas 05
Guantes 06
Uniformes 07
Todos los anteriores 08
216. ¿Cuál es la principal forma de pago de los salarios de los 
trabajadores? 
Efectivo 01
A través del sistema financiero 02
En especie (oro) 03
NS/NR 99
217. ¿Cuál es la principal forma de pago para la compra 
de insumos relacionados con la producción de oro?
Efectivo 01
A través del sistema financiero 02
En especie (oro) 03
NS/NR 99
218. ¿La UPM en la actualidad cuenta con algún tipo de 
financiación?
Sí 01 
No 02
219. ¿Por favor indique la fuente de esta financiación? (E. En 
caso de que responda SI en 218)
Sistema financiero 01
Préstamo de un familiar 02
Prestamista 03
Paga diario 04
Otro:___________________________ 88
220. ¿Cuál es el principal proveedor de insumos de la UPM?
Comerciante local 01
Comerciante regional 02
Empresa nacional 03
Socio 04
Asociación/Cooperativa 05
Otro:__________________ 88
221. ¿Cuál es el principal comprador del oro producido en 
esta UPM?
Comercializadora internacional 01
Compra-Venta 02
Fundidora 03
Empresa minera gran escala 04
Proveedor como parte de pago 05
Otro:___________________________ 88
223 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
222. ¿Qué tipo de químicos y/o minerales utiliza para la 
producción de oro?
Explosivos 01
Mercurio 02
Cianuro 03
223. ANTES de la participación en el programa Oro Legal 
¿Por cada gramo de oro producido en su UPM cuantos 
gramos de mercurio se utilizaban? (Se responde si en 222 
es opción 02)
|__|,|__| gramos
224. ACTUALMENTE ¿Por cada gramo de oro producido en 
su UPM cuantos gramos de mercurio se utilizan? (Se responde 
si en 222 es opción 02)
|__|,|__| gramos
225. ¿Considera que los costos del mercurio limitan 
actualmente su uso?
Sí 01 
No 02
226. En una escala de 1 a 5, donde 1 es muy en DESACUERDO y 5 es muy DE ACUERDO ¿Qué tan de acuerdo se 
encuentra con las siguientes afirmaciones? 
Afirmación: 1. En 
desacuerdo
2. Algo en 
desacuerdo
3. Ni de 
acuerdo ni 
en 
desacuerdo
4. Algo de 
acuerdo
5. Muy de 
acuerdo
a. Las capacitaciones del Programa Oro Legal 
ayudaron en la reducción del uso de Mercurio
b. El cambio tecnológico ayuda en el no uso de 
mercurio para el beneficio de oro
c. El beneficio que ud obtiene de oro ahora es 
más alto, gracias a las nuevas prácticas libres 
de mercurio.
d. Las nuevas prácticas de beneficio han 
mejorado el medio ambiente
.
227. ¿Cuáles son sus principales motivaciones para no usar mercurio? (R.M: Espontanea)
Mejorar condiciones de salud 01
Proteger las fuentes hídricas 02
Proteger el aire 03
Mantenerse en la legalidad 04
Evitar el cierre de la mina 05
Evitar la destrucción de la maquinaria 06
Evitar ser judicializado 07
Otro:________________________________ 88
. 
228. ¿El municipio de venta del oro producido es diferente al 
municipio donde se realizó la producción?
Sí 01 
No 02
229.
229. ¿La UPM cuenta con título minero?
Sí 01 
No 02
230. ¿La UPM guarda registros de sus facturas de ventas o 
compras de insumos?
231. ¿La UPM cuenta con el Plan de Trabajo en Obras –
PTO?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 224
Sí 01 
No 02
Sí 01 
No 02
232. ¿En el PTO se orientó el beneficio de oro libre de 
mercurio?
Sí 01 
No 02
233. ¿El Programa facilitó la implementación de las técnicas 
y tecnologías determinadas en el PTO?
Sí 01 
No 02
234. ¿La UPM cuenta con Estudio de Impacto Ambiental?
Sí 01 
No 02
235. ¿La UPM cuenta con Guía Ambiental?
Sí 01 
No 02
236. ¿Con cuál de las siguientes autorizaciones ambientales 
cuenta la UPM?
Licencia ambiental 01
PMA 02
PMRRA 03
Otra:___________________________________ 88
237. ¿Con cual de los siguientes permisos ambientales 
cuenta la UPM?
Captación de agua 01
Vertimientos 02
Aprovechamiento forestal 03
Otra:___________________________________ 88
238. ¿La UPM tiene un lugar de almacenamiento del material 
de arrastre (estéril)?
Sí 01 
No 02
239. ¿Cómo dispone de las colas/relave luego del proceso 
de beneficio?
Lo arroja al rio 01
Lo entierra 02
Lo arroja al campo abierto 03
Lo procesa 04
Lo almacena 05
No produce relave 06
Otro:________________________________ 88
240. ¿Para usted cuales son las principales ventajas de la 
formalización minera? (R.M: Espontanea)
Acceso a capacitaciones 01
Acceso a mercados con precios más justos 02
Acceso a mejores practicas 03
Simplificación de la titulación 04
Precios de insumos más justos 05
Protección ante riesgos profesionales 06
Mejora en el acceso al crédito 07
Disminución en los costos de titulación 08
Seguridad y tranquilidad personal 09
Ninguna 10
Otra:________________________________ 88
241. ¿Para usted cuales son las principales barreras de la 
formalización? (R.M: Espontanea)
Desconoce el procedimiento 01
Es muy costoso 02
El proceso es complicado 03
El pago de impuestos 04
Rentabilidad insuficiente 05
Otra:_______________________________ 88
225 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
242. ¿Para usted cuales de los siguientes factores son 
obstáculos para el desarrollo de la actividad minera en su 
región? (R.M: Leer opciones)
Falta de financiamiento 01
Baja productividad 02
Falta de capacitación técnica 03
Falta de capacitación normativa 04
Falta de permisos legales 05
Falta de maquinaria 06
Falta de mano de obra 07
Problemas de orden público 08
Aislamiento geográfico (minas quedan en zonas muy 
alejadas)
09
Otra:________________________________ 88
243. ¿Continuaría con la actividad minera ante cambios en 
precios del oro que afectaran sus ingresos actuales (hasta 
que sus ingresos se reduzcan al X%)?
Reducción de hasta el 25% de sus ingresos 01 -
Si
02 -
No
Reducción de hasta el 50% de sus ingresos 01 -
Si
02 -
No
Reducción de hasta el 75% de sus ingresos 01 -
Si
02 -
No
244. ¿Qué medios de transporte usa la mayoría de las veces 
para transportar su producto de la actividad minera para 
comercializarlo? Enc: Si requiere más de un medio de 
transporte indicar los que apliquen
Caballo o mula 1
Lancha o canoa 2
Carro 3
Moto 5
Camión 6
Caminando 7
Otro cual___________ 88
245. ¿La UPM cuenta con alguno de los siguientes servicios 
públicos? (R.M: Leer opciones)
Acueducto 01
Alcantarillado 02
Energía Eléctrica 03
Telefonía 04
Internet 05
Ninguno 06
VI. CADENA PRODUCTIVA APICULTURA Y MIEL
Solo para los que respondieron 02 en la pregunta 117
301. ¿Usted y su familia participan en la actividad de apicultura del programa Oro Legal? E: leer El Proyecto 
productivo Apícola busca implementar una alternativa de desarrollo productivo que permita generar ingresos y 
ayude al cuidado del medio ambiente. 
1 Sí Continúe
2 No Pase a 501
.
302. ¿La principal actividad económica suya o de su familia estaba relacionada con minería antes de la llegada del 
programa Oro Legal? 
1 Sí
2 No
.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 226
303. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo es beneficiario o participante de la 
actividad de apicultura del programa Oro Legal? (E: Meses 
cumplidos)
Número de meses ______________
304. ¿Considera usted que la actividad de apicultura y miel es 
más viable que la actividad minera?
1 Sí
2 No
305. ¿Cuál fue su principal motivación para participar en la 
actividad de apicultura del programa Oro Legal? (R.U.) 
(E:Leer)
1º 
Mención
Poder comercializar más fácilmente 
el producido
1
Mejorar ingresos 2
Proteger el medio ambiente 3
Mejorar condiciones de salud suyas y 
de su familia
4 
Evitar problemas con las autoridades 5
Participar en una actividad menos 
riesgosa
6
Otro, ¿Cuál? 7
Ns/Nr 99
306. En una escala de 1 a 5 dónde 1 es completamente en desacuerdo y 5 completamente de acuerdo, qué tan de acuerdo está con 
cada una de las siguientes afirmaciones: (E: Mostrar tarjeta)
La actividad de apicultura y miel le ha ayudado a: Completamente 
en desacuerdo
Desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni 
en desacuerdo
De 
acuerdo
Completamente 
de acuerdo
a. Mejorar sus condiciones de trabajo 1 2 3 4 5
b. Disminuir los riesgos para su salud 1 2 3 4 5
c. Tener más tiempo para atender el hogar, la 
familia y asuntos personales
1 2 3 4 5
d. Reducir la incertidumbre sobre el futuro 1 2 3 4 5
e. Tener una menor exposición a riesgos para 
usted y su familia
1 2 3 4 5
f. Mejorar las condiciones ambientales en su 
entorno
1 2 3 4 5
307. Desde su participación en el programa ¿Usted o su 
familia ha recibido algún ingreso de la actividad de apicultura? 
Sí 1 Continúe
No 2 Pase a 314
Ns/N
r
9 Pase a 314
308. ¿Con qué frecuencia se reciben ingresos por el 
desarrollo de la actividad de apicultura dentro del programa 
de Oro Legal?
Diario 1
Semanal 2
Quincenal 3
Mensual 4
Bimensual 5
Trimestral 6
Semestral 7
Annual 8
Ns/Nr 99
309. ¿Cómo califica en una escala de 1 a 5 siendo 1 Muy insatisfecho y 5 Muy satisfecho la frecuencia con la que se reciben 
ingresos por la actividad de apicultura dentro del programa de Oro Legal? 
1.MUY 
INSATISFECHO
2. 3. 4. 5. MUY SATISFECHO
227 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
310. ¿Qué medios de transporte usa la mayoría de las veces 
para transportar su producto de la actividad de apicultura para 
comercializarlo? Enc: Si requiere más de un medio de 
transporte indicar los que apliquen
Caballo o mula 1
Lancha o canoa 2 
Carro 3 
Moto 5 
Camión 6 
Caminando 7 
Otro ¿cuál?__________ 88
311.
¿cuánto le cuesta transportar habitualmente la producción de 
apicultura en toneladas para su comercialización?
Valor en pesos _________
Enc: Si son varios transportes los que toma, indicar la 
suma total de los valores. 
311.A. ¿El valor que me indicó es para transportar en 
promedio cuántas toneladas?
Valor en número _________
312. ¿Cuánto tiempo le toma, en promedio, transportar su producto de la actividad de apicultura para comercializarlo? 
Menos de 15 minutos 1
Entre 16 y 30 minutos 2
Entre 31 y 45 minutos 3
Entre 46 y 60 minutos 4
Entre 1 y 2 horas 5
Entre 2 y 3 horas 6
Entre 3 y 4 horas 7
Más de 4 horas 8
313. De su producción de miel, ¿Cuánto dedica al acopio y venta asociativa y cuánto destina a comercialización individual?
Nada Menos de la mitad La mitad Más de la mitad Todo
a. Acopio y venta 
asociativa 1 2 3 4 5 
b. Comercialización 
individual 1 2 3 4 5 
314. ¿La principal actividad económica suya o de su familia 
estaba relacionada con apicultura o producción y 
comercialización de miel antes de la llegada del programa Oro 
Legal?
Sí 1
No 2
Ns/Nr 99
315. ¿Tuvo que firmar un contrato para participar en la 
actividad de apicultura del programa Oro Legal? (R.U.)
Sí 1
No 2
Ns/Nr 99
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 228
316. ¿Qué compromisos adquirió usted y su familia con el programa de Oro Legal al incorporarse a la actividad de apicultura? (R.M.)
Aportar mano de obra 01
Aportar dinero 02
Aportar tierra 03
Aportar materiales 04
Capacitarse 05
Seguir recomendaciones de asesores 06
Dar al programa información verdadera 07
Evitar la deforestación 08
Nada 09
Otro, ¿Cuál? 88
Ns/Nr 99
317. ¿Cuántos lotes ocupa la actividad (Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria) de apicultura del programa Oro Legal?
Valor en Número______
317.A. ¿Qué forma de tenencia tiene el lote que ocupa la actividad (Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria) de apicultura del 
programa Oro Legal? (Desagregue el área de esos lotes o predios según la forma de tenencia) (R.U) (E: lea cada ítem y espere 
respuesta para cada uno, llenando inmediatamente el área y la unidad de medida) 
Forma de tenencia Área Unidad de Medida: 1. Hectárea 2. M2 3. 
Fanegada 4. Otro
1. Propia sin título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
2. Propia con título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
3. en Arriendo o subarriendo _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4 
4. Aparcería _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
5. En usufructo _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
6. En concesión _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
7. En sucesión con título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
8. En sucesión sin título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
229 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
9. Propiedad colectiva _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
.
318. En promedio ¿Incluido usted cuántas personas trabajaron en la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) Apícola durante el 
año 2020? Valor en númerico |__|__|__|
319. ¿Cuál es el valor de los activos totales con los que cuenta la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) dedicada a Apicultura 
para el año 2020? Valor en pesos:
320. ¿Cuál fue el valor de la producción de miel o ingresos operacionales de la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) para el 
año 2020? Valor en pesos:
321. En promedio ¿Cuántas colmenas tuvo la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) durante el año 2020? Valor numérico 
|__|__|__|
322. ¿Cuál fue el total de kilogramos de miel producidos en la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) durante el año 2020? 
Valor numérico |__|__|__|
323. 311. De 1 a 100 donde 100 significa que la UPA se encuentra en su máxima capacidad de producción (capacidad instalada). 
¿Cómo calificaría el nivel de capacidad instalada en la (UPA)?
|__|__|__| (Nota: No debe superar 100)
324. ¿Qué aporta el programa Oro Legal a la actividad de apicultura en el convenio firmado con usted y su familia? y ¿Cómo califica 
en una escala de 1 a 5 siendo 1 Muy insatisfecho y 5 Muy satisfecho cada uno de estos aportes? (R.M.) (E: Mostrar Tarjeta 4)
No 
↓ Sí� Muy 
insatisfecho
Insatisfecho Ni satisfecho ni 
Insatisfecho 
Satisfecho Muy 
satisfecho
a. Asesoría legal 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5
b. Asistencia técnica ambiental 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
c. Asesoría técnica en temas de abejas 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
d. Asesoría técnica en comercialización de 
miel y subproductos 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
e. Asistencia técnica en manipulación de 
equipos y herramientas 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
f. Capacitaciones técnicas apícolas 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5
g. Capacitación seguridad en el trabajo 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
h. Capacitación empresarial 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
i. Capacitación manejo ambiental 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5
j. Colmenas y abejas 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
k. Equipos de protección 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
l. Proceso de convenio para comercialización 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
m. Otro, ¿Cuál? 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
.
325. En una escala de 1 a 5 dónde 1 es completamente en desacuerdo y 5 completamente de acuerdo, qué tan de acuerdo está 
con cada una de las siguientes afirmaciones. (E: Mostrar tarjeta)
Completamente 
en desacuerdo
Desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni 
en desacuerdo
De 
acuerdo
Completamente 
de acuerdo
g. El apoyo de Oro Legal para mi actividad de 
apicultura ha contribuido a mejorar la 
calidad de vida de su familia
1 2 3 4 5
h. El apoyo de Oro Legal para su actividad de 
apicultura ha hecho que mejoren los 
ingresos de su hogar
1 2 3 4 5
i. El apoyo de Oro Legal para su actividad de 
apicultura ha contribuido a que los ingresos 
en su hogar sean más estables
1 2 3 4 5 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 230
j. Tal y como se estableció el negocio apícola 
con Oro Legal de aquí a 5 años seguirá 
funcionando y creciendo
1 2 3 4 5 
k. Si no hubiera más apoyo del programa de 
Oro Legal, seguiría trabajando en la 
apicultura 
1 2 3 4 5 
l. La actividad apícola impulsada por Oro Legal 
ha impedido que se siga afectando el medio 
ambiente en el territorio.
1 2 3 4 5 
m. La actividad apícola impulsada por Oro Legal 
ha contribuido a mejorar las condiciones de 
seguridad del territorio.
1 2 3 4 5 
326. ¿Para usted cuales de los siguientes factores son 
obstáculos para el desarrollo de la actividad apícola en su 
región? (R.M: Leer opciones)
Falta de convenios comerciales suficientes y estables 01
Falta de capacidad de compra del acopiador regional 
(Campo Dulce)
02
Calidad insuficiente del producto de la región 03
Falta de financiamiento 04
Baja productividad 05
Falta de capacitación técnica 06
Falta de equipos apropiados para la extracción y 
procesamiento de la miel
07
Falta de mano de obra 08
Problemas de orden público 09
Aislamiento geográfico (las colmenas quedan en zonas 
muy alejadas)
10
Otra:________________________________ 77
327. ¿Continuaría con la actividad apícola si se llegaran a 
afectar sus ingresos actuales (hasta que sus ingresos se 
reduzcan al X%)?
Reducción de hasta el 25% de sus ingresos 01 -
Si
02 -
No
Reducción de hasta el 50% de sus ingresos 01 -
Si
02 -
No
Reducción de hasta el 75% de sus ingresos 01 -
Si
02 -
No
VII. CADENA PRODUCTIVA CULTIVO ACHIOTE
Solo para los que responden 03 en la pregunta 117
401. ¿Usted y su familia participan en la actividad de cultivo de achiote del programa Oro Legal? 
1 Sí� Continúe
2 No� pase a 501
402. ¿La principal actividad económica suya o de su familia estaba relacionada con minería antes de la llegada del 
programa Oro Legal? 
1 Sí
2 No
403. ¿Cómo participa usted en la actividad de cultivo de Achiote? (R.M)
1 Mano de obra
2 Prestando la tierra de su propiedad
404. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo es beneficiario o participante de la 
actividad de cultivo de achiote del programa Oro Legal? (E: 
Meses completados)
406. ¿Cuál fue su principal motivación para participar en la 
actividad de cultivo de achiote del programa Oro Legal? (R.U.) 
(E:Leer)
231 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Número de meses: ______________
405. ¿Considera usted que el cultivo de Achiote es más viable 
que la actividad minera?
1 Sí
2 No
1º 
Mención
Poder comercializar más fácilmente 
el producido
1
Mejorar ingresos 2
Proteger el medio ambiente 3
Mejorar condiciones de salud suyas 
y de su familia
4
Evitar problemas con las 
autoridades
5
Participar en una actividad menos 
riesgosa
6
Otro, ¿Cuál? 7
Ns/Nr 99
.
407. En una escala de 1 a 5 dónde 1 es completamente en desacuerdo y 5 completamente de acuerdo, qué tan de acuerdo está con 
cada una de las siguientes afirmaciones: (E: Mostrar tarjeta)
La actividad de Cultivo de Achiote me ha 
ayudado a:
Completamente 
en desacuerdo
Desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni 
en desacuerdo
De 
acuerdo
Completamente 
de acuerdo
n. Mejorar sus condiciones de trabajo 1 2 3 4 5
o. Disminuir los riesgos para su salud 1 2 3 4 5
p. Tener más tiempo para atender el hogar, la 
familia y asuntos personales
1 2 3 4 5
q. Reducir la incertidumbre sobre el futuro 1 2 3 4 5
r. Tener una menor exposición a riesgos para 
usted y su familia
1 2 3 4 5
s. Mejorar las condiciones ambientales en su 
entorno
1 2 3 4 5
408. Desde su participación en el programa ¿Usted o su familia 
ha recibido algún ingreso proveniente de la venta de achiote? 
Sí 1
No 2
Ns/N
r
99
409. Desde su participación en el programa ¿Usted o su familia 
ha recibido algún jornal proveniente del programa Oro legal? 
Sí 1
No Pase a 415
Ns/Nr Pase a 415
410.
410.A.¿Con qué frecuencia se reciben jornales por el desarrollo 
de la actividad de cultivo de achiote dentro del programa de Oro 
Legal?
Programa 
OL
Diario 1
Semanal 2
Quincenal 3
Mensual 4
Bimensual 5
Trimestral 6
Semestral 7
Anual 8
Ns/Nr 99
410.B.¿Con qué frecuencia se reciben ingresos por ventas en el 
desarrollo de la actividad de cultivo de achiote dentro del 
programa de Oro Legal?
Ventas
Diario 1
Semanal 2
Quincenal 3
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 232
Mensual 4
Bimensual 5
Trimestral 6
Semestral 7
Anual 8
Ns/Nr 99
411. ¿Cómo califica en una escala de 1 a 5 siendo 1 Muy insatisfecho y 5 Muy satisfecho la frecuencia con la que se reciben ingresos 
por la actividad de cultivo de achiote dentro del programa de Oro Legal? 
1.MUY 
INSATISFECHO
2. 3. 4. 5. MUY SATISFECHO
412. ¿Qué medios de transporte usa la mayoría de las veces 
para transportar su producto de la actividad de cultivo de 
achiote para comercializarlo? Enc: Si requiere más de un 
medio de transporte indicar los que apliquen
Caballo o mula 1
Lancha o canoa 2
Carro 3
Moto 5
Camión 6
Caminando 7
Otro 
cual___________
88
413.
¿cuánto le cuesta transportar habitualmente la producción de 
achiote en toneladas para su comercialización?
Valor en pesos _________
Enc: Si son varios transportes los que toma, indicar la 
suma total de los valores. 
413.A. ¿El valor que me indicó es para transportar en 
promedio cuántas toneladas?
Valor en número _________
414. ¿Cuánto tiempo le toma, en promedio, transportar su producto de la actividad de cultivo de achiote para comercializarlo? 
Menos de 15 minutos 1
Entre 16 y 30 minutos 2
Entre 31 y 45 minutos 3
Entre 46 y 60 minutos 4
Entre 1 y 2 horas 5
Entre 2 y 3 horas 6
233 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Entre 3 y 4 horas 7 
Más de 4 horas 8
415. ¿La principal actividad económica de usted o de su familia 
estaba relacionada con cultivo o comercialización de achiote 
antes de la llegada del programa Oro Legal?
Sí 1
No 2
Ns/Nr 99
416. ¿Tuvo que firmar un contrato para participar en la 
actividad de cultivo de achiote del programa Oro Legal? (R.U.)
Sí 1
No 2
Ns/Nr 99
417. ¿Qué compromisos adquirió usted y su familia con el programa de Oro Legal al incorporarse a la actividad de cultivo de achiote? 
(RM)
Aportar mano de obra 01
Aportar dinero 02
Aportar tierra 03
Aportar materiales 04
Capacitarse 05
Seguir recomendaciones de asesores 06
Dar al programa información verdadera 07
Evitar la deforestación 08
Nada 09
Otro, ¿Cuál? 88
Ns/Nr 99
418.
¿Cuántos lotes ocupa la actividad (Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria - UPA) de cultivo de achiote del programa Oro Legal?
Valor en número___________
418.A.¿Qué forma de tenencia tiene el lote que ocupa la actividad (Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria - UPA) de cultivo de achiote 
del programa Oro Legal? (Desagregue el área de esos lotes o predios según la forma de tenencia) (R.U) (E: lea cada ítem y espere 
respuesta para cada uno, llenando inmediatamente el área y la unidad de medida) 
Forma de tenencia Área Unidad de Medida: 1. Hectárea 2. M2
3. Fanegada 4. Otro
1. Propia sin título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
2. Propia con título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
3. en Arriendo o subarriendo _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
4. Aparcería _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 234
5. En usufructo _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
6. En concesión _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
7. En sucesión con título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
8. En sucesión con título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
9. Propiedad colectiva _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
.
419. En promedio ¿Incluido usted cuántas personas trabajaron en la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) dedicada al cultivo 
de Achiote durante el año 2020? Valor en numérico |__|__|__|
420. ¿Cuál es el valor de los activos totales con los que cuenta la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) dedicada a Achiote 
para el año 2020? Valor en pesos:
421. ¿Cuál fue el valor de las ventas de Achiote o ingresos operacionales de la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) para el 
año 2020? Valor en pesos:
422. ¿Cuál fue el total de toneladas de Achiote producidas en la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) durante el año 2020? 
Valor numérico y texto |__|__|__|
423. ¿Cuál fue el total de toneladas de Achiote vendidas en la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA) durante el año 2020? 
Valor numérico y texto |__|__|__|
424. De 1 a 100 donde 100 significa que la UPA se encuentra en su máxima capacidad de producción (capacidad instalada). ¿Cómo 
calificaría el nivel de capacidad instalada en la (UPA)?
|__|__|__| (Nota: No debe superar 100)
425. ¿Qué aporta el programa Oro Legal a la actividad de cultivo de achiote en el convenio firmado con usted y su familia? y ¿Cómo 
califica en una escala de 1 a 5 siendo 1 Muy insatisfecho y 5 Muy satisfecho cada uno de estos aportes? (R.M.) (E: Mostrar tarjeta 4)
No 
↓ Sí� Muy 
insatisfecho
Insatisfecho Ni satisfecho ni 
Insatisfecho 
Satisfecho Muy 
satisfecho
a. Asesoría legal 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
b. Asistencia técnica ambiental 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
c. Asistencia técnica en el manejo del 
cultivo, cosecha y poscosecha. 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
d. Asesoría técnica en los procesos de 
transformación 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
e. Capacitaciones técnicas 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
f. Capacitación seguridad en el trabajo 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5
g. Capacitación empresarial 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
h. Capacitación manejo ambiental 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
i. Insumos 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5
j. Equipos de protección 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
k. Proceso de convenio para 
comercialización 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
l. Otro, ¿Cuál? 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
426. En una escala de 1 a 5 dónde 1 es completamente en desacuerdo y 5 completamente de acuerdo, qué tan de acuerdo está con 
cada una de las siguientes afirmaciones. (E: Mostrar tarjeta 3)
235 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Completamente 
en desacuerdo
Desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni 
en desacuerdo
De 
acuerdo
Completamente 
de acuerdo
t. El apoyo de Oro Legal para su actividad de 
producción de achiote ha contribuido a 
mejorar la calidad de vida de su familia
1 2 3 4 5
u. El apoyo de Oro Legal para su actividad de 
producción de achiote ha hecho que 
mejoren los ingresos de su hogar
1 2 3 4 5
v. El apoyo de Oro Legal para su actividad de 
producción de achiote ha contribuido a que 
los ingresos en su hogar sean más estables
1 2 3 4 5 
w. Tal y como se estableció el negocio apícola 
con Oro Legal de aquí a 5 años seguirá 
funcionando y creciendo
1 2 3 4 5 
x. Si no hubiera más apoyo del programa de 
Oro Legal, seguiría trabajando en el cultivo 
de achiote.
1 2 3 4 5 
y. El cultivo de achiote impulsado por Oro 
Legal ha impedido que se siga afectando el 
medio ambiente en el territorio.
1 2 3 4 5 
z. El cultivo de achiote impulsado por Oro 
Legal ha contribuido a mejorar las 
condiciones de seguridad del territorio.
1 2 3 4 5 
427. ¿Para usted cuales de los siguientes factores son 
obstáculos para el desarrollo de la producción de Achiote en 
su región? (R.M: Leer opciones)
Falta de convenios comerciales suficientes y estables 01
Falta de capacidad de acopio y trillado 02
Falta de capacidad de procesamiento del achiote para 
la venta
03
Calidad insuficiente del producto de la región 04
Falta de financiamiento 05
Baja productividad 06
Falta de capacitación técnica 07
Falta de maquinaria apropiada de transformación 08
Falta de mano de obra 09
Problemas de orden público 10
Aislamiento geográfico (los cultivos de Achiote quedan 
en zonas muy alejadas)
11
Otra:________________________________ 88
428. ¿Continuaría con la actividad de Achiote ante cambios en 
que afecten sus ingresos actuales (hasta que sus ingresos se 
reduzcan al X%)?
Reducción de hasta el 25% de sus ingresos 01 -
Si
02 -
No
Reducción de hasta el 50% de sus ingresos 01 -
Si
02 -
No
Reducción de hasta el 75% de sus ingresos 01 -
Si
02 -
No
VIII. REHABILITACIÓN DE ZONAS DEGRADADAS
 
501. ¿Usted y su familia participan en la actividad de rehabilitación de zonas degradadas del programa Oro Legal?
1 Sí� Continúe
2 No� Pase a 601
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 236
502. ¿La principal actividad económica suya o de su familia estaba relacionada con minería antes de la llegada del 
programa Oro Legal? 
1 Sí
2 No
.
503. ¿Cómo es su participación en la actividad de rehabilitación? 
1 Búsqueda de semillas 
2 Cultivo de plántulas en vivero
3 Siembra de árboles
504. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo es beneficiario de la actividad de 
rehabilitación del programa Oro Legal? (E: Meses cumplidos)
Número de meses ______________
505. ¿Estuvo de acuerdo con las especies empleadas para la 
rehabilitación de las áreas degradadas por minería?
1 Sí
2 No
506. ¿Cuál fue su principal motivación para participar en la 
actividad de Rehabilitación del programa Oro Legal? (E: Leer 
las respuestas) Puede marcar más de una opción
1º 
Mención
Rehabilitar 1
Recuperar áreas previamente 
degrades por minería
2
Proteger el medio ambiente 3
Recuperar especies nativas 4
Recuperar especies importantes para 
el uso de la comunidad 
5
Mejorar condiciones de salud suyas y 
de su familia
6
Buscar en un futuro seguridad 
alimentaria 
7 
Participar en una actividad menos 
riesgosa
8
Otro, ¿Cuál? 88
Ns/Nr 99
507. En una escala de 1 a 5 dónde 1 es completamente en desacuerdo y 5 completamente de acuerdo, qué tan de acuerdo está con 
cada una de las siguientes afirmaciones. (E: Mostrar Tarjeta)
Completamente 
en desacuerdo
Desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni 
en desacuerdo
De 
acuerdo
Completamente 
de acuerdo
a. Las expectativas que tenía de 
recuperar las áreas degradadas se 
cumplieron
1 2 3 4 5
b. Fue clara la propuesta de rehabilitación 
del Programa Oro Legal
1 2 3 4 5
c. Considera que se recuperó el suelo 1 2 3 4 5
d. Considera que se tuvo efectos 
positivos en el agua 
1 2 3 4 5
e. Se ha recuperado el paisaje que se 
tenía antes de la degradación por 
minería 
1 2 3 4 5
f. Se modificó el paisaje, en 
comparación con el que se tenía 
antes de la degradación minera 
1 2 3 4 5
g. Los efectos de la recuperación son 
positivos para la comunidad 
1 2 3 4 5
237 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
508. ¿Cómo califica en una escala de 1 a 5, el control que se ha desarrollado para el no retorno de actividades extractivas en la 
zona intervenida?
1.MUY 
INSATISFECHO
2. 3. 4. 5. MUY SATISFECHO
509. Si conoce los costos de la implementación, ¿Le 
parecieron? 
Altos 1
Adecuados 2 
Bajos 3 
Ns/ Nr 99
Otro cual___________ 88
510. ¿Espera que la rehabilitación adelantada tenga una 
retribución económica para usted y su comunidad, mediante 
algún proyecto de carbono o pago por servicios ambientales? 
1 Sí
2 No
511. ¿El trabajo realizado tuvo acompañamiento de alguna de las siguientes entidades? 
1.Si 2. No
a) Alcaldía
b) Corporación autónoma regional o de 
Desarrollo Sostenible 
c) Instituto de Investigaciones Ambientales 
del Pacífico 
Otro, ¿cuál?
512. ¿Le han indicado cómo se realizará el aprovechamiento 
de las plantaciones de Acacia? Solo aplica para Antioquia 
Sí 1
No 2
Ns/Nr 99
513. ¿Tuvo que firmar un contrato para participar en la 
actividad de rehabilitación con acacia del programa Oro Legal? 
(R.U.) 
Sí 1
No 2
Ns/Nr 99
514. ¿Qué compromisos adquirió usted y su familia con el programa de Oro Legal al incorporarse a la actividad de rehabilitación con 
Acacia (R.M.)
Aportar mano de obra 01
Aportar dinero 02
Aportar tierra 03
Aportar materiales 04
Capacitarse 05
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 238
Seguir recomendaciones de asesores 06
Dar al programa información verdadera 07
Evitar la deforestación 08
Nada 09
Otro, ¿Cuál? 88
Ns/Nr 99
515. ¿Cuántos lotes/parcelas ocupa la actividad de rehabilitación con acacia del programa Oro Legal?
Valor en número ____________
515.A. ¿Qué forma de tenencia tiene el lote que ocupa la actividad de rehabilitaciónn con acacia del programa Oro Legal? 
(Desagregue el área de esos lotes o predios según la forma de tenencia) (R.U) (E: lea cada ítem y espere respuesta para cada 
uno, llenando inmediatamente el área y la unidad de medida) 
Forma de tenencia Área Unidad de Medida: 1. Hectárea 2. M2 3. 
Fanegada 4. Otro
1. Propia sin título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
2. Propia con título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
3. en Arriendo o subarriendo _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
4. Aparcería _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
5. En usufructo _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
6. En concesión _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
7. En sucesión con título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
8. En sucesión sin título _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4 
9. Propiedad colectiva _ _ _ _._ _
1 2 3 4
.
516. ¿Qué aporta el programa de oro legal para la actividad de rehabilitación con acacia en el convenio firmado con usted y su 
familia? Y ¿Cómo califica en una escala de 1 a 5 siendo 1 Muy insatisfecho y 5 Muy satisfecho cada uno de estos aportes? (R.M.) (E: 
Mostrar Tarjeta 4)
239 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
No 
↓ Sí� Muy 
insatisfecho
Insatisfecho Ni satisfecho ni 
Insatisfecho 
Satisfecho Muy 
satisfecho
a. Asesoría legal 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 
b. Asistencia técnica ambiental 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
c. Asesoría técnica en siembra, poda y 
mantenimiento de la acacia 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
d. Asesoría técnica en corte, acopio, 
transporte y comercialización 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
e. Asistencia técnica en manipulación de 
equipos
y herramientas
2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
f. Capacitaciones técnicas 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
g. Capacitación seguridad en el trabajo 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
h. Capacitación empresarial 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
i. Capacitación manejo ambiental 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5
j. Insumos 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
k. Equipos de pr
tección 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
l. Gestión para vender producto a mejores 
precios 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
m. Otro, ¿Cuál? 2↓ 1� 1 2 3 4 5 
517. En una escala de 1 a 5 dónde 1 es completamente en desacuerdo y 5 completamente de acuerdo, qué tan de acuerdo está 
con cada una de las siguientes afirmaciones. (E: Mostrar Tarjeta)
Completamente 
en desacuerdo
Desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni 
en desacuerdo
De 
acuerdo
Completamente 
de acuerdo
h. El apoyo de Oro Legal para su 
actividad de rehabilitación con acacia 
ha contribuido a mejorar la calidad de 
vida de su familia
1 2 3 4 5
i. El apoyo de Oro Legal para su 
actividad de rehabilitación con acacia 
ha mejorado la salud de su familia
1 2 3 4 5
j. El apoyo de Oro Legal para su 
actividad de rehabilitación con acacia 
ha contribuido a que los ingresos en su 
hogar sean más estables
1 2 3 4 5 
k. Quisiera continuar en 10 años con la 
actividad rehabilitación con acacia del 
programa Oro Legal
1 2 3 4 5 
l. Si no hubiera más apoyo del programa 
de Oro Legal, seguiría trabajando en la 
rehabilitación con acacia 
1 2 3 4 5 
.
518. ¿Para usted cuales de los siguientes factores son 
obstáculos para el desarrollo de la actividad de rehabilitación 
en su región? (R.M: Leer opciones)
Falta de financiamiento 01
Baja productividad 02
Falta de capacitación técnica 03
Falta de capacitación normativa 04
Falta de permisos legales 05
Falta de maquinaria 06
519. ¿Continuaría con la actividad de rehabilitación ante 
cambios que afecten sus ingresos actuales (hasta que sus 
ingresos se reduzcan al X%)?
Reducción de hasta el 25% de sus ingresos 01 –
Si
02 –
No
Reducción de hasta el 50% de sus ingresos 01 – 
Si
02 – 
No
Reducción de hasta el 75% de sus ingresos 01 –
Si
02 –
No
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 240
Falta de mano de obra 07
Problemas de orden público 08
Aislamiento geográfico (las zonas rehabilitadas quedan 
en zonas muy alejadas)
09
Otra:________________________________ 88
IX. Actualización de Datos
601. ¿Usted conoce a _________?
Sí 1
No Pase a 603
602. ¿Me podría dar el número de contacto de esa 
persona por favor?
________________________
603. ¿Usted conoce a _________?
Sí 1
No Pase a 604
604. ¿Me podría dar el número de contacto de esa 
persona por favor?
________________________
605. ¿Usted conoce a _________?
Sí 1
No Pase a 607
606. ¿Me podría dar el número de contacto de esa 
persona por favor?
________________________
607. ¿Conoce a alguna otra persona beneficiaria del 
Programa Oro Legal que no viva con usted?
Sí 1
No Finalizar 
encuesta
608. ¿Me podría dar el número de contacto de esa 
persona por favor?
________________________
Agradezco en nombre del Centro Nacional de Consultoría su tiempo y colaboración. Le recuerdo que 
Nuestra Política de Tratamiento de Datos Personales puede encontrarla en la página 
www.centronacionaldeconsultoria.com y cualquier consulta puede dirigirla al correo cnc@cnccol.com o 
al Tel: 3394888 de Bogotá. Le deseo un feliz día. 
QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – ACADEMIA
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
241 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. Cuénteme un poco en qué consiste el programa Oro Legal - OL (Indagar por los objetivos)
2.2. En líneas generales, ¿tiene conocimiento de qué acciones se han implementado OL en la región? 
Indague.
2.3. ¿Qué expectativas tenía del OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
2.4. ¿Cómo se articuló la Universidad y en particular la academia con el programa OL? 
2.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación de la 
Universidad con el programa OL?
3. Gobernanza y políticas mineras
3.1. ¿Qué percepción tiene del proceso de articulación con las autoridades del gobierno nacional, 
regionales y municipales? (Indagar por Ministerio de Minas, ANM, Ministerio de Ambiente, CARs, 
Gobernaciones y Alcaldías, Mesas Mineras)
3.2. ¿Qué tan rígido o adaptable fue el programa a las condiciones y necesidades del territorio?
3.3. ¿Qué percepción tiene del hecho de que USAID fuese el financiador del programa OL?
3.4. ¿Cuáles son los factores externos que facilitan o dificultan la gobernanza sobre las políticas 
mineras y ambientales? (indagar por conocimiento de la normatividad sobre formalización y no uso 
de mercurio, complejidad del sector, seguridad laboral) ¿Qué rol juega la academia en esto?
3.5. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de acercamiento y articulación con los 
aliados institucionales y beneficiarios para mejorar la gobernanza y políticas mineras? ¿Qué rol 
cree que puede jugar la academia en esto?
4. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
4.1. ¿Qué tan consolidado considera usted que se encuentra el encadenamiento de achiote que 
apoyó OL como para poder continuar su operación después de la terminación del programa?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 242
4.2. ¿Cuáles son los principales riesgos que usted percibe que puedan afectar la sostenibilidad del 
agronegocio de los productores en esta cadena? ¿cómo están preparados los productores y 
sus organizaciones para enfrentarlos?
4.3. ¿Cómo valora usted los aliados comerciales y los mercados con los que se ha encadenado esta 
iniciativa en términos de estabilidad, requerimientos de calidad y potencial de crecimiento?
4.4. ¿En qué etapa de desarrollo se encuentran el producto resultante del procesamiento de achiote 
en la transformación que se realiza en la cadena apoyada por OL a través de Achiote y Agros 
del Chocó (A&ACH)?
4.5. ¿Cuáles son las oportunidades que cree que tiene este producto en la dinámica del mercado 
actual de la bixina?
4.6. ¿Cómo percibe las capacidades productivas y de procesamiento de los productores y sus 
organizaciones en cuanto a calidades y volúmenes requeridos en el mercado o mercados que 
participan?
4.7. ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales retos que deben asumir de aquí en adelante los 
productores y sus organizaciones para asegurar su sostenibilidad en la cadena? ¿Qué 
herramientas considera que tienen para afrontarlos?
4.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de desarrollo de cadenas de valor y 
medios de vida alternativos para incrementar su efectividad y replicabilidad?
5. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
5.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico a nivel regional, ¿Qué tan pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de 
OL? 
5.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
5.3. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a reducción de mercurio)
5.4. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de desarrollo económico?
5.5. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por cadenas productivas)
5.6. ¿Cómo cree que la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en los diferentes componentes del 
programa ha incidido en su calidad de vida? (Indagar por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en 
familia, acceso a servicios básicos, seguridad en los 3 componentes: formalización minera, cadenas 
productivas y rehabilitación)
5.7. ¿Cómo cree que la academia puede llegar a jugar un rol de mayor impacto en programas o 
intervenciones del tipo OL? ¿Cuál sería ese rol? ¿Cómo lo haría?
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – ALCALDÍAS
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
243 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Cuénteme un poco en qué consiste el programa 
(Indagar por los objetivos)
2.2. En líneas generales, ¿qué acciones ha implementado Oro Legal en el municipio? Indagar por 
actividades con los diferentes actores del territorio
2.3. ¿Qué expectativas tenía del OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
¿Cómo se alinean esas expectativas con sus intereses profesionales?
2.4. ¿Cómo se articula la Alcaldía con el programa OL? ¿A qué niveles se dio esa articulación (a
nivel directivo o equipos técnicos en territorio)?
2.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación de la Alcaldía 
con el programa OL? (Indagar por los tres componentes: formalización minera, cadenas de valor y 
rehabilitación)
2.6. ¿La Alcaldía cofinanció alguna actividad de OL? ¿Cuáles?
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿En qué medida OL contribuyó en aspectos técnicos o jurídicos para la formalización de las 
actividades mineras? ¿La Alcaldía recibió recomendaciones de OL para fortalecer la 
institucionalidad o las normas relacionadas con la formalización? (Tener en cuenta PTO, Política 
de formalización minera y permiso de aprovechamiento minero, estudios de impacto ambiental, guías 
minero-ambientales y planes de manejo ambiental)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 244
3.2. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para 
mantenerse formales/legales y mejorar el desempeño ambiental de sus operaciones mineras?
3.3. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.4. ¿En qué medida usted considera que el programa OL contribuye a reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? (Indagar sobre coordinación entre OL y MME para solucionar las 
dificultades halladas en el desarrollo de la formalización minera)
3.5. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para mejorar 
las operaciones mineras? (Indagar por disminución de riesgos laborales y de salud, productividad, uso 
de nuevas tecnologías)
3.6. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL? (Indagar por 
nuevas tecnologías, reducción de mercurio, conocimiento del marco normativo, mitigación de riesgos 
laborales y de salud)
3.7. Pensando en la sostenibilidad de este tipo de iniciativas, ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales 
incentivos que OL brinda para promover la continuidad de la formalización en los beneficiarios? 
¿Cuál podría ser el rol de la Gobernación para apoyar la sostenibilidad de los procesos de 
formalización minera? 
3.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
4. Gobernanza y políticas mineras
4.1. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de articulación del programa OL con las autoridades del gobierno 
nacional, regionales y municipales? ¿OL contribuyó a mejorar estos procesos de coordinación? 
(Indagar por Ministerio de Minas, ANM, Ministerio de Ambiente, CARs, Gobernaciones y Alcaldías, 
Mesas mineras)
4.2. ¿Cuáles son los factores que facilitan o dificultan la gobernanza sobre las políticas mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar por conocimiento de la normatividad sobre formalización y no uso de mercurio, 
complejidad del sector, seguridad laboral) 
4.3. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios o inconvenientes que genera el hecho de que USAID sea el 
financiador de un programa como OL?
4.4. ¿Qué tan rígido o adaptable fue el programa a las condiciones y necesidades del territorio?
5. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos (No aplica para Condoto)
5.1. ¿Cuál es su percepción frente a incluir alternativas productivas en un programa de formalización 
minera? (Indagar por pertinencia, sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a la extracción 
informal de oro, mejoramiento ambiental) 
5.2. ¿Qué importancia tiene el renglón productivo de miel (Antioquia)/achiote (Chocó) en su 
municipio y cómo lo está apoyando o tiene planeado apoyarlo la alcaldía durante este gobierno? 
Solo para Alcaldías de Antioquia: ¿Cómo fue la participación del municipio en los proyectos 
apícolas de Oro Legal?
5.3. De acuerdo con las dinámicas del territorio ¿considera que los ingresos por actividades 
productivas alternativas como miel (Antioquia)/achiote (Chocó) son suficientes para disuadir la 
incursión de los beneficiarios en actividades de minería artesanal?
245 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
5.4. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL para el 
desarrollo de la cadena productiva de miel (Antioquia)/Achiote (Chocó)?
5.5. ¿Qué cambios en la situación de orden público en las zonas de producción de achiote (Chocó)/miel 
(Antioquia) se percibieron durante la ejecución del programa y cómo cree que se relacionan con los 
proyectos productivos? (Indagar por la presión de grupos armados ilegales sobre los beneficiarios)
5.6. ¿Qué elementos van a permitir la sostenibilidad de las cadenas productivas? (Indagar por 
encadenamientos con mercados formales, capacidades socioempresariales de los beneficiarios y 
organizaciones y acceso a asistencia técnica)
5.7. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de 
vida alternativos para incrementar su efectividad y replicabilidad?
6. Rehabilitación de áreas degradadas por minería ilegal
6.1. ¿En qué medida las actividades de rehabilitación de OL se alinean con las directrices del Plan 
de Desarrollo Municipal? 
6.2. ¿En qué medida cree que los modelos de rehabilitación de OL han sido efectivos y pertinentes 
para lograr una recuperación ecológica en las áreas intervenidas (Acacia mangium) y en Chocó 
(especies endémicas)? ¿Considera que las zonas intervenidas corresponden a las más afectadas 
por minería? ¿Por qué? 
6.3. ¿La Alcaldía apoyó y podría seguir soportando el proceso de rehabilitación de las áreas 
intervenidas en el Programa OL?
6.4. ¿Qué incentivos existen para promover la sostenibilidad de los modelos de rehabilitación? ¿Qué 
otros incentivos podrían desarrollarse para lograr la sostenibilidad?
6.5. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse en los modelos de rehabilitación para incrementar su 
efectividad y replicabilidad?
7. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
7.1. ¿Qué instrumentos y enfoques tiene la Alcaldía para eliminar el uso de mercurio en la actividad 
minera de oro? (Indagar por avance en nuevas tecnologías, asistencia técnica)
7.2. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esos 
instrumentos o enfoques? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
7.3. ¿Cuáles cree que son los incentivos o motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio 
en el aprovechamiento de oro?
7.4. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con la implementación de técnicas 
de producción más limpias promovidas por OL?
7.5. ¿Cuáles son los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la disminución del uso de 
mercurio en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en 
las técnicas de producción más limpias, precio del mercurio)
7.6. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro y cómo estás podrían mejorarse?
8. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
8.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico (acotar al nivel nacional, regional o municipal dependiendo del entrevistado) ¿Qué tan 
pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de OL? 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 246
8.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
8.3. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a reducción de mercurio y rehabilitación)
8.4. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de desarrollo económico?
8.5. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
8.6. ¿Cómo cree que la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en los diferentes componentes del 
programa ha incidido en su calidad de vida? (Indagar por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en 
familia, acceso a servicios básicos, seguridad en los 3 componentes: formalización minera, cadenas 
productivas y rehabilitación)
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – ALIADOS COMERCIALIZACIÓN DE ORO
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque 
utilizados para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y iv) las percepciones generales sobre la 
relevancia y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre 
la forma en que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Según su conocimiento, cuénteme en qué consiste el 
programa. Indagar sobre los tres componentes.
247 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
2.2. ¿Conoce el número de unidades productivas mineras (UPM) de pequeña minería beneficiarias 
de OL que comercializan el oro a través de su compañía?
2.3. ¿Qué expectativas tenían del programa OL y sus iniciativas productivas y comercialización 
cuando iniciaron la alianza y en qué medida estas se cumplieron?
2.4. ¿Cuáles diferencias ha identificado su compañía entre las UPM beneficiarias del programa OL y 
las no beneficiarias?
2.5. ¿Cuántos intermediarios estima que hay entre los beneficiarios de OL y su compañía?
2.6. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación de su empresa 
con la iniciativa de comercialización del programa OL?
3. Formalización minera 
3.1. ¿Cuáles fueron las contribuciones técnicas y jurídicas de OL para mejorar los procesos de 
comercialización del oro de las UPM beneficiarias?
3.2. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
comercialización del oro dentro de los procesos de formalización minera de OL?
3.3. ¿En qué medida usted considera que el programa OL contribuye a reducir la complejidad en la 
comercialización? 
3.4. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas o los incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para 
mejorar la comercialización del oro? (Indagar por la participación de intermediarios, ventas no 
registradas, uso de efectivo y trueque por encima de la bancarización)
3.5. Pensando en la sostenibilidad de este tipo de iniciativas, ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales 
incentivos que OL brinda para promover la continuidad de la formalización en los beneficiarios? 
3.6. ¿Cuál cree que será el futuro de las UPM beneficiarias de OL al concluir el programa?
3.7. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la alianza en la 
comercialización del oro entre su compañía, OL y los beneficiarios?
3.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de comercialización para incrementar su 
efectividad y replicabilidad?
3.9. ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tienen las autoridades mineras y ambientales sobre 
los mecanismos de comercialización del oro?
3.10. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con los resultados de la alianza de
comercialización del oro entre su compañía y OL?
4. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
4.1. ¿Cómo cree que la alianza entre su compañía y OL ha contribuido a la eliminación del mercurio 
en las UPM beneficiadas?
4.2. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la erradicación del mercurio? 
(Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
4.3. ¿Qué tan claro considera que es el marco normativo sobre eliminación de mercurio? 
4.4. ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tienen las autoridades mineras y ambientales frente 
a los lineamientos sobre eliminación de mercurio?
4.5. ¿Cómo cree que puede aportar la cadena de comercialización del oro en la eliminación del uso 
de mercurio?
4.6. ¿Cuáles cree que son las motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio en el 
aprovechamiento de oro?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 248
4.7. ¿Cuáles son los factores facilitadores y los cuellos de botella para disminuir el uso de mercurio 
en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en las 
técnicas de producción más limpia, factores externos a OL)
4.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de sensibilización para la eliminación del 
uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro?
5. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
5.1. ¿Qué tan pertinente considera las intervenciones de OL en cuanto a la comercialización del 
oro proveniente de las UPM beneficiarias?
5.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
5.3. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
5.4. ¿Considera que estas acciones de OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los 
territorios en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera?
5.5. ¿Estima que estas actividades en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el mejoramiento de la 
seguridad y el órden público?
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – ALIADOS COMERCIALES PROYECTOS PRODUCTIVOS
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) la percepción 
sobre el impacto de las cadenas de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; y ii) las 
percepciones generales sobre la relevancia y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar 
diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha 
implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
249 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Según su conocimiento, cuénteme en qué consiste el 
programa. Indagar sobre los tres componentes.
2.2. En líneas generales, ¿qué acciones conoce usted que haya implementado Oro Legal y en dónde? 
Indagar especialmente por actividades de los proyectos productivos
2.3. ¿En qué consistió su participación y la de su empresa, con las iniciativas productivas del 
programa OL?
2.4. ¿Qué expectativas tenían del programa OL y sus iniciativas productivas cuando iniciaron su 
participación y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
2.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación de su empresa 
con la iniciativa productiva de miel/achiote del programa OL?
3. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos 
3.1. ¿Cómo entiende usted que se incluyan alternativas productivas en un programa de 
formalización minera? (Indagar por pertinencia, sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a la 
extracción informal de oro, mejoramiento ambiental) 
3.2. ¿Por favor describa en qué estado se encuentra la relación comercial de su empresa con la 
organización o empresa que representa la producción de los agricultores/apicultores del 
Chocó/Bajo Cauca antioqueño? El estado de la relación puede ser en fase inicial, en negociaciones, 
consolidada, inexistente, distante, etc.
3.3. ¿Su empresa tiene definida una proyección de compras de achiote/miel a los productores que 
apoyó OL? ¿Esta proyección ha sido acordada con la organización o empresa que los 
representa? ¿Cómo se acuerdan estas proyecciones de compra? Indagar si nos pueden compartir 
las proyecciones en caso de tenerlas explicando la confidencialidad de la información. 
3.4. ¿Cuáles son y cómo se definieron las condiciones comerciales pactadas con la organización o 
empresa que representa a los productores de achiote/miel? 
3.5. ¿Además de la compra de los productos, en esta relación comercial se acordó también apoyo 
técnico, logístico o de algún otro tipo?
3.6. ¿Cómo perciben las capacidades productivas y de procesamiento de estos productores y sus 
organizaciones para poder cumplir a los requerimientos de calidad, volumen y oportunidad de 
su empresa?
3.7. ¿Cuáles son las razones principales de su empresa para establecer una relación comercial con 
los productores apoyados por OL y con sus organizaciones? Indagar por especificaciones de 
calidad propias de sus productos, origen de los mismos, responsabiliad social, precios competitivos, 
volúmenes atractivos.
3.8. ¿Cómo perciben las capacidades administrativas y financieras de los productores y sus 
organizaciones para manejar la relación comercial con su empresa? 
3.9. ¿Cuáles son los principales riesgos que usted percibe que puedan afectar la relación comercial 
con los productores en esta cadena? ¿cómo considera que están preparados los productores 
y sus organizaciones para enfrentarlos? 
3.10. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de desarrollo de cadenas de valor y 
medios de vida alternativos del programa OL para incrementar su efectividad, replicabilidad y 
sostenibilidad después de la intervención? Indagar por el modelo de negocio.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 250
4. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
4.1. ¿Considera que estas acciones de OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los 
territorios en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera?
4.2. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? 
4.3. ¿Qué sabe usted de la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en el desarrollo de las cadenas 
productivas del programa OL y cómo ha incidido en la calidad de vida de las familias? (Indagar 
por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en familia, acceso a servicios básicos)
4.4. ¿Estima que estas actividades en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el mejoramiento de la 
seguridad y el órden público?
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – ALIADOS PROYECTOS PRODUCTIVOS
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) la percepción 
sobre el impacto de las cadenas de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; y ii) las 
percepciones generales sobre la relevancia y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar 
diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha 
implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Según su conocimiento, cuénteme en qué consiste el 
programa. Indagar sobre los tres componentes.
2.2. En líneas generales, ¿qué acciones conoce usted que haya implementado Oro Legal y en dónde? 
Indagar especialmente por actividades de los proyectos productivos
2.3. ¿En qué consistió su participación y la de su entidad, en el programa OL?
251 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
2.4. ¿Qué expectativas tenía del programa OL cuando inició su participación y en qué medida estas 
se cumplieron? 
2.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para su articulación y la de su 
entidad con el programa OL?
3. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos 
3.1. ¿Cómo entiende usted que se incluyan alternativas productivas en un programa de 
formalización minera? (Indagar por pertinencia, sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a la 
extracción informal de oro, mejoramiento ambiental) 
3.2. ¿Qué tan consolidado considera usted que se encuentra el encadenamiento de achiote/miel que 
apoyó OL como para poder continuar su operación después de la terminación del programa?
3.3. ¿Cuáles son los principales riesgos que usted percibe que puedan afectar la sostenibilidad del 
agronegocio de los productores en esta cadena? ¿cómo están preparados los productores y 
sus organizaciones para enfrentarlos?
3.4. ¿Cómo perciben las capacidades productivas y de procesamiento de los productores y sus 
organizaciones en cuanto a calidades y volúmenes requeridos en el mercado o mercados que 
participan?
3.5. ¿Qué concepto tienen de las capacidades desarrolladas y recursos destinados en el territorio 
para la prestación de asistencia técnica a los productores de ahora en adelante para garantizar 
su continuidad y mejoramiento productivo?
3.6. ¿Cómo perciben las capacidades socioempresariales, administrativas y financieras de los 
productores y sus organizaciones para manejar los diferentes eslabones que les corresponden 
del agronegocio? miel: asociaciones apícolas y Campo Dulce, achiote: centros de acopio de los 
consejos comunitarios y A&ACH 
3.7. ¿Cómo valora usted los aliados comerciales y los mercados con los que se ha encadenado esta 
iniciativa en términos de estabilidad, condiciones comerciales, capacidad de compra y potencial 
de crecimiento?
3.8. ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales retos que deben asumir de aquí en adelante los 
productores y sus organizaciones para asegurar su sostenibilidad en la cadena? ¿Qué 
herramientas considera que tienen para afrontarlos?
3.9. Con respecto a los ingresos para las familias de los productores generados por esta actividad, 
¿qué tan significativos cree que son, o pueden llegar a ser, en relación con los ingresos totales 
de estas familias? ¿Cree que podrán completar un ingreso suficiente para mejorar su calidad de 
vida en el territorio?
3.10. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de desarrollo de cadenas de valor y 
medios de vida alternativos del programa OL para incrementar su efectividad, replicabilidad y 
sostenibilidad después de la intervención? Indagar por el modelo de negocio.
4. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
4.1. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a rehabilitación y manejo sostenible de recursos)
4.2. ¿Considera que estas acciones de OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los 
territorios en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 252
4.3. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? 
4.4. ¿Qué sabe usted de la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en el desarrollo de las cadenas 
productivas del programa OL y cómo ha incidido en la calidad de vida de las familias? (Indagar 
por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en familia, acceso a servicios básicos)
4.5. ¿Estima que estas actividades en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el mejoramiento de la 
seguridad y el órden público?
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – AGENCIA NACIONAL DE MINERÍA
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Cuénteme un poco en qué consiste el programa 
(Indagar por los objetivos y acciones implementadas)
2.2. ¿Qué expectativas tenía de OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
2.3. ¿Cómo se articula la Agencia Nacional de Minería con el programa OL? ¿A qué niveles se dio 
esa articulación (a nivel directivo o equipos técnicos en territorio)? 
253 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
2.4. ¿Cómo fueron las interacciones entre la ANM y OL, para los procesos de contratación y 
fiscalización de mineros en formalización dentro de los procesos de OL?
2.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación de la ANM con 
el programa OL? (Indagar por los tres componentes: formalización minera, cadenas de valor y 
rehabilitación)
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿En qué medida OL contribuyó en aspectos técnicos o jurídicos para la formalización de las 
actividades mineras? ¿Recibió la ANM recomendaciones de OL para fortalecer la 
institucionalidad o las normas relacionadas con la formalización? (Tener en cuenta PTO, Política 
de formalización minera y permiso de aprovechamiento minero, estudios de impacto ambiental, guías 
minero-ambientales y planes de manejo ambiental)
3.2. ¿En qué medida las actividades de formalización minera de OL estuvieron alineadas con el 
Programa de Formalización Minera?
3.3. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.4. ¿En qué medida usted considera que el programa OL contribuye a reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? (Indagar sobre coordinación entre OL y ANM para solucionar las 
dificultades halladas en el desarrollo de la formalización minera)
3.5. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para mejorar 
las operaciones mineras? (Indagar por disminución de riesgos laborales y de salud, productividad, uso 
de nuevas tecnologías)
3.6. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL? (Indagar por 
nuevas tecnologías, reducción de mercurio, conocimiento del marco normativo, mitigación de riesgos 
laborales y de salud)
3.7. ¿Desde la fiscalización minera, se tiene algún seguimiento al desempeño minero y ambiental de 
los beneficiarios de los procesos de formalización?
3.8. Pensando en la sostenibilidad de este tipo de iniciativas, ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales 
incentivos que OL brinda para promover la continuidad de la formalización en los beneficiarios? 
¿cuál podría ser el rol de la ANM para apoyar la sostenibilidad de los procesos de formalización 
minera? 
3.9. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
4. Gobernanza y políticas mineras
4.1. ¿En qué medida considera que el Programa brindó apoyo técnico o jurídico a la Agencia 
Nacional de Minería y a las autoridades mineras en relación con el cumplimiento de las normas 
para el desarrollo de actividades de OL?
4.2. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios o inconvenientes que genera el hecho de que USAID sea el 
financiador de un programa como OL?
4.3. ¿Cuáles son los factores que facilitan o dificultan la gobernanza sobre las políticas mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar por conocimiento de la normatividad sobre formalización y no uso de mercurio, 
complejidad del sector, seguridad laboral) 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 254
5. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
5.1. ¿Cuál es su percepción frente a incluir alternativas productivas en un programa de formalización 
minera? (Indagar por pertinencia y sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a la extracción 
informal de oro) 
6. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
6.1. ¿Qué instrumentos y enfoques tiene la ANM para eliminar el uso de mercurio en la actividad 
minera de oro? (Indagar por avance en nuevas tecnologías, asistencia técnica)
6.2. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esos 
instrumentos o enfoques? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
6.3. ¿Qué tan claro considera que es el marco normativo del Ministerio de Ambiente sobre 
eliminación de mercurio? ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tiene el Ministerio de 
Ambiente frente a los lineamientos sobre eliminación de mercurio?
6.4. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro y cómo estás podrían mejorarse?
6.5. ¿Cuáles cree que son las motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio en el 
aprovechamiento de oro?
6.6. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con la implementación de técnicas 
de producción más limpias promovidas por OL?
6.7. ¿Cuáles son los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la disminución del uso de 
mercurio en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en 
las técnicas de producción más limpias, factores externos a OL)
6.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de sensibilización para la eliminación del 
uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro?
7. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
7.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico (acotar al nivel nacional, regional o municipal dependiendo del entrevistado) ¿Qué tan 
pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de OL? 
7.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
7.3. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – ASOCIACIÓN DE MINEROS DEL BAJO CAUCA
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
255 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque 
utilizados para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y iv) las percepciones generales sobre la 
relevancia y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre 
la forma en que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Según su conocimiento, cuénteme en qué consiste el 
programa. Indagar sobre los tres componentes.
2.2. ¿Cuántas unidades productivas mineras de pequeña minería pertenecen a la asociación y 
cuántas fueron beneficiarias del programa Oro Legal?
2.3. ¿Qué expectativas tenían del programa OL y sus iniciativas productivas cuando iniciaron su 
participación y en qué medida estas se cumplieron?
2.4. ¿Cómo fue la articulación entre OL, la asociación de mineros del Bajo Cauca, las UPM, las 
autoridades mineras y ambientales, durante el proceso de legalización de los contratos?
2.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación de la asociación 
de mineros del Bajo Cauca con la iniciativa productiva del programa OL?
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿Cuáles fueron las contribuciones técnicas y jurídicas de OL para el proceso de formalización 
minera en las UPM pertenecientes a la asociación?
3.2. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.3. ¿En qué medida usted considera que el programa OL contribuye a reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? (Indagar sobre coordinación entre OL y ANM para solucionar las 
dificultades halladas en el desarrollo de la formalización minera)
3.4. ¿En qué medida OL sirvió de intermediario entre las minas y las autoridades mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar sobre acompañamiento efectivo frente a trámites complejos).
3.5. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas o los incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para 
mejorar las operaciones mineras? (Indagar por disminución de riesgos laborales y de salud, 
productividad, uso de nuevas tecnologías)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 256
3.6. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL? (Indagar por 
nuevas tecnologías, reducción de mercurio, conocimiento del marco normativo, mitigación de riesgos 
laborales y de salud)
3.7. Pensando en la sostenibilidad de este tipo de iniciativas, ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales 
incentivos que OL brinda para promover la continuidad de la formalización en los beneficiarios? 
3.8. ¿Cuál cree que será el futuro de las UPM beneficiarias de OL al concluir el programa?
3.9. ¿Cuántas entidades, públicas y privadas, han realizado actividades relacionadas con la 
formalización mineras para las UPM pertenecientes a la asociación?
3.10. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.11. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
3.12. ¿Qué conoce sobre la licencia ambiental temporal y su impacto sobre el proceso de 
formalización minera?
4. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
4.1. ¿Cuáles acciones fueron apoyadas por OL para contribuir a la eliminación del mercurio en las 
UPM pertenecientes a la asociación?
4.2. ¿De uno a diez, siendo diez la erradicación total de mercurio, con cuánto calificaría los logros 
de los beneficiarios del programa OL?
4.3. ¿Qué instrumentos y enfoques tiene la asociación para contribuir en la eliminación de mercurio 
en las UPM? (Indagar por avance en nuevas tecnologías, asistencia técnica)
4.4. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esos 
instrumentos o enfoques? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
4.5. ¿Qué tan claro considera que es el marco normativo sobre eliminación de mercurio? 
4.6. ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tienen las autoridades mineras y ambientales frente 
a los lineamientos sobre eliminación de mercurio?
4.7. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro y cómo estás podrían mejorarse?
4.8. ¿Cuáles cree que son las motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio en el 
aprovechamiento de oro?
4.9. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con la implementación de técnicas 
de producción más limpia promovidas por OL?
4.10. ¿Cuáles son los factores facilitadores y los cuellos de botella para disminuir el uso de mercurio 
en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en las 
técnicas de producción más limpia, factores externos a OL)
4.11. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de sensibilización para la eliminación del 
uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro?
5. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
5.1. ¿Qué tan pertinente considera las intervenciones de OL en cuanto a las necesidades de 
formalización minera, el desempeño ambiental y el desarrollo económico?
5.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
257 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
5.3. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
5.4. ¿Considera que estas acciones de OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los 
territorios en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera?
5.5. ¿Estima que estas actividades en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el mejoramiento de la 
seguridad y el órden público?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 258
GUÍA ENTREVISTA – POBLACIÓN BENEFICIARIA
Centro Nacional de Consultoría.
Calle 82 N° 6-51 Bogotá
Teléfono: 339 4888
Proveer a la Actividad MEL de USAID Colombia con servicios técnicos relacionados con recolección de datos.
Guía entrevista – Población beneficiaria
Centro de Costos: XXX Fecha: 
17/01/2021
Diligenciado en Campo por:
Elaborado por: 
USAID
Revisado por: 
Juliana Márquez 
Revisado en Campo por:
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – BENEFICIARIOS DIRECTOS
Para el Moderador: Antes de iniciar la sesión, los datos que se presentan a continuación deben quedar registrados 
de viva voz al principio de la grabación. En caso de no tener la autorización de grabar, regístrelos en la presente 
guía.
Nombre Moderador: Fecha y Hora:
Grupo / Segmento: Departamento / Municipio / Vereda
 
Día /___/___/ Mes /___/___/ Año /______/ Hora de inicio /___/:/____/ Hora fin /___/:/____/
Se recomienda tener en cuenta las siguientes instrucciones:
● Cuando la entrevista es virtual, el participante será citado 10 minutos antes de la hora prevista para el 
inicio de la sesión con el objetivo de acompañar el proceso de conexión de cámara y audio según el 
protocolo de conectividad anexo. 
● Al iniciar la sesión realice una breve presentación de usted y del Centro Nacional de Consultoría de acuerdo 
con la introducción de este documento.
● Lea el consentimiento informado a los participantes y solicite la aprobación para que quede en la 
grabación.
259 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
● Vigile el tiempo de la sesión procurando que no sea mayor de 60 minutos. 
● La Guía es el instrumento que se utiliza como mecanismo para garantizar que se cubre la temática 
requerida en la investigación. Igualmente se recomienda al moderador no limitarse estrictamente a las 
preguntas guías y formular nuevas preguntas que permitan profundizar la información. Es de vital 
importancia facilitar la interacción entre los participantes. 
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
Grabación y presentación. 
Dada la importancia del trabajo que vamos a realizar, vamos a grabar la sesión. Lo vamos a hacer para no 
perder los valiosos aportes brindados por usted. Nuestro compromiso es guardar la confidencialidad de 
sus opiniones, así que la información que de aquí surja será de carácter confidencial y no utilizaremos los 
nombres o los datos de las personas del proyecto para dar información sobre lo que aquí conversemos.
¿Tienen alguna pregunta o inquietud antes de comenzar?
1. PRESENTACIÓN DEL ENTREVISTADO (TODOS)
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre? 
1.2. ¿En qué municipio vive?
1.3. ¿Usted ha sido beneficiario directo o indirecto del programa OL? ¿En qué componentes? En 
caso de que la respuesta sea NO, por favor verifique, de lo contrario termine la entrevista.
2. CONOCIMIENTOS Y RELACIÓN CON LA ACTIVIDAD (TODOS)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 260
2.1. ¿Qué conoce del programa Oro Legal? Según su conocimiento, cuénteme en qué consiste el 
programa. Indagar por los objetivos y acciones implementadas en los tres componentes (Formalización 
minera, cadenas productivas y rehabilitación).
2.2. ¿Qué expectativas tenía del programa OL y sus iniciativas cuando se vinculó y en qué medida 
estas se cumplieron? 
3. MÓDULO FORMALIZACIÓN MINERA 
3.1. ¿Usted ha participado en actividades de formalización minera con el programa Oro Legal? 
Cuando la respuesta sea SÍ, continuar. Cuando la respuesta sea NO, pasar al siguiente módulo (5. 
MÓDULO CADENA PRODUCTIVA – APICULTURA)
3.2. ¿Usted pertenece a alguna comunidad o consejo comunitario? ¿Cuál?
3.3. ¿Cuál es su cargo en la mina? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
3.4. ¿A cuál tipo de titulación minera accedió la UPM? a) Beneficiario de área de reserva especial -
ARE, b) Subcontrato de Formalización Minera, c) Extensión del programa de legalización de 
minería de hecho, d) solicitud de título minero.
3.5. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa OL y cómo se dio el acercamiento del programa a su mina? 
(Indagar por el proceso de inclusión como beneficiari@ del programa)
3.6. ¿En qué consistió el acompañamiento de OL en las actividades de formalización minera? 
¿Durante cuánto tiempo recibió ese acompañamiento? 
3.7. ¿Qué lo/la motivó a buscar la formalización minera de su mina? 
3.8. ¿Qué herramientas o incentivos brindó OL a la mina para mejorar las operaciones mineras? 
(Indagar por disminución de riesgos laborales y de salud, productividad, uso de nuevas tecnologías)
3.9. ¿Cómo fue la articulación entre OL, la mina, las autoridades mineras y ambientales, durante el 
proceso de formalización?
3.10. ¿En qué medida OL sirvió de intermediario entre la mina y las autoridades mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar sobre acompañamiento efectivo frente a trámites complejos).
3.11. ¿Cuáles fueron las contribuciones técnicas y jurídicas de OL para el proceso de formalización 
minera en la mina?
3.12. ¿Cuáles fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de formalización minera 
de OL?
3.13. ¿Cuáles fueron los principales logros alcanzados por la mina con el acompañamiento de OL? 
(obtención de título minero, licencia ambiental, aplicación de normas de seguridad laboral, etc.)
3.14. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL? (Indagar por 
nuevas tecnologías, reducción de mercurio, conocimiento del marco normativo, mitigación de riesgos 
laborales y de salud)
3.15. Pensando en la sostenibilidad de este tipo de iniciativas, ¿Cuál cree que será el futuro de la 
mina al concluir el programa de OL?
3.16. ¿Además de OL, cuáles entidades, públicas y privadas, han realizado actividades relacionadas 
con la formalización mineras en su mina? (Indagar por posibles excesos de asistencia no coordinada 
entre múltiples actores institucionales, académicos, internacionales, etc.)
3.17. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera apoyada por OL 
para incrementar su efectividad y replicabilidad?
3.18. Para beneficiarios de subcontrato de formalización: ¿Qué tan satisfecho se encuentra con 
las condiciones establecidas en el subcontrato de formalización?
261 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
3.19. ¿Qué conoce sobre la licencia ambiental temporal y su impacto sobre el proceso de 
formalización minera?
4. ELIMINACIÓN/REDUCCIÓN DEL MERCURIO EN LA CADENA DE SUMINISTRO DE LA 
MAPE (SOLO PARA QUIENES HAN PARTICIPADO EN ACTIVIDADES DE 
FORMALIZACIÓN MINERA)
4.1. ¿Cuáles acciones fueron apoyadas por OL para contribuir a la eliminación del mercurio en la 
mina?
4.2. ¿Cuáles han sido los avances en nuevas tecnologías en su mina para reducir o eliminar el 
mercurio?
4.3. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esas 
nuevas tecnologías? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
4.4. ¿Qué opinión tiene sobre los avances en la reducción de mercurio dentro de la mina con el 
acompañamiento de OL?
4.5. ¿Qué tan claro considera que es el marco normativo sobre eliminación de mercurio? 
4.6. ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tienen las autoridades mineras y ambientales frente 
a los lineamientos sobre eliminación de mercurio?
4.7. ¿Cuáles son las principales motivaciones que tiene para eliminar el mercurio en la operación 
minera?
4.8. ¿En qué medida se siente satisfecho con la implementación de las técnicas de producción más 
limpia promovidas por OL? ¿Por qué?
4.9. ¿Cuáles son los factores facilitadores y los cuellos de botella para disminuir el uso de mercurio 
en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en las técnicas 
de producción más limpias, factores externos a OL)
4.10. En su municipio o región ¿cuáles son las estrategias que se han utilizado para sensibilizar sobre 
la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro? 
4.11. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación 
del uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro?
5. MÓDULO CADENA PRODUCTIVA – APICULTURA (INDAGAR SOLO A 
BENEFICIARIOS DE ANTIOQUIA)
5.1. ¿Usted ha participado en actividades de apicultura con el programa Oro Legal? Cuando la 
respuesta sea SÍ, continuar. Cuando la respuesta sea NO, pasar al siguiente módulo (7. MÓDULO 
REHABILITACIÓN)
5.2. ¿A qué organización de apicultores pertenece? ¿Hace cuánto? 
5.3. ¿Ocupa algún cargo en esta organización? ¿Cuál?
5.4. ¿Usted o su familia realizaba actividades mineras o apícolas antes del programa OL?
5.5. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa OL y cómo se dio el acercamiento del programa a su 
comunidad? (Indagar por el proceso de inclusión como beneficiari@ del programa).
5.6. ¿En qué consistió el acompañamiento de OL en las actividades apícolas? ¿Durante cuánto 
tiempo recibió ese acompañamiento?
5.7. ¿Cuáles fueron las propuestas iniciales del programa para fortalecer la producción y 
comercialización apícola en el territorio y en qué medida se cumplieron?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 262
5.8. ¿Cuáles considera que son los aprendizajes y capacidades que usted adquirió como productor 
de miel gracias al programa de OL?
5.9. Después de finalizado el programa OL, ¿cómo quedaron establecidas las condiciones de acceso 
a insumos, material genético y asistencia técnica para poder desarrollar su actividad apícola de 
manera rentable?
5.10. ¿Considera que la actividad apícola que usted desarrolla es una actividad individual o es 
asociativa? ¿Por qué? ¿Cuál es el papel de la asociación de apicultores en sus procesos 
productivos y de comercialización?
5.11. ¿Qué concepto tiene usted de los aliados comerciales y de los mercados en los cuales se está 
vendiendo la miel que usted produce?
5.12. ¿Cuáles han sido las principales dificultades y aciertos que han tenido en la comercialización de 
la miel que producen? 
5.13. Desde su conocimiento, por favor describa ¿cómo quedó funcionando el proceso de 
producción y comercialización de miel en el territorio después de la intervención de OL? 
5.14. ¿Cuáles son los planes que tienen como productores y organización de apicultores para 
mantener y mejorar la producción y comercialización de miel en el futuro? ¿Qué herramientas, 
recursos y apoyos considera que tienen a su disposición para hacerlo?
5.15. Con la dotación y capacidades adquiridas por usted con el programa, ¿cómo percibe que 
cambiarán sus ingresos familiares debido a las actividades apícolas?
5.16. ¿Considera que los ingresos originados por la actividad apícola son suficientes para que usted 
y su familia mejoren su calidad de vida en el territorio?
5.17. Además de los ingresos monetarios, ¿qué otros beneficios cree que le ha dejado la actividad 
apícola a su familia? Indagar por tranquilidad, salud, seguridad, tiempo en familia, redes de apoyo 
comunitarias. 
5.18. ¿Cuál es su opinión del negocio apícola impulsado por OL como una alternativa a las actividades 
mineras en el territorio? ¿En su familia, o en otras familias que usted conozca, con el programa 
OL se han dado cambios de la actividad minera para dedicarse a las labores apícolas? (Indagar 
por pertinencia, sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a la extracción informal de oro, 
mejoramiento ambiental)
5.19. ¿Cómo fue la participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes en las actividades del proyecto y cómo 
se refleja ahora en las actividades productivas? 
5.20. ¿Qué ajustes o recomendaciones cree que podrían realizarse en el apoyo a este tipo de 
proyectos para mejorar sus resultados y sostenibilidad a futuro?
6. MÓDULO CADENA PRODUCTIVA – ACHIOTE (INDAGAR SOLO A BENEFICIARIOS 
DE CHOCÓ) 
6.1. ¿Usted ha participado en actividades productivas de achiote con el programa Oro Legal? Cuando 
la respuesta sea SÍ, continuar. Cuando la respuesta sea NO, pasar al siguiente módulo (7. MÓDULO 
REHABILITACIÓN DE ÁREAS DEGRADADAS POR MINERÍA)
6.2. ¿A qué Consejo comunitario pertenece? ¿Hace cuánto?
6.3. ¿Ocupa algún cargo en el consejo comunitario? ¿Cuál?
6.4. ¿Usted o su familia realizaba actividades mineras o de producción de achiote antes del programa 
OL?
263 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
6.5. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa OL y cómo se dio el acercamiento del programa a su 
comunidad? (Indagar por el proceso de inclusión como beneficiari@ del programa).
6.6. ¿En qué consistió el acompañamiento de OL en las actividades de producción de achiote? 
¿Durante cuánto tiempo recibió ese acompañamiento?
6.7. ¿Cuáles fueron las propuestas iniciales del programa para fortalecer la producción, 
transformación y comercialización de achiote en el territorio y en qué medida se cumplieron?
6.8. ¿Cuáles considera que son los aprendizajes y capacidades que usted adquirió como productor 
de achiote gracias al programa de OL?
6.9. Después de finalizado el programa OL, ¿cómo quedaron establecidas las condiciones de acceso 
a insumos, asistencia técnica y acopio del achiote, para poder desarrollar su actividad 
productiva de manera rentable?
6.10. ¿Cuál es el papel del Consejo Comunitario, como organización de productores, en sus 
procesos productivos y de comercialización?
6.11. ¿Qué opinión tiene sobre la constitución de la empresa Achiote y Agros del Choco, con 
participación de los consejos comunitarios, como un eslabón de transformación del achiote 
para su comercialización?
6.12. ¿Qué concepto tiene usted de los aliados comerciales y de los mercados en los cuales se está 
vendiendo el achiote que usted produce?
6.13. ¿Cuáles han sido las principales dificultades y aciertos que han tenido en la transformación y 
comercialización del achiote que producen? 
6.14. Desde su conocimiento, por favor describa ¿cómo quedó funcionando el proceso de 
producción, transformación y comercialización de achiote en el territorio después de la 
intervención de OL? 
6.15. ¿Cuáles son los planes que tienen como productores y como consejo comunitario para 
mantener y mejorar la producción, transformación y comercialización de achiote en el futuro? 
¿Qué herramientas, recursos y apoyos considera que tienen a su disposición para hacerlo?
6.16. Con la dotación y capacidades adquiridas por usted con el programa, ¿cómo percibe que 
cambiarán sus ingresos familiares debido a las actividades de producción de achiote?
6.17. ¿Considera que los ingresos originados por la actividad productiva del achiote son suficientes 
para que usted y su familia mejoren su calidad de vida en el territorio?
6.18. Además de los ingresos monetarios, ¿Qué otros beneficios considera que le ha dejado la 
actividad productiva de achiote a su familia? Indagar por tranquilidad, salud, seguridad, tiempo en 
familia, redes de apoyo comunitarias. 
6.19. ¿Cuál es su opinión del agronegocio de achiote impulsado por OL como una alternativa a las 
actividades mineras en el territorio? ¿En su familia, o en otras familias que usted conozca, con 
el programa OL se han dado cambios de la actividad minera para dedicarse a las labores 
productivas de achiote? (Indagar por pertinencia, sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a 
la extracción informal de oro, mejoramiento ambiental)
6.20. ¿Cómo fue la participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes en las actividades del proyecto y cómo 
se refleja ahora en las actividades productivas? 
6.21. Antes del programa OL ¿qué uso le daba al área en donde estableció su cultivo de achiote? 
¿tuvo que cumplir alguna norma o protocolo que impidiera deforestar áreas boscosas para 
establecer su cultivo?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 264
6.22. ¿Qué ajustes o recomendaciones cree que podrían realizarse en el apoyo a este tipo de 
proyectos para mejorar sus resultados y sostenibilidad a futuro?
7. MÓDULO REHABILITACIÓN DE ÁREAS DEGRADADAS POR MINERÍA
7.1. ¿Usted ha participado en actividades de rehabilitación con el programa Oro Legal? Cuando la 
respuesta sea SÍ, continuar. Cuando la respuesta sea NO, pasar al siguiente módulo (8. MÓDULO 
PERCEPCIÓN DE PERTINENCIA Y EFECTIVIDAD DE LA ACTIVIDAD)
Hacer las preguntas 7.2 a 7.5 si no se han contestado previamente: 
7.2. ¿Pertenece a alguna organización o consejo comunitario? ¿Cuál?
7.3. ¿Ocupa algún cargo en la organización/consejo comunitario? ¿Cuál?
7.4. ¿Usted o su familia realizaba actividades de rehabilitación de zonas degradadas antes del 
programa OL?
7.5. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa OL y cómo se dio el acercamiento del programa a su 
comunidad? (Indagar por el proceso de inclusión como beneficiari@ del programa)
7.6. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo Ud. identificaba esa zona como un área degradada por minería?, ¿cómo 
describiría la condición ambiental de dicha zona? 
7.7. ¿En qué consistió la actividad de rehabilitación de las zonas degradadas por minería?
7.8. ¿Sabe si se trabajó con alguna entidad del Estado en esta actividad? (indagar por la planeación 
del programa y por la sostenibilidad de las áreas rehabilitadas)
7.9. ¿Qué lo motivó a desarrollar la rehabilitación de las zonas degradadas por minería? (Indagar 
por Reforestar, Volver a la condición inicial del paisaje, Recuperar especies que se habían 
perdido, Generar ingresos y Dejar unas mejores condiciones para sus hijos)
7.10. ¿Cómo se desarrolló el crecimiento de las semillas y plántulas en los viveros? ¿Qué personas 
realizaron esta actividad?
7.11. ¿Cuál fue la estrategia de siembra? (Indagar por el distanciamiento entre árboles, complemento 
con otras especies de plantas)
7.12. ¿En qué consistió el acompañamiento de OL en las actividades de rehabilitación? ¿Durante 
cuánto tiempo recibió ese acompañamiento?
7.13. ¿Cuáles considera que son los aprendizajes y capacidades que usted adquirió participando en 
la rehabilitación de la zona degradada? (Indagar por capacitaciones recibidas y percepción sobre las 
mismas)
7.14. ¿Usted recibió algún tipo de ingreso por participar en el proceso de rehabilitación? (indagar si 
fueron los mismos actores en cada etapa de la rehabilitación) 
7.15. ¿Qué otros pasos, adicionales a la siembra de los árboles, se ejecutaron para rehabilitar la zona? 
7.16. ¿Qué efectos ha tenido hasta ahora la siembra de los árboles en la zona? (Indagar por 
biodiversidad, suelos, agua, entre otros)
7.17. Solo para beneficiarios de Antioquia: ¿Cómo esperan hacer uso de la madera de los árboles de 
Acacia? 
7.18. ¿En qué medida usted cree que se ha generado compromiso y apropiación por parte de la 
comunidad para mantener los modelos de rehabilitación?
7.19. ¿Considera apropiados los modelos de rehabilitación utilizados por OL?
265 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
7.20. De las acciones realizadas en las actividades de rehabilitación, ¿Qué hubiera hecho diferente o 
qué podría hacerse mejor si se quisiera continuar con el apoyo?
8. MÓDULO PERCEPCIÓN DE PERTINENCIA Y EFECTIVIDAD DE LA ACTIVIDAD 
(TODOS)
8.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico en su región ¿Qué tan pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de OL? 
8.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL para usted y para su región? (Indagar por 
temas ambientales y minería artesanal y de pequeña escala)
8.3. ¿Considera que las acciones apoyadas por OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los 
territorios en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera?
8.4. ¿En qué medida las actividades apoyadas por OL en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el 
mejoramiento de la seguridad y el orden público?
8.5. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
8.6. ¿Cómo cree que la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en los diferentes componentes del 
programa ha incidido en su calidad de vida? (Indagar por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en 
familia, acceso a servicios básicos, seguridad en los 3 componentes: formalización minera, cadenas 
productivas y rehabilitación)
CIERRE
Para terminar, por favor dígame en una frase ¿Cómo resume usted el Programa OL?
En nombre del Centro Nacional de Consultoría, agradecemos por su participación y su tiempo para la realización 
de este estudio. Tenga usted un feliz día.
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – CORPORACIONES AUTÓNOMAS REGIONALES
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 266
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Cuénteme un poco en qué consiste el programa 
(Indagar por los objetivos y acciones implementadas)
2.2. ¿Qué expectativas tenía de OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
2.3. ¿Cómo se articula la Corporación con el programa OL? 
2.4. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación de la 
Corporación con el programa OL? (Indagar por los tres componentes: formalización minera, 
cadenas de valor y rehabilitación)
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿En qué medida OL contribuyó en aspectos técnicos o jurídicos para la formalización de las 
actividades mineras en los temas ambientales? (Tener en cuenta estudios de impacto ambiental, 
guías minero-ambientales y planes de manejo ambiental)
3.2. En caso de realizar programas similares en un futuro, ¿cómo podría USAID desarrollar una 
gestión que fortalezca o apoye procesos de la Corporación en materia de formalización 
minera?
3.3. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para mejorar 
el desempeño ambiental de sus operaciones mineras?
3.4. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL para minimizar 
los impactos ambientales generados por la actividad minera?
3.5. ¿En qué medida considera que el desempeño ambiental de las operaciones mineras formalizadas 
ha mejorado por la intervención de OL?
3.6. ¿En qué medida usted considera que el programa OL contribuye a reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? (Indagar sobre coordinación entre OL y MME para solucionar las 
dificultades halladas en el desarrollo de la formalización minera)
3.7. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
4. Gobernanza y políticas mineras
4.1. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de articulación del programa OL con las autoridades del gobierno 
nacional, regionales y municipales? ¿OL contribuyó a mejorar estos procesos de coordinación? 
267 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
(Indagar por Ministerio de Minas, ANM, Ministerio de Ambiente, CARs, Gobernaciones y Alcaldías, 
Mesas mineras)
4.2. ¿En qué medida considera que el Programa brindó apoyo técnico o jurídico a la Corporación 
u otros actores ambientales en relación con el cumplimiento de las normas ambientales para 
el desarrollo de actividades de OL?
4.3. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios o inconvenientes que genera el hecho de que USAID sea el 
financiador de un programa como OL?
4.4. ¿Cuáles son los factores que facilitan o dificultan la gobernanza sobre las políticas mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar por conocimiento de la normatividad sobre formalización y no uso de mercurio, 
complejidad del sector, seguridad laboral) 
4.5. ¿Qué tan rígido o adaptable fue el programa a las condiciones y necesidades del territorio?
4.6. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de acercamiento y articulación con los 
aliados institucionales y beneficiarios para mejorar la gobernanza y políticas mineras?
5. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
5.1. ¿En qué medida considera que OL contribuye al mejoramiento ambiental de las regiones al 
promover actividades productivas agropecuarias (miel y achiote) como alternativas a la minería 
artesanal?
5.2. ¿Qué elementos van a permitir la sostenibilidad de las cadenas productivas? (Indagar por 
encadenamientos con mercados formales, capacidades socioempresariales de los beneficiarios y 
organizaciones y acceso a asistencia técnica)
5.3. Teniendo en cuenta el desarrollo de las cadenas productivas, ¿podrían considerarse estas 
cadenas como parte de los programas de pago por servicios ambientales o acciones de 
mitigación de cambio climático o negocios verdes?
6. Rehabilitación de áreas degradadas por minería ilegal
6.1. ¿En qué medida son apropiados los modelos de rehabilitación utilizados por OL en Antioquia 
(Acacia mangium) y en Chocó (especies endémicas)? ¿Esto se enmarca con los lineamientos de 
la política ambiental? (Tener en cuenta Plan Nacional de Restauración, lineamientos del IIAP)
6.2. ¿Considera que las zonas intervenidas corresponden a las más afectadas por minería? ¿Por qué? 
6.3. ¿En qué medida cree que los modelos de rehabilitación han sido efectivos para lograr una 
recuperación ecológica en las áreas intervenidas?
6.4. ¿La Corporación apoya y podría seguir soportando el proceso de rehabilitación de las dos 
áreas intervenidas en el Programa OL?
6.5. ¿Qué incentivos existen para promover la sostenibilidad de los modelos de rehabilitación? ¿Qué 
otros incentivos podrían desarrollarse para lograr la sostenibilidad?
6.6. ¿Existen diagnósticos sobre los pasivos huérfanos en Antioquia y Chocó, así como modelos de 
rehabilitación y los costos de su implementación? ¿Esta información es pública? ¿Los 
implementadores en territorio tienen acceso a esta información?
6.7. ¿Cree que ha existido compromiso y apropiación de los beneficiarios para mantener los 
modelos de rehabilitación? ¿Por qué? 
6.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse en los modelos de rehabilitación para incrementar su 
efectividad y replicabilidad?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 268
7. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
7.1. ¿Qué instrumentos y enfoques tiene la Corporación para eliminar el uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro? (Indagar por avance en nuevas tecnologías, asistencia técnica)
7.2. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esos 
instrumentos o enfoques? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
7.3. ¿Qué tan claro considera que es el marco normativo del Ministerio de Minas sobre eliminación 
de mercurio? ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tiene el Ministerio de Minas frente a 
los lineamientos ambientales sobre eliminación de mercurio?
7.4. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro y cómo estás podrían mejorarse?
8. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
8.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico (acotar al nivel nacional, regional o municipal dependiendo del entrevistado) ¿Qué tan 
pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de OL? 
8.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a reducción de mercurio y rehabilitación)
8.3. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – COORDINADORES REGIONALES ORO LEGAL
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
269 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. Cuénteme un poco en qué consiste el programa Oro Legal (Indagar por los objetivos)
2.2. En líneas generales, ¿qué acciones ha implementado Oro Legal en la región? Indagar por 
actividades con los diferentes actores del territorio
2.3. ¿Qué expectativas tenía del OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
¿Cómo se alinean esas expectativas con sus intereses profesionales?
2.4. ¿Cómo está estructurado el equipo de trabajo de la regional? ¿Este equipo es suficiente para el 
desarrollo de las actividades del programa? ¿Cómo es la articulación con la dirección del 
programa y los territorios?
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de focalización y selección de los beneficiarios de formalización minera?
3.2. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para 
mantenerse formales/legales y mejorar el desempeño ambiental de sus operaciones mineras?
3.3. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para las actividades de 
formalización minera? (indagar por temas mineros y ambientales)
3.4. ¿Cuáles aspectos se identificaron como útiles o necesarios para reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? ¿Cuál fue la contribución de OL para reducir la complejidad? (indagar 
por temas mineros y ambientales)
3.5. ¿Cómo percibió OL la valoración que dan los mineros al apoyo ofrecido para su formalización? 
¿Habría más compromiso si los mineros tuvieran que pagar por algunos trámites?
3.6. ¿Cómo planeó OL que al finalizar el proyecto los mineros sigan cumpliendo con un 
aprovechamiento minero legal?
3.7. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
4. Gobernanza y políticas mineras
4.1. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de articulación con las autoridades del gobierno nacional, regionales 
y municipales? (Indagar por Ministerio de Minas, ANM, Ministerio de Ambiente, CARs, Gobernaciones 
y Alcaldías, Mesas Mineras)
4.2. ¿Cuáles fueron los mecanismos de participación de los beneficiarios de OL para la toma de 
decisiones sobre el programa? (Indagar por formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
4.3. ¿Qué tan rígido o adaptable fue el programa a las condiciones y necesidades del territorio?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 270
4.4. ¿Cuáles fueron los beneficios o inconvenientes que generó el hecho de que USAID fuera el 
financiador del programa OL?
4.5. ¿Cuáles son los factores externos que facilitan o dificultan la gobernanza sobre las políticas 
mineras y ambientales? (indagar por conocimiento de la normatividad sobre formalización y no uso 
de mercurio, complejidad del sector, seguridad laboral) 
4.6. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de acercamiento y articulación con los 
aliados institucionales y beneficiarios para mejorar la gobernanza y políticas mineras?
5. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
5.1. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de focalización y selección de los beneficiarios de las cadenas de valor 
desarrolladas por OL? (Indagar por apicultura y achiote)
5.2. ¿Cuáles son las principales capacidades con las que el programa fortaleció a los pequeños 
productores de achiote/miel para que aseguren un ingreso suficiente? (Indagar por los 3 
eslabones de la cadena productiva)
5.3. ¿En qué medida considera que el fortalecimiento de actividades productivas alternativas a la 
minería reduce el impacto ambiental en la zona? ¿El programa hizo un análisis previo sobre los 
posibles impactos ambientales del desarrollo de las cadenas productivas? ¿Qué estrategias se 
adelantaron para mitigar estos efectos?
5.4. ¿Qué cambios en la situación de orden público en las zonas de producción de achiote 
(Chocó)/miel (Antioquia) se percibieron durante la ejecución del programa y cómo cree que 
se relacionan con los proyectos productivos? (Indagar por la presión de grupos armados ilegales 
sobre los beneficiarios)
5.5. ¿Cómo fue la participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes de los núcleos familiares en las 
actividades del proyecto y cómo se refleja ahora en las actividades productivas? 
5.6. (Antioquia) ¿Qué rol desempeñan las asociaciones de productores de miel y cómo las preparó 
el programa para prestar servicios a sus asociados en el desarrollo del negocio apícola?
5.7. (Antioquia) ¿Cuáles han sido las principales dificultades y factores facilitadores para desarrollar 
los acuerdos y relaciones entre los diferentes eslabones del encadenamiento de miel? (Tener 
en cuenta los eslabones: productores, asociaciones apícolas, Campo Dulce y aliados comerciales) 
5.8. (Chocó) ¿Qué rol desempeñan los consejos comunitarios y cómo los preparó el programa para 
el desarrollo de la cadena de achiote?
5.9. (Chocó) ¿Cuáles han sido las principales dificultades y factores facilitadores para desarrollar los 
acuerdos y relaciones entre los diferentes eslabones del encadenamiento de achiote? (Tener en 
cuenta los eslabones: productores, centros de acopio y trillado de los consejos comunitarios, A&ACH y 
Naranja Madura)
5.10. ¿Qué elementos van a permitir la sostenibilidad de las cadenas productivas? (Indagar por 
encadenamientos con mercados formales, capacidades socio-empresariales de los beneficiarios y 
organizaciones y acceso a asistencia técnica)
5.11. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de desarrollo de cadenas de valor y 
medios de vida alternativos para incrementar su efectividad y replicabilidad?
6. Rehabilitación de áreas degradadas por minería ilegal
6.1 ¿Cómo se seleccionaron las zonas a rehabilitar y los beneficiarios? (Indagar por diagnósticos de 
pasivos huérfanos) 
271 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
6.2 ¿La estrategia de rehabilitación se enmarca en los lineamientos ambientales de la política 
ambiental? (Tener en cuenta Plan Nacional de Restauración, lineamientos de IIAP (Chocó))
6.3 ¿En qué medida cree que los modelos de rehabilitación han sido efectivos para lograr una 
recuperación ecológica en las áreas intervenidas?
6.4 ¿Cree que ha existido compromiso y apropiación de los beneficiarios para mantener los 
modelos de rehabilitación? ¿Por qué? 
6.5 ¿Qué incentivos cree que tienen las familias para mantener en el tiempo los modelos de 
rehabilitación?
6.6 ¿Cuáles fueron los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para las actividades de 
rehabilitación? 
6.7 ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse en los modelos de rehabilitación para incrementar su 
efectividad y replicabilidad?
7. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
7.1. ¿En qué consistió la estrategia técnica brindada a los mineros para disminuir el uso de mercurio 
en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por asistencia técnica, cumplimiento de normativa, 
tecnificación, sensibilización riesgos a la salud y ambientales) 
7.2. ¿Cuáles cree que fueron las motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio en el 
aprovechamiento de oro?
7.3. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con la implementación de técnicas 
de producción más limpias promovidas por OL?
7.4. ¿Cuáles fueron los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la disminución del uso de 
mercurio en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en 
las técnicas de producción más limpias)
7.5. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de sensibilización para la eliminación del 
uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro?
8. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
8.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico (acotar al nivel nacional, regional o municipal dependiendo del entrevistado) ¿Qué tan 
pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de OL? 
8.2. ¿En qué medida las actividades de OL estuvieron alineadas con las directrices de los 
instrumentos de planeación y ordenamiento territorial?
8.3. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
8.4. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a reducción de mercurio y rehabilitación)
8.5. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de desarrollo económico?
8.6. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
8.7. ¿Cómo cree que la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en los diferentes componentes del 
programa ha incidido en su calidad de vida? (Indagar por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en 
familia, acceso a servicios básicos, seguridad en los 3 componentes: formalización minera, cadenas 
productivas y rehabilitación)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 272
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – DONATARIOS ACHIOTE
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) la percepción 
sobre el impacto de las cadenas de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia 
y efectividad de los modelos de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; y ii) las percepciones 
generales sobre la relevancia y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y 
similitudes entre la forma en que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿A que consejo comunitario pertenece?
1.3. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. Según su conocimiento, cuénteme en qué consiste el programa Oro Legal. (Indagar por los 
objetivos)
2.2. En líneas generales, ¿qué acciones ha implementado Oro Legal en la región? Indagar por 
actividades con los diferentes actores del territorio
2.3. ¿Cómo fue el proceso por el cual se decidió y se aceptó la participación de su organización en 
el programa OL?
2.4. ¿En qué consistió la participación y cuál fue el rol de su organización en el programa OL?
2.5. ¿Qué expectativas tenía del OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
2.6. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y los factores facilitadores para su articulación y la de su 
organización con el programa OL?
3. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
273 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
3.1. ¿Cómo entiende usted que se incluyan alternativas productivas en un programa de 
formalización minera? (Indagar por pertinencia, sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a la 
extracción informal de oro, mejoramiento ambiental) 
3.2. Desde su perspectiva, ¿cuál era la estrategia que tenía el programa en su inicio para el 
fortalecimiento de la cadena de achiote y en qué medida se cumplió?
3.3. A la finalización del programa y según su comprensión, ¿considera que durante la ejecución se 
estructuró y se implementó un modelo de negocio factible para los productores de achiote y 
para sus organizaciones en el largo plazo?
3.4. ¿Cuáles son los eslabones de la cadena de achiote que quedaron conformados o fortalecidos 
con el proyecto y qué funciones cumple cada uno? (productores, consejos comunitarios, centros de 
acopio y trillado, empresa de transformación comunitaria A&ACH) 
3.5. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de focalización y selección de los productores beneficiarios que 
participaron en el proyecto de achiote?
3.6. ¿Cuáles son las principales capacidades con las que el programa fortaleció a los pequeños 
productores de achiote para que puedan mejorar sus ingresos a través de esta actividad?
3.7. Hablando de los consejos comunitarios como organizaciones de productores de achiote, 
¿cuáles fueron las capacidades que se fortalecieron con el programa en aspectos técnico 
productivos, socioempresariales y comerciales? ¿Cómo cree que esto impacta en la 
sostenibilidad de este agronegocio?
3.8. ¿Cuáles alternativas dejó establecidas el programa para la prestación de servicios de 
acompañamiento y asistencia técnica a los productores luego de finalizar la intervención y cómo 
se van a financiar? 
3.9. Teniendo en cuenta que Achiote y Agros del Choco (A&ACH sas) es una empresa 
recientemente constituida, ¿en qué condiciones se encuentra para continuar con el negocio? 
¿Requiere de recursos, herramientas o apoyos adicionales para poder sostenerse?
3.10. ¿Cómo valora usted los aliados comerciales y los mercados con los que se ha encadenado esta 
iniciativa en términos de estabilidad, condiciones comerciales, capacidad de compra y potencial 
de crecimiento?
3.11. ¿Cuáles han sido las principales dificultades y factores facilitadores para desarrollar los acuerdos 
y relaciones entre los diferentes eslabones del encadenamiento de achiote dentro y fuera del 
territorio? (Tener en cuenta los eslabones: productores, consejos comunitarios, centros de acopio y 
trillado, empresa de transformación comunitaria A&ACH, Naranja Madura y aliados comerciales) 
3.12. ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales retos que deben asumir de aquí en adelante los 
productores y sus organizaciones para asegurar su sostenibilidad en la cadena? ¿Con qué 
herramientas, recursos y apoyos considera que cuentan para afrontarlos?
3.13. Con respecto a los ingresos para las familias de los productores generados por esta actividad, 
¿qué tan significativos cree que son, o pueden llegar a ser, en relación con los ingresos totales 
de estas familias? ¿Cree que podrán completar un ingreso suficiente para mejorar su calidad de 
vida en el territorio?
3.14. Desde su perspectiva, para las familias que antes del proyecto trabajaban en minería ¿se 
percibieron cambios significativos de actividad en favor de las labores relacionadas con la 
producción, transformación y comercialización del achiote?
3.15. ¿Cómo fue la participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes de los núcleos familiares en las 
actividades del proyecto y cómo se refleja ahora en las actividades productivas? 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 274
3.16. ¿En qué medida considera que el fortalecimiento de actividades productivas del achiote como 
alternativa a la minería podría contribuir a reducir el impacto ambiental en la zona?
3.17. ¿Qué cambios en la situación de orden público en las zonas de producción y transformación 
de achiote se percibieron durante la ejecución del programa y cómo cree que se relacionan 
con los proyectos productivos? (Indagar por la presión de grupos armados ilegales sobre los 
beneficiarios)
3.18. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de desarrollo de cadenas de valor y 
medios de vida alternativos para incrementar su efectividad, replicabilidad y sostenibilidad?
4. Rehabilitación de áreas degradadas por minería ilegal
6.8 En general, antes del programa OL ¿qué uso tenían las áreas en donde se estableció el achiote? 
¿se tenía alguna norma o protocolo que impidiera deforestar áreas boscosas para establecer 
los cultivos?
6.9 ¿Las zonas de la rehabilitación forestal del programa OL están relacionadas con las zonas y 
beneficiarios de la cadena de achiote? ¿De qué manera?
6.10 ¿En qué medida cree que el modelo de rehabilitación de OL ha sido efectivo para lograr una 
recuperación ecológica en las áreas intervenidas?
6.11 ¿Qué incentivos cree que tienen los Consejos Comunitarios y las familias para mantener en el 
tiempo los modelos de rehabilitación?
5. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
5.1. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a rehabilitación y manejo sostenible de recursos)
5.2. ¿Considera que las acciones de OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los territorios 
en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera? Indagar por todos los componentes, no sólo cadenas 
productivas.
5.3. ¿En qué medida las actividades apoyadas por OL en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el 
mejoramiento de la seguridad y el orden público?
5.4. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? Indagar por todos los componentes, no sólo cadenas productivas.
5.5. ¿Cómo cree que la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en los diferentes componentes del 
programa ha incidido en su calidad de vida? (Indagar por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en 
familia, acceso a servicios básicos, seguridad en los 3 componentes: formalización minera, cadenas 
productivas y rehabilitación)
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – DONATARIOS APICULTURA
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
275 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) la percepción 
sobre el impacto de las cadenas de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia 
y efectividad de los modelos de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; y ii) las percepciones 
generales sobre la relevancia y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y 
similitudes entre la forma en que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre? 
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. Según su conocimiento, cuénteme en qué consiste el programa Oro Legal. (Indagar por los 
objetivos)
2.2. En líneas generales, ¿qué acciones ha implementado Oro Legal en la región? Indagar por 
actividades con los diferentes actores del territorio
2.3. ¿Cómo fue el proceso por el cual se decidió y se aceptó la participación de su entidad en el 
programa OL?
2.4. ¿En qué consistió la participación y cuál fue el rol de su entidad en el programa OL?
2.5. ¿Qué expectativas tenía del OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
2.6. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y los factores facilitadores para su articulación y la de su 
entidad con el programa OL?
3. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
3.1. ¿Cómo entiende usted que se incluyan alternativas productivas en un programa de 
formalización minera? (Indagar por pertinencia, sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a la 
extracción informal de oro, mejoramiento ambiental) 
3.2. Desde su perspectiva, ¿cuál era la estrategia que tenía el programa en su inicio para el 
fortalecimiento de la cadena apícola y en qué medida se cumplió?
3.3. A la finalización del programa y según su comprensión, ¿considera que durante la ejecución se 
estructuró y se implementó un modelo de negocio factible para los productores apícolas y para 
sus organizaciones en el largo plazo?
3.4. ¿Cuáles son los eslabones de la cadena apícola que quedaron conformados o fortalecidos con 
el proyecto y qué funciones cumple cada uno? 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 276
3.5. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de focalización y selección de los productores beneficiarios que 
participaron en el proyecto apícola?
3.6. ¿Cuáles son las principales capacidades con las que el programa fortaleció a los pequeños 
productores de miel para que puedan mejorar sus ingresos a través de esta actividad?
3.7. Hablando de las organizaciones de productores apícolas ¿cuáles fueron las capacidades que se 
fortalecieron con el programa en aspectos técnico productivos, socioempresariales y 
comerciales? ¿Cómo cree que esto impacta en la sostenibilidad de este agronegocio?
3.8. ¿Cuáles alternativas dejó establecidas el programa para la prestación de servicios de 
acompañamiento y asistencia técnica a los productores luego de finalizar la intervención y cómo 
se van a financiar? 
3.9. ¿Cómo valora usted los aliados comerciales y los mercados con los que se ha encadenado esta 
iniciativa en términos de estabilidad, condiciones comerciales, capacidad de compra y potencial 
de crecimiento?
3.10. ¿Cuáles han sido las principales dificultades y factores facilitadores para desarrollar los acuerdos 
y relaciones entre los diferentes eslabones del encadenamiento de miel dentro y fuera del 
territorio? (Tener en cuenta los eslabones: productores, asociaciones apícolas, Campo Dulce y aliados 
comerciales) 
3.11. ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales retos que deben asumir de aquí en adelante los 
productores y sus organizaciones para asegurar su sostenibilidad en la cadena? ¿Qué 
herramientas, recursos y apoyos considera que tienen para afrontarlos?
3.12. Con respecto a los ingresos para las familias de los productores generados por esta actividad, 
¿qué tan significativos cree que son, o pueden llegar a ser, en relación con los ingresos totales 
de estas familias? ¿Cree que podrán completar un ingreso suficiente para mejorar su calidad de 
vida en el territorio?
3.13. Desde su perspectiva, para las familias que antes del proyecto trabajaban en minería ¿se 
percibieron cambios significativos de actividad en favor de las labores apícolas?
3.14. ¿Cómo fue la participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes de los núcleos familiares en las 
actividades del proyecto y cómo se refleja ahora en las actividades productivas? 
3.15. ¿En qué medida considera que el fortalecimiento de actividades apícolas como alternativa a la 
minería podría contribuir a reducir el impacto ambiental en la zona?
3.16. ¿Qué cambios en la situación de orden público en las zonas de producción de miel se 
percibieron durante la ejecución del programa y cómo cree que se relacionan con los 
proyectos productivos? (Indagar por la presión de grupos armados ilegales sobre los beneficiarios)
3.17. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de desarrollo de cadenas de valor y 
medios de vida alternativos para incrementar su efectividad, replicabilidad y sostenibilidad?
4. Rehabilitación de áreas degradadas por minería ilegal
6.12 ¿Cómo se relacionaron las zonas y los beneficiarios de la rehabilitación con Acacia magnium 
con los de la cadena apícola? 
6.13 ¿En qué medida cree que este modelo de rehabilitación ha sido efectivo para lograr una 
recuperación ecológica en las áreas intervenidas?
6.14 ¿Qué incentivos cree que tienen las familias para mantener en el tiempo los modelos de 
rehabilitación?
277 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
5. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad 
5.1. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a rehabilitación y manejo sostenible de recursos)
5.2. ¿Considera que estas acciones de OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los 
territorios en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera? Indagar por todos los componentes, 
no solo cadenas productivas.
5.3. ¿En qué medida las actividades apoyadas por OL en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el 
mejoramiento de la seguridad y el orden público?
5.4. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? Indagar por todos los componentes, no solo cadenas productivas.
5.5. ¿Cómo cree que la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en los diferentes componentes del 
programa ha incidido en su calidad de vida? (Indagar por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en 
familia, acceso a servicios básicos, seguridad en los 3 componentes: formalización minera, cadenas 
productivas y rehabilitación)
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – DONATARIO-PROYECTO MINERO
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque 
utilizados para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y iv) las percepciones generales sobre la 
relevancia y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre 
la forma en que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 278
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Según su conocimiento, cuénteme en qué consiste el 
programa. Indagar sobre los tres componentes.
2.2. ¿Cuántas unidades productivas mineras de pequeña minería hay dentro del consejo 
comunitario y cuántas fueron beneficiarias del programa Oro Legal?
2.3. ¿Qué expectativas tenían del programa OL y sus iniciativas productivas cuando iniciaron su 
participación y en qué medida estas se cumplieron?
2.4. ¿Cómo fue la articulación entre OL, el consejo comunitario, las UPM, las autoridades mineras 
y ambientales, durante el proceso de legalización de los contratos?
2.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación del consejo 
comunitario con la iniciativa productiva del programa OL?
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿Cuáles fueron las contribuciones técnicas y jurídicas de OL para el proceso de formalización 
minera en las áreas del consejo comunitario?
3.2. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.3. ¿En qué medida usted considera que el programa OL contribuye a reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? (Indagar sobre coordinación entre OL y ANM para solucionar las 
dificultades halladas en el desarrollo de la formalización minera)
3.4. ¿En qué medida OL sirvió de intermediario entre las minas y las autoridades mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar sobre acompañamiento efectivo frente a trámites complejos).
3.5. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas o los incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para 
mejorar las operaciones mineras? (Indagar por disminución de riesgos laborales y de salud, 
productividad, uso de nuevas tecnologías)
3.6. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL? (Indagar por 
nuevas tecnologías, reducción de mercurio, conocimiento del marco normativo, mitigación de riesgos 
laborales y de salud)
3.7. Pensando en la sostenibilidad de este tipo de iniciativas, ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales 
incentivos que OL brinda para promover la continuidad de la formalización en los beneficiarios? 
3.8. ¿Cuál cree que será el futuro de las UPM beneficiarias de OL al concluir el programa?
3.9. ¿Cuántas entidades, públicas y privadas, han realizado actividades relacionadas con la 
formalización mineras para las UPM ubicadas dentro del consejo comunitario?
3.10. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.11. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
3.12. ¿Qué conoce sobre la licencia ambiental temporal y su impacto sobre el proceso de 
formalización minera?
4. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
4.1. ¿Cuáles acciones fueron apoyadas por OL para contribuir a la eliminación del mercurio en las 
UPM ubicadas dentro del consejo comunitario?
279 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
4.2. ¿De uno a diez, siendo diez la erradicación total de mercurio, con cuánto calificaría los logros 
de los beneficiarios del programa OL?
4.3. ¿Qué instrumentos y enfoques tiene el consejo comunitario para eliminar el uso de mercurio 
en la actividad minera de oro de las UPM? (Indagar por avance en nuevas tecnologías, asistencia 
técnica)
4.4. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esos 
instrumentos o enfoques? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
4.5. ¿Qué tan claro considera que es el marco normativo sobre eliminación de mercurio? 
4.6. ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tienen las autoridades mineras y ambientales frente 
a los lineamientos sobre eliminación de mercurio?
4.7. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro y cómo estás podrían mejorarse?
4.8. ¿Cuáles cree que son las motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio en el 
aprovechamiento de oro?
4.9. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con la implementación de técnicas 
de producción más limpia promovidas por OL?
4.10. ¿Cuáles son los factores facilitadores y los cuellos de botella para disminuir el uso de mercurio 
en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en las 
técnicas de producción más limpia, factores externos a OL)
4.11. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de sensibilización para la eliminación del 
uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro?
5. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
5.1. ¿Qué tan pertinente considera las intervenciones de OL en cuanto a las necesidades de 
formalización minera, el desempeño ambiental y el desarrollo económico?
5.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
5.3. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
5.4. ¿Considera que estas acciones de OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los 
territorios en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera?
5.5. ¿Estima que estas actividades en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el mejoramiento de la 
seguridad y el orden público? 
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – DONATARIO REHABILITACIÓN
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 280
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad.
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿A qué organización/asociación (Antioquia) o consejo comunitario (Chocó) pertenece? 
1.3. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
1.4. ¿En qué consistió la actividad de rehabilitación de las zonas degradadas por minería?
1.5. ¿Cuál fue el rol de la organización/asociación XXX (Antioquia) o del consejo comunitario XXX 
(Chocó) en el programa Oro Legal? 
1.6. ¿Cuál fue su rol en el desarrollo del Programa Oro Legal?
2. Planteamiento de la intervención 
2.1. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo Ud. identificaba esa zona como un área degradada por minería?, ¿cómo 
describiría la condición ambiental de dicha zona? 
2.2. ¿Cuál era el uso que se estaba dando a las zonas trabajadas? 
2.3. ¿Conoció estudios que se hubieran realizado en la zona trabajada, relacionados con el estado 
de los suelos o de la biodiversidad, contaminantes del suelo, geografía, hidrología, flora, fauna, 
características atmosféricas, regiones de frontera, aspectos sociales?
2.4. ¿Cómo se priorizaron las zonas a rehabilitar? (Indagar por Facilidad con los dueños de la tierra, 
Grado de degradación, Condiciones sociales asociadas a la zona degradada, Relacionamiento 
con zonas protegidas e Importancia por relacionamiento con cuencas hídricas)
2.5. ¿Encuentra un relacionamiento de las zonas intervenidas con la Identificación reservas de Ley 
2da y/o identificación de áreas protegidas?
2.6. ¿Sabe si se trabajó con alguna entidad del Estado para determinar el alcance de la intervención? 
¿Cuáles?
2.7. Desde su punto de vista ¿Qué motivó a los dueños de los predios para desarrollar la 
rehabilitación de las zonas degradadas por minería? (Indagar por Reforestar, Volver a la 
281 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
condición inicial del paisaje, Recuperar especies que se habían perdido, Generar ingresos y 
Dejar unas mejores condiciones para sus hijos)
3. Desarrollo de la intervención 
3.1. ¿Considera apropiados los modelos de rehabilitación utilizados por OL?
3.2. ¿Cómo se determinaron las especies que se sembraron y sus porcentajes respecto a las 
especies nativas (para el caso de Acacia)?
3.3. ¿Cuál fue la estrategia de siembra? (Indagar por el distanciamiento entre árboles, complemento 
con otras especies) 
3.4. ¿Cuál era el compromiso que asumía la comunidad para que el Programa prestara el apoyo?
3.5. ¿Cómo se desarrolló el crecimiento de las plántulas en los viveros? ¿Qué personas se 
vincularon en este ejercicio?
3.6. ¿Cuáles considera que son las fortalezas y debilidades del proceso de rehabilitación llevado a 
cabo con apoyo de OL en las zonas degradadas? 
3.7. Desde su punto de vista ¿Qué ganaron o esperaban ganar los titulares de la tierra? ¿Conoce si 
esto se acordó en algún tipo de contrato?
3.8. ¿Qué otros pasos, adicionales a la siembra de los árboles, se ejecutaron para rehabilitar la zona? 
3.9. ¿Cuál es el resultado final al que se quiere llegar con posterioridad a la siembra de los árboles?
3.10. ¿Conoce cuáles fueron los costos de adelantar la rehabilitación?
3.11. ¿La organización/asociación (Antioquia) o consejo comunitario (Chocó) participó en 
capacitaciones o procesos de formación apoyados por OL? ¿Cómo valora las capacitaciones 
que les ofrecieron?
4. Resultados de la intervención
4.1. ¿Qué efectos ha tenido hasta ahora la siembra de los árboles en la zona? Indagar por 
biodiversidad, suelos, agua, entre otros)
4.2. ¿Cómo se propuso o espera hacer uso de la madera de los árboles de Acacia?
4.3. Desde su conocimiento y experiencia ¿cree que el suelo rehabilitado se ha ido recuperando? 
¿Cómo se evidencian esos resultados?
4.4. ¿En qué medida usted cree que se ha generado compromiso y apropiación por parte de la 
comunidad para mantener los modelos de rehabilitación?
5. Sostenibilidad 
5.1. ¿Qué incentivos tienen las familias para mantener en el tiempo los modelos de rehabilitación?
5.2. ¿Se cuenta con recursos adicionales a los ya provistos por el Programa OL para mantener los 
procesos adelantados?
5.3. ¿Cuál fue la participación de instituciones como la alcaldía, secretaría de agricultura, 
corporación autónoma regional o alguna otra institución pública en las actividades de 
rehabilitación? ¿Considera que estas entidades están comprometidas para mantener las zonas 
rehabilitadas? 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 282
6. Replicabilidad 
6.1. ¿Usted cree que el proyecto tal como se desarrolló, podría repetirse para abarcar nuevas áreas 
que se encuentran degradadas por minería?
7. Recomendaciones 
7.1. De las acciones realizadas en las actividades de rehabilitación, ¿qué hubiera hecho diferente o 
qué podría hacerse mejor si se quisiera continuar con el apoyo?
8. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
8.1. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a rehabilitación y manejo sostenible de recursos)
8.2. ¿Considera que las acciones de OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los territorios 
en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera? 
8.3. ¿En qué medida las actividades apoyadas por OL en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el 
mejoramiento de la seguridad y el orden público?
8.4. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? 
8.5. ¿Cómo cree que la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en los diferentes componentes del 
programa ha incidido en su calidad de vida? (Indagar por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en 
familia, acceso a servicios básicos, seguridad)
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – GOBERNACIONES
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
283 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Cuénteme un poco en qué consiste el programa 
(Indagar por los objetivos)
2.2. En líneas generales, ¿qué acciones ha implementado Oro Legal en la región? Indagar por 
actividades con los diferentes actores del territorio
2.3. ¿Qué expectativas tenía del OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
¿Cómo se alinean esas expectativas con sus intereses profesionales?
2.4. ¿Cómo se articula la Gobernación con el programa OL? ¿A qué niveles se dio esa articulación 
(a nivel directivo o equipos técnicos en territorio)?
2.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación de la 
Gobernación con el programa OL? (Indagar por los tres componentes: formalización minera, 
cadenas de valor y rehabilitación)
2.6. ¿La Gobernación cofinanció alguna actividad de OL? ¿Cuáles?
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿En qué medida OL contribuyó en aspectos técnicos o jurídicos para la formalización de las 
actividades mineras? ¿La gobernación recibió recomendaciones de OL para fortalecer la 
institucionalidad o las normas relacionadas con la formalización? (Tener en cuenta PTO, Política 
de formalización minera y permiso de aprovechamiento minero, estudios de impacto ambiental, guías 
minero-ambientales y planes de manejo ambiental)
3.2. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para 
mantenerse formales/legales y mejorar el desempeño ambiental de sus operaciones mineras?
3.3. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.4. ¿En qué medida usted considera que el programa OL contribuye a reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? (Indagar sobre coordinación entre OL y MME para solucionar las 
dificultades halladas en el desarrollo de la formalización minera)
3.5. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para mejorar 
las operaciones mineras? (Indagar por disminución de riesgos laborales y de salud, productividad, uso 
de nuevas tecnologías)
3.6. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL? (Indagar por 
nuevas tecnologías, reducción de mercurio, conocimiento del marco normativo, mitigación de riesgos 
laborales y de salud)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 284
3.7. Pensando en la sostenibilidad de este tipo de iniciativas, ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales 
incentivos que OL brinda para promover la continuidad de la formalización en los beneficiarios? 
¿Cuál podría ser el rol de la Gobernación para apoyar la sostenibilidad de los procesos de 
formalización minera? 
3.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
4. Gobernanza y políticas mineras
4.1. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de articulación del programa OL con las autoridades del gobierno 
nacional, regionales y municipales? ¿OL contribuyó a mejorar estos procesos de coordinación? 
(Indagar por Ministerio de Minas, ANM, Ministerio de Ambiente, CARs, Gobernaciones y Alcaldías, 
Mesas mineras)
4.2. ¿Cuáles son los factores que facilitan o dificultan la gobernanza sobre las políticas mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar por conocimiento de la normatividad sobre formalización y no uso de mercurio, 
complejidad del sector, seguridad laboral) 
4.3. (Antioquia) ¿En qué medida considera que el Programa brindó apoyo técnico o jurídico a la 
Gobernación para el cumplimiento de la normativa minera?
4.4. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios o inconvenientes que genera el hecho de que USAID sea el 
financiador de un programa como OL?
4.5. ¿Qué tan rígido o adaptable fue el programa a las condiciones y necesidades del territorio?
5. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
5.1. ¿Cuál es su percepción frente a incluir alternativas productivas en un programa de formalización 
minera? (Indagar por pertinencia, sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a la extracción 
informal de oro, mejoramiento ambiental) 
5.2. ¿Cómo está posicionada la línea productiva apícola (Antioquia)/Achiote (Chocó) en la región 
dentro del plan de desarrollo departamental y qué impacto tienen los proyectos productivos 
de Oro Legal en los objetivos y metas de este?
5.3. De acuerdo con las dinámicas del territorio ¿considera que los ingresos por actividades 
productivas alternativas como miel (Antioquia)/achiote (Chocó) son suficientes para disuadir 
la incursión de los beneficiarios en actividades de minería artesanal?
5.4. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL para el 
desarrollo de la cadena productiva de miel (Antioquia)/Achiote (Chocó)?
5.5. ¿Qué cambios en la situación de orden público en las zonas de producción de achiote (Chocó)/miel 
(Antioquia) se percibieron durante la ejecución del programa y cómo cree que se relacionan con los 
proyectos productivos? (Indagar por la presión de grupos armados ilegales sobre los beneficiarios)
5.6. ¿Qué elementos van a permitir la sostenibilidad de las cadenas productivas? (Indagar por 
encadenamientos con mercados formales, capacidades socioempresariales de los beneficiarios y 
organizaciones y acceso a asistencia técnica)
5.7. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de 
vida alternativos para incrementar su efectividad y replicabilidad?
6. Rehabilitación de áreas degradadas por minería ilegal
285 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
6.1. ¿En qué medida las actividades de rehabilitación de OL se alinean con las directrices del Plan 
de Desarrollo Departamental? 
6.2. ¿En qué medida cree que los modelos de rehabilitación de OL han sido efectivos y pertinentes 
para lograr una recuperación ecológica en las áreas intervenidas (Acacia mangium) y en Chocó 
(especies endémicas)? ¿Usted cree que las zonas intervenidas corresponden a las más afectadas 
por minería? ¿Por qué? 
6.3. ¿La Gobernación apoyó y podría seguir soportando el proceso de rehabilitación de las áreas 
intervenidas en el Programa OL?
6.4. ¿Qué incentivos existen para promover la sostenibilidad de los modelos de rehabilitación? ¿Qué 
otros incentivos podrían desarrollarse para lograr la sostenibilidad?
6.5. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse en los modelos de rehabilitación para incrementar su 
efectividad y replicabilidad?
7. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
7.1. ¿Qué instrumentos y enfoques tiene la Gobernación para eliminar el uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro? (Indagar por avance en nuevas tecnologías, asistencia técnica)
7.2. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esos 
instrumentos o enfoques? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
7.3. ¿Cuáles cree que son los incentivos o motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio 
en el aprovechamiento de oro?
7.4. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con la implementación de técnicas 
de producción más limpias promovidas por OL?
7.5. ¿Cuáles son los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la disminución del uso de 
mercurio en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en 
las técnicas de producción más limpias, precio del mercurio)
7.6. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro y cómo estás podrían mejorarse?
8. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
8.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico (acotar al nivel nacional, regional o municipal dependiendo del entrevistado) ¿Qué tan 
pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de OL? 
8.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
8.3. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a reducción de mercurio y rehabilitación)
8.4. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de desarrollo económico?
8.5. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
8.6. ¿Cómo cree que la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en los diferentes componentes del 
programa ha incidido en su calidad de vida? (Indagar por ingresos, tranquilidad, más tiempo en 
familia, acceso a servicios básicos, seguridad en los 3 componentes: formalización minera, cadenas 
productivas y rehabilitación)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 286
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y DESARROLLO SOSTENIBLE
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Cuénteme un poco en qué consiste el programa 
(Indagar por los objetivos y acciones implementadas)
2.2. ¿Qué expectativas tenía de OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
2.3. ¿Cómo se articula el Ministerio de Ambiente con el programa OL? 
2.4. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación del ministerio 
con el programa OL? (Indagar por los tres componentes: formalización minera, cadenas de valor y 
rehabilitación)
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿En qué medida OL contribuyó en aspectos técnicos o jurídicos para la formalización de las 
actividades mineras en los temas ambientales? (Tener en cuenta estudios de impacto ambiental, 
guías minero-ambientales y planes de manejo ambiental)
287 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
3.2. En caso de realizar programas similares en un futuro, ¿cómo podría USAID desarrollar una 
gestión que fortalezca o apoye procesos del ministerio en materia de formalización minera?
3.3. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para mejorar 
el desempeño ambiental de sus operaciones mineras?
3.4. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL para minimizar 
los impactos ambientales generados por la actividad minera?
4. Gobernanza y políticas mineras
4.1. ¿En qué medida considera que el Programa brindó apoyo técnico o jurídico al Ministerio, o a 
las Corporaciones u otros actores ambientales en relación con el cumplimiento de las normas 
ambientales para el desarrollo de actividades de OL?
4.2. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios o inconvenientes que genera el hecho de que USAID sea el 
financiador de un programa como OL?
4.3. ¿Cuáles son los factores que facilitan o dificultan la gobernanza sobre las políticas mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar por conocimiento de la normatividad sobre formalización y no uso de mercurio, 
complejidad del sector, seguridad laboral) 
4.4. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de acercamiento y articulación con los 
aliados institucionales y beneficiarios para mejorar la gobernanza y políticas mineras?
5. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
5.1. ¿En qué medida considera que OL contribuye al mejoramiento ambiental de las regiones al 
promover actividades productivas agropecuarias (miel y achiote) como alternativas a la minería 
artesanal?
5.2. ¿Qué elementos van a permitir la sostenibilidad de las cadenas productivas? (Indagar por 
encadenamientos con mercados formales, capacidades socioempresariales de los beneficiarios y 
organizaciones y acceso a asistencia técnica)
5.3. Teniendo en cuenta el desarrollo de las cadenas productivas, ¿podrían considerarse estas 
cadenas como parte de los programas de pago por servicios ambientales o acciones de 
mitigación de cambio climático?
6. Rehabilitación de áreas degradadas por minería ilegal
6.1. ¿En qué medida son apropiados los modelos de rehabilitación utilizados por OL en Antioquia 
(Acacia mangium) y en Chocó (especies endémicas)? ¿Esto se enmarca con los lineamientos de 
la política ambiental? (Tener en cuenta Plan Nacional de Restauración, lineamientos del IIAP)
6.2. ¿En qué medida cree que los modelos de rehabilitación han sido efectivos para lograr una 
recuperación ecológica en las áreas intervenidas?
6.3. ¿El ministerio conoce, apoya y podría seguir soportando el proceso de rehabilitación de las dos 
áreas intervenidas en el Programa OL?
6.4. ¿Qué incentivos existen para promover la sostenibilidad de los modelos de rehabilitación? ¿Qué 
otros incentivos podrían desarrollarse para lograr la sostenibilidad?
6.5. ¿Existen diagnósticos sobre los pasivos huérfanos en Antioquia y Chocó, así como modelos de 
rehabilitación y los costos de su implementación? ¿Esta información es pública? ¿Los 
implementadores en territorio tienen acceso a esta información?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 288
6.6. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse en los modelos de rehabilitación para incrementar su 
efectividad y replicabilidad?
7. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
7.1. ¿Qué instrumentos y enfoques tiene el ministerio para eliminar el uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro? (Indagar por avance en nuevas tecnologías, asistencia técnica)
7.2. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esos 
instrumentos o enfoques? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
7.3. ¿Qué tan claro considera que es el marco normativo del Ministerio de Minas sobre eliminación 
de mercurio? ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tiene el Ministerio de Minas frente a 
los lineamientos ambientales sobre eliminación de mercurio?
7.4. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro y cómo estás podrían mejorarse?
8. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
8.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico (acotar al nivel nacional, regional o municipal dependiendo del entrevistado) ¿Qué tan 
pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de OL? 
8.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a reducción de mercurio y rehabilitación)
8.3. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – MINISTERIO DE MINAS Y ENERGÍA
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
289 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Cuénteme un poco en qué consiste el programa 
(Indagar por los objetivos y acciones implementadas)
2.2. ¿Qué expectativas tenía de OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
2.3. ¿Cómo se articula el Ministerio de Minas con el programa OL? ¿A qué niveles se dio esa 
articulación (a nivel directivo o equipos técnicos en territorio)?
2.4. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación del ministerio 
con el programa OL? (Indagar por los tres componentes: formalización minera, cadenas de valor y 
rehabilitación)
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿En qué medida OL contribuyó en aspectos técnicos o jurídicos para la formalización de las 
actividades mineras? ¿Recibió el MME recomendaciones de OL para fortalecer la 
institucionalidad o las normas relacionadas con la formalización? (Tener en cuenta PTO, Política 
de formalización minera y permiso de aprovechamiento minero, estudios de impacto ambiental, guías 
minero-ambientales y planes de manejo ambiental)
3.2. ¿En qué medida las actividades de formalización minera de OL estuvieron alineadas con el 
Programa de Formalización Minera del MME?
3.3. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.4. ¿En qué medida usted considera que el programa OL contribuye a reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? (Indagar sobre coordinación entre OL y MME para solucionar las 
dificultades halladas en el desarrollo de la formalización minera)
3.5. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para mejorar 
las operaciones mineras? (Indagar por disminución de riesgos laborales y de salud, productividad, uso 
de nuevas tecnologías)
3.6. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL? (Indagar por 
nuevas tecnologías, reducción de mercurio, conocimiento del marco normativo, mitigación de riesgos 
laborales y de salud)
3.7. Pensando en la sostenibilidad de este tipo de iniciativas, ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales 
incentivos que OL brinda para promover la continuidad de la formalización en los beneficiarios? 
¿cuál podría ser el rol del Ministerio de Minas para apoyar la sostenibilidad de los procesos de 
formalización minera? 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 290
3.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
4. Gobernanza y políticas mineras
4.1. ¿En qué medida considera que el Programa brindó apoyo técnico o jurídico al Ministerio, a la 
Agencia Nacional de Minería y a las autoridades mineras en relación con el cumplimiento de 
las normas para el desarrollo de actividades de OL?
4.2. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios o inconvenientes que genera el hecho de que USAID sea el 
financiador de un programa como OL?
4.3. ¿Cuáles son los factores que facilitan o dificultan la gobernanza sobre las políticas mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar por conocimiento de la normatividad sobre formalización y no uso de mercurio, 
complejidad del sector, seguridad laboral) 
4.4. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de acercamiento y articulación con los 
aliados institucionales y beneficiarios para mejorar la gobernanza y políticas mineras?
5. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
5.1. ¿Cuál es su percepción frente a incluir alternativas productivas en un programa de formalización 
minera? (Indagar por pertinencia y sostenibilidad para que los mineros no regresen a la extracción 
informal de oro) 
6. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
6.1. ¿Qué instrumentos y enfoques tiene el ministerio para eliminar el uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro? (Indagar por avance en nuevas tecnologías, asistencia técnica)
6.2. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esos 
instrumentos o enfoques? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
6.3. ¿Qué tan claro considera que es el marco normativo del Ministerio de Ambiente sobre 
eliminación de mercurio? ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tiene el Ministerio de 
Ambiente frente a los lineamientos sobre eliminación de mercurio?
6.4. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro y cómo estás podrían mejorarse?
6.5. ¿Cuáles cree que son las motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio en el 
aprovechamiento de oro?
6.6. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con la implementación de técnicas 
de producción más limpias promovidas por OL?
6.7. ¿Cuáles son los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la disminución del uso de 
mercurio en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en 
las técnicas de producción más limpias, factores externos a OL)
6.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de sensibilización para la eliminación del 
uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro?
7. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
7.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico (acotar al nivel nacional, regional o municipal dependiendo del entrevistado) ¿Qué tan 
pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de OL? 
291 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
7.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
7.3. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – SUBCONTRATO DE FORMALIZACIÓN
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque 
utilizados para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y iv) las percepciones generales sobre la 
relevancia y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre 
la forma en que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. ¿Conoce usted el programa Oro Legal? Según su conocimiento, cuénteme en qué consiste el 
programa. Indagar sobre los tres componentes.
2.2. ¿Cuántas unidades productivas mineras de pequeña minería hay en los títulos de la compañía y 
cuántas fueron beneficiarias del programa Oro Legal?
2.3. ¿Qué expectativas tenían del programa OL y sus iniciativas productivas cuando iniciaron su 
participación y en qué medida estas se cumplieron?
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 292
2.4. ¿Cómo fue la articulación entre OL, la compañía, las UPM, las autoridades mineras y 
ambientales, durante el proceso de legalización de los subcontratos?
2.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para la articulación de su empresa 
con la iniciativa productiva del programa OL?
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿Cuáles fueron las contribuciones técnicas y jurídicas de OL para el proceso de formalización 
minera en las áreas de la compañía?
3.2. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.3. ¿En qué medida usted considera que el programa OL contribuye a reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? (Indagar sobre coordinación entre OL y ANM para solucionar las 
dificultades halladas en el desarrollo de la formalización minera)
3.4. ¿En qué medida OL sirvió de intermediario entre las minas y las autoridades mineras y 
ambientales? (indagar sobre acompañamiento efectivo frente a trámites complejos).
3.5. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas o los incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para 
mejorar las operaciones mineras? (Indagar por disminución de riesgos laborales y de salud, 
productividad, uso de nuevas tecnologías)
3.6. ¿Qué percepción tiene sobre la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada por OL? (Indagar por 
nuevas tecnologías, reducción de mercurio, conocimiento del marco normativo, mitigación de riesgos 
laborales y de salud)
3.7. Pensando en la sostenibilidad de este tipo de iniciativas, ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales 
incentivos que OL brinda para promover la continuidad de la formalización en los beneficiarios? 
3.8. ¿Cuál cree que será el futuro de las UPM beneficiarias de OL al concluir el programa?
3.9. ¿Cuántas entidades, públicas y privadas, han realizado actividades relacionadas con la 
formalización mineras para las UPM ubicadas dentro de los títulos de la compañía?
3.10. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron las principales fortalezas y debilidades de la estrategia de 
formalización minera de OL?
3.11. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
3.12. ¿Qué conoce sobre la licencia ambiental temporal y su impacto sobre el proceso de 
formalización minera?
4. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
4.1. ¿Cuáles acciones fueron apoyadas por OL para contribuir a la eliminación del mercurio en las 
UPM ubicadas dentro de los títulos de la compañía?
4.2. ¿De uno a diez, siendo diez la erradicación total de mercurio, con cuánto calificaría los logros 
de los beneficiarios del programa OL?
4.3. ¿Qué instrumentos y enfoques tiene la compañía para eliminar el uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro de las UPM? (Indagar por avance en nuevas tecnologías, asistencia 
técnica)
4.4. ¿Cuáles han sido los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la implementación de esos 
instrumentos o enfoques? (Indagar por costos, grado de dificultad técnica)
4.5. ¿Qué tan claro considera que es el marco normativo sobre eliminación de mercurio? 
293 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
4.6. ¿Qué nivel de conocimiento considera que tienen las autoridades mineras y ambientales frente 
a los lineamientos sobre eliminación de mercurio?
4.7. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de sensibilización para la eliminación del uso de mercurio en la 
actividad minera de oro y cómo estás podrían mejorarse?
4.8. ¿Cuáles cree que son las motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio en el 
aprovechamiento de oro?
4.9. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con la implementación de técnicas 
de producción más limpia promovidas por OL?
4.10. ¿Cuáles son los factores facilitadores y los cuellos de botella para disminuir el uso de mercurio 
en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en las 
técnicas de producción más limpia, factores externos a OL)
4.11. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de sensibilización para la eliminación del 
uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro?
5. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
5.1. ¿Qué tan pertinente considera las intervenciones de OL en cuanto a las necesidades de 
formalización minera, el desempeño ambiental y el desarrollo económico?
5.2. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
5.3. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
5.4. ¿Considera que estas acciones de OL han contribuido al desarrollo económico en los 
territorios en que se han implementado? ¿De qué manera?
5.5. ¿Estima que estas actividades en el territorio tienen alguna incidencia en el mejoramiento de la 
seguridad y el orden público?
GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – USAID
Introducción
Buenos días/tardes,
Soy ______, hago parte del equipo de evaluación del programa Oro Legal el cual ha sido contratado por 
USAID. El objetivo de esta entrevista es identificar cómo ha venido funcionando en la práctica este 
programa e indagar sobre la efectividad, impacto y pertinencia que usted ha percibido en el trabajo que 
se realiza con los diferentes actores institucionales y con los beneficiarios. 
Agradezco su participación en esta entrevista, que servirá como insumo para determinar: i) en qué medida 
Oro Legal brinda incentivos para la formalización minera; ii) los factores que inciden en el progreso del 
programa para lograr gobernanza minera y ambiental; iii) la percepción sobre el impacto de las cadenas 
de valor desarrolladas como medios de vida alternativos; iv) la pertinencia y efectividad de los modelos 
de rehabilitación desarrollados por el programa; v) la eficiencia de los instrumentos y enfoque utilizados 
para reducir el uso del mercurio en la minería de oro; y vi) las percepciones generales sobre la relevancia 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 294
y efectividad del programa. Igualmente nos permitirá identificar diferencias y similitudes entre la forma en 
que se concibió el programa y la manera en que se ha implementado.
Es importante señalar que la evaluación no se constituye en un proceso de auditoría y que, en su 
desarrollo, la información levantada en campo es confidencial y anónima, y no tendrá repercusiones sobre 
los entrevistados. Así mismo, su participación es voluntaria.
* Solicitud de autorización para grabar audio de la actividad. 
1. Presentación del entrevistado
1.1. ¿Cuál es su nombre?
1.2. ¿Cuál es su cargo? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo está en este cargo?
2. Conocimientos y relación con la actividad
2.1. Cuénteme un poco en qué consiste el programa Oro Legal (Indagar por los objetivos)
2.2. En líneas generales, ¿qué acciones ha implementado Oro Legal? Indagar por actividades con los 
diferentes actores 
2.3. ¿Qué expectativas tenía del OL cuando lo conoció y en qué medida estas se cumplieron? 
2.4. ¿Cómo está estructurado el equipo de trabajo en USAID? ¿Este equipo es suficiente para el 
desarrollo de las actividades del programa? ¿Cómo es la articulación con las coordinaciones 
regionales y los territorios?
3. Formalización minera
3.1. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de focalización y selección de los beneficiarios de formalización minera? 
¿Hubo dentro de los criterios alguna priorización a poblaciones vulnerables (mujeres, jóvenes, 
personas con pertenencia étnica)?
3.2. ¿Cuáles fueron las herramientas/incentivos que brindó OL a los mineros de MAPE para 
mantenerse formales/legales y mejorar el desempeño ambiental de sus operaciones mineras?
3.3. ¿Cuáles fueron los cuellos de botella y factores facilitadores para las actividades de 
formalización minera? (indagar por temas mineros y ambientales)
3.4. ¿Cuáles aspectos se identificaron como útiles o necesarios para reducir la complejidad en el 
proceso de formalización? ¿Cuál fue la contribución de OL para reducir la complejidad? (indagar 
por temas mineros y ambientales)
3.5. ¿Cómo percibió OL la valoración que dan los mineros al apoyo ofrecido para su formalización? 
¿Cree que habría más compromiso si los mineros tuvieran que pagar por algunos trámites?
3.6. ¿Cómo planeó OL que al finalizar el proyecto los mineros sigan cumpliendo con un 
aprovechamiento minero legal?
3.7. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de formalización minera para incrementar 
su efectividad y replicabilidad?
4. Gobernanza y políticas mineras
4.1. ¿Cuál fue el rol de USAID en el proceso de articulación con las autoridades del gobierno 
nacional, regionales y municipales?
295 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
4.2. ¿Cómo percibe el proceso de articulación con las autoridades del gobierno nacional, regionales 
y municipales del programa OL? (Indagar por Ministerio de Minas, ANM, Ministerio de Ambiente, 
CARs, Gobernaciones y Alcaldías, Mesas Mineras)
4.3. ¿Cuáles fueron los mecanismos de participación de los beneficiarios de OL para la toma de 
decisiones sobre el programa? (Indagar por formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación) ¿Hubo diferencias en la participación por parte de mujeres?
4.4. ¿Qué tan rígido o adaptable fue el programa a las condiciones y necesidades de los territorios? 
(Indagar si se tuvieron en cuenta características y condiciones particulares de grupos vulnerables 
étnicos/mujeres/jóvenes)
4.5. ¿Cuáles son los factores externos que facilitan o dificultan la gobernanza sobre las políticas 
mineras y ambientales? (indagar por conocimiento de la normatividad sobre formalización y no uso 
de mercurio, complejidad del sector, seguridad laboral) 
4.6. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de acercamiento y articulación con los 
aliados institucionales y beneficiarios para mejorar la gobernanza y políticas mineras?
5. Desarrollo de cadenas de valor y medios de vida alternativos
5.1. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de focalización y selección de los beneficiarios de las cadenas de valor 
desarrolladas por OL? (Indagar por apicultura y achiote) ¿Hubo dentro de los criterios alguna 
priorización a poblaciones vulnerables (mujeres, jóvenes, personas con pertenencia étnica)?
5.2. ¿Cuáles son las principales capacidades con las que el programa fortaleció a los pequeños 
productores de achiote/miel para que aseguren un ingreso suficiente? (Indagar por los 3 
eslabones de la cadena productiva)
5.3. ¿En qué medida considera que el fortalecimiento de actividades productivas alternativas a la 
minería reduce el impacto ambiental en la zona? ¿El programa hizo un análisis previo sobre los 
posibles impactos ambientales del desarrollo de las cadenas productivas? ¿Qué estrategias se 
adelantaron para mitigar estos efectos?
5.4. ¿Qué cambios en la situación de orden público en las zonas de producción de achiote 
(Chocó)/miel (Antioquia) se percibieron durante la ejecución del programa y cómo cree que 
se relacionan con los proyectos productivos? (Indagar por la presión de grupos armados ilegales 
sobre los beneficiarios) 
5.5. Dadas las condiciones de seguridad y orden público del territorio, ¿Qué prácticas o medidas 
tomaba al realizar su trabajo para sentirse seguro? ¿Algunas de estas prácticas cambiaron en el 
tiempo de desarrollo del programa? ¿Cómo?
5.6. ¿Cómo fue la participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes en las actividades del proyecto y cómo 
se refleja ahora en las actividades productivas? ¿Cómo cree que afectó esta participación las 
cargas de cuidado al interior de las familias?
5.7. En el caso de Antioquia ¿Qué rol desempeñan las asociaciones de productores de miel y 
cómo las preparó el programa para prestar servicios a sus asociados en el desarrollo del 
negocio apícola?
5.8. En el caso de Antioquia ¿Cuáles han sido las principales dificultades y factores facilitadores 
para desarrollar los acuerdos y relaciones entre los diferentes eslabones del encadenamiento 
de miel? (Tener en cuenta los eslabones: productores, asociaciones apícolas, Campo Dulce y aliados 
comerciales) 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 296
5.9. En el caso de Chocó ¿Qué rol desempeñan los consejos comunitarios y cómo los preparó el 
programa para el desarrollo de la cadena de achiote? (Indagar si hay alguna percepción del rol de 
las mujeres dentro de estos consejos en relación con el programa y la cadena productiva)
5.10. En el caso de Chocó ¿Cuáles han sido las principales dificultades y factores facilitadores para 
desarrollar los acuerdos y relaciones entre los diferentes eslabones del encadenamiento de 
achiote? (Tener en cuenta los eslabones: productores, centros de acopio y trillado de los consejos 
comunitarios, Achiote y Agros del Chocó y Naranja Madura)
5.11. ¿Qué elementos van a permitir la sostenibilidad de las cadenas productivas? (Indagar por 
encadenamientos con mercados formales, capacidades socio-empresariales de los beneficiarios y 
organizaciones y acceso a asistencia técnica)
5.12. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de desarrollo de cadenas de valor y 
medios de vida alternativos para incrementar su efectividad y replicabilidad? 
6. Rehabilitación de áreas degradadas por minería ilegal
6.15 ¿Cómo se seleccionaron las zonas a rehabilitar y los beneficiarios? (Indagar por diagnósticos de 
pasivos huérfanos) 
6.16 ¿En qué medida la estrategia de rehabilitación se enmarca en los lineamientos ambientales de 
la política ambiental? ¿Algunos pasos de la intervención se trabajaron con las entidades 
ambientales públicas? (Tener en cuenta Plan Nacional de Restauración, lineamientos de IIAP (Chocó))
6.17 En el momento en que se diseñó la estrategia de rehabilitación ¿cuál era el resultado esperado 
para esta actividad?
6.18 ¿En qué medida cree que los modelos de rehabilitación han sido efectivos para lograr una 
recuperación ecológica en las áreas intervenidas?
6.19 ¿Cree que ha existido compromiso y apropiación de los beneficiarios para mantener los 
modelos de rehabilitación? ¿Por qué? 
6.20 ¿Qué incentivos cree que tienen las familias para mantener en el tiempo los modelos de 
rehabilitación? 
6.21 ¿Cuáles fueron los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para las actividades de 
rehabilitación? 
6.22 ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse en los modelos de rehabilitación para incrementar su 
efectividad y replicabilidad?
6.23 ¿Cómo se realizó el costeo de los dos modelos de intervención?
7. Eliminación/reducción del mercurio en la cadena de suministro de la MAPE
7.1. ¿En qué consistió la estrategia técnica brindada a los mineros para disminuir el uso de mercurio 
en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por asistencia técnica, cumplimiento de normativa, 
tecnificación, sensibilización riesgos a la salud y ambientales) 
7.2. ¿Cuáles cree que fueron las motivaciones de las UPM para reducir el uso de mercurio en el 
aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar si hay diferencias en estas motivaciones entre mineros 
hombres y mujeres)
7.3. ¿En qué medida usted cree que las UPM están satisfechas con la implementación de técnicas 
de producción más limpias promovidas por OL?
7.4. ¿Apoyaron el desarrollo de los estudios geológicos para los PTO, y estos a su vez determinaron 
cómo serían las técnicas de beneficio de oro?
297 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
7.5. ¿Cuáles fueron los factores facilitadores y cuellos de botella para la disminución del uso de 
mercurio en el aprovechamiento de oro? (Indagar por grado de dificultad técnica o económica en 
las técnicas de producción más limpias)
7.6. ¿Cuál fue el objetivo de realizar las mediciones de mercurio en aire? ¿Por qué se desarrollaron 
esas mediciones? ¿En algún momento contemplaron hacer más mediciones?
7.7. ¿Monitorearon de alguna manera el comportamiento del comercio de mercurio en las regiones 
intervenidas?
7.8. ¿Qué ajustes cree que podrían hacerse a la estrategia de sensibilización para la eliminación del 
uso de mercurio en la actividad minera de oro?
8. Percepción de pertinencia y efectividad de la actividad
8.1. Dado el contexto y las necesidades de formalización minera, medio ambiente y desarrollo 
económico (acotar al nivel nacional, regional o municipal dependiendo del entrevistado) ¿Qué tan 
pertinente considera que han sido las intervenciones de OL? 
8.2. ¿En qué medida las actividades de OL estuvieron alineadas con las directrices de los 
instrumentos de planeación y ordenamiento territorial?
8.3. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en cuanto a MAPE?
8.4. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de medio ambiente? (Indagar por 
contribuciones asociadas a reducción de mercurio y rehabilitación)
8.5. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido las contribuciones de OL en temas de desarrollo económico?
8.6. ¿Qué efectos cree que ha traído OL en términos de calidad de vida para las familias beneficiaras 
del programa? (Indagar por los tres componentes: Formalización minera, cadenas productivas y 
rehabilitación)
8.7. ¿Cómo cree que la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en los diferentes componentes del 
programa ha incidido en su calidad de vida y la de sus familias? (Indagar por ingresos, tranquilidad, 
más tiempo en familia, acceso a servicios básicos, seguridad en los 3 componentes: formalización 
minera, cadenas productivas y rehabilitación)
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 298
ANNEXI VI: SOURCES OF INFORMATION
In general, this evaluation used primary information gathered through telephone and in-person surveys, 
to understand the components of mining formalization, rehabilitation of degraded areas, and value chains 
for annatto and beekeeping. 
TABLE 32. SURVEYS FOR THE OL EVALUATION
COMPONENT ANTIOQU
IA
CHOCÓ TOTAL
Annatto 0 212 212
Beekeeping 159 0 159
Mining formalization 24 73 97
Rehabilitation 199 2 201
Total 382 287 669
In addition, we carried out 120 interviews with relevant actors and beneficiaries from all components of 
the Activity. The distribution of the interviews is shown in Table 33. 
TABLE 33. INTERVIEWS CARRIED OUT FOR OL EVALUATION
TYPE OF ACTOR
LEVEL OF THE ACTOR
NATIONAL DEPT. MUNICIPAL TOTAL
 Institutional actors 5 10 7 22
 Implementer and partners 10 7 17
 Grantees – executors and direct 
benefciaries 
6 75 81
 Total 15 23 82 120
We also analyzed secondary information supplied by the implementing partner as multiple files. We 
reviewed the following documents:
• Oro Legal - Scope of work 
• Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan for AMELP Activities
• Annual Work Plans
− 2015 
− 2016 
− 2017 
− 2018 
− 2019 
• Annual reports
− 2016 
299 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
− 2017 
− 2018 
− 2019 
• Quarterly reports
− OL Quarterly Report 2016 Q1 (October - December)
− OL Quarterly Report 2016 Q2 (January - March)
− OL Quarterly Report 2016 Q3 (April - June) 
− OL Quarterly Report 2017 Q1 (October - December)
− OL Quarterly Report 2017 Q2 (January - March)
− OL Quarterly Report 2017 Q3 (April - June) 
− OL Quarterly Report 2018 Q1 (October - December)
− OL Quarterly Report 2018 Q2 (January - March)
− OL Quarterly Report 2018 Q3 (April - June) 
− OL Quarterly Report 2019 Q1 (October - December)
− OL Quarterly Report 2019 Q2 (January - March)
− OL Quarterly Report 2019 Q3 (April - June) 
− OL Quarterly Report 2020 Q1 (October - December)
− OL Quarterly Report 2020 Q2 (January - March)
• Brief updates
− 2016 
− 2017 
− 2018 
− 2019 
− 2020 
• Oro Legal Indicators - baseline
• Communication pieces
− Digital bulletins
− Communication pieces
− Communication products
− TV Communication pieces
− Videos
• Oro Legal Indicators – MEL Activity
• Oro Legal Environmental Assesments
• Oro Legal Mid-term Evaluation
• Gender and vulnerable population
• Beneficiary database
• Key actors database
• Presentation on Oro Legal Oro Legal activities 
We complemented these documents with additional inputs provided to the evaluation team. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 300
MINING FORMALIZATION
• Foramlization Recommendations for the Government
• UNODC – Alluvial gold mining
• SST annexes provided to the MPUs 
• Environmental annexes provided to the MPUs
• Business annexes provided to the MPUs
• Final report Memorandum of understanding Oro Legal – Gran Colombia Gold
• Histórico Asistencia Técnica Nordeste
• UPM Contactadas razones de no intervención
MERCURY
• Airborne Mercury Concentration Sampling
• Oro_Legal_Mercury_Monitoring_Plan (December 2015)
VALUE CHAINS
• Annatto and beekeeping GIS
• Annatto production in the department of Chocó
• Production of honey in the case of Bajo Cauca Antioqueño
• EMA CC San Isidro
• EMA Coltapicola
REHABILITATION
• Evaluation of species diversity in rehabilitated areas of Bajo Cauca
• Rehabilitation GIS Antioquia 
• Rehabilitation GIS Chocó
• Long-term agreement – Consejo Mayor de San Isidro
• Rehabilitation of soils degraded by informal gold mining. Cases of Antioquia and Chocó
• Academic documents on rehabilitation models
301 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
ANNEX VII: SCOPE OF WORK OF THIS PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION
PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The purpose of this final performance evaluation is to conduct a systematic analysis around the 
performance of the Oro Legal Activity to assess to what extent the achievements at the different sub￾objectives of the intervention are perceived effective and impactful, and which factors may be playing a 
role to modulate the performance toward those sub-objectives, the Activity´s main goal, and USAID´s 
strategic development goals.
In accomplishing this evaluation, the Contractor will collect all necessary data, perform formal analyses 
by using mixed methods, and produce empirical quantitative and qualitative information of Oro Legal´s 
performance, stakeholders perceptions, and the context to: (a) respond technically to the purpose of 
this evaluation, (b) answer the evaluation questions of herein based on the data collected and analysis 
performed, and (c) provide evaluation findings, actionable and context-specific recommendations, 
conclusions, and lessons learned -if any- constructed through evidence-based knowledge.
The evaluation will support USAID/Colombia and Oro Legal Implementing Partner (IP) accountability 
among stakeholders. The evaluation must also provide lessons learned and insightful recommendations 
as input to help USAID/Colombia making programming decisions as well as to share knowledge gained 
with relevant stakeholders in the Government of Colombia (GOC), Mining Sector, International 
Donors, and Communities. This evaluation is scheduled to start and develop along the Oro Legal 
Activity final phase of implementation. Its design and methodology must be replicable in order to have 
technical validity and to be heuristic for other performance evaluation in the portfolio of USAID.
SUMMARY INFORMATION OF THE ACTIVITY
TABLE 34: ACTIVITY SNAPSHOT
Activity Name: Artisanal Gold Mining Environmental 
Impact Reduction - Oro Legal
Period of Performance: 9/23/2015 - 3/31/2021
Contract No: AID-514-C-15-00003 Contracting Mechanism: Cost plus fixed fee contract.
Total Estimated Cost (TEC): $22,122,365 Contractor: Chemonics Inc.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 302
Alignment to the USAID/Colombia Country 
Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2014-
2020: 
DO 4: “Environmental resilience and low carbon 
development strengthened”.
Intermediate Results: IR 4.1 “Natural resource 
management strengthened”.
Sub-IR 4.1.1 “Legality, rehabilitation, and reduction of 
mercury use in small, artisanal mining operations 
improved”
Purpose: 1) Building effective governance capacity for 
gold mining activities via: (i) strengthening Colombian 
government capacity to enforce gold mining legislation; 
(ii) enhancing the participation of artisanal gold mining 
associations and Afro Colombian and indigenous 
communities in mining formalization programs, and (iii) 
providing training and technical assistance to artisanal 
miners; 
2) Increasing the capacity of Colombian government 
entities to address the environmental impact caused by 
illegal mining through: (i) reforestation of degraded 
areas; (ii) generating alternative livelihoods for 
communities that cannot or should not be involved in 
gold mining, and (iii) improve drinking water quality in 
mining areas.
Contracting Officer Representative (COR): 
Gustavo Vargas - Project Management Specialist 
(Environment) 
Alternate Contracting Officer Representative: Daniel 
García - Financial Specialist
Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist:
Catalina Correa
Evaluation Activity Manager (EAM): 
Omar López, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist 
(Program Office) - COR to the MEL Activity
BACKGROUND
Colombia’s gold mining sector suffers from pervasive illegality. The vast majority of the yearly average 
50 metric tons of gold produced in Colombia are done so by illegal and informal actors, driving 
widespread deforestation, riverbanks sedimentation and mercury contamination, posing a threat to 
public health, and costing the state tens of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues and environmental 
liabilities left behind. As a result, addressing illegal mining has become a major concern in Colombia’s 
post conflict scenario. Gold mining in Colombia has increased by over 300% since 2006 and illegal and 
informal gold mining is a growing challenge. The scale of mining has grown faster than the institutional 
capacity to adequately regulate and control mining activities. Illegal mining is part of criminal economies 
that also include illicit coca cultivation, land appropriation, logging, trafficking in wildlife, trafficking in 
persons, and extortion and money laundering by the criminal organizations involved in these activities. 
According to the GOC, illegal gold mining has replaced drug trafficking as the primary source of income 
for organized crime, armed groups, and illicit actors. This is fueling violence as there is a strong link 
between the criminal organizations responsible for the illicit coca and those involved in trading the gold 
from illegal mining. At national level, 43 percent of Colombia’s territory that is affected by illegal mining 
is also affected by illicit coca cultivation, and Antioquia and Chocó bear the heaviest lift of the 
phenomenon. 
Uncontrolled gold mining is not only a major stimulus for Colombia’s illicit economy, but is also a major 
driver of environmental degradation, causing large-scale deforestation, riverbanks destruction, and 
mercury contamination; scarring the landscape with a legacy of highly degraded and contaminated 
303 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
abandoned mining sites. In 2019, nationally an estimated 98,000 hectares of land were degraded by 
alluvial gold exploitation and 78% of this detected area was concentrated in the departments of 
Antioquia and Chocó. The resulting biodiversity loss in Choco is of particular concern as this is one of 
the most biodiverse regions in the world. In addition, these highly degraded sites are so devastated that 
they cease to be part of the productive economy, no longer providing any viable livelihood options, 
unless and until major investments in remediation and restoration are made.
Due to the use of mercury to amalgamate gold in artisanal gold mining, Colombia is the world's largest 
mercury polluter per capita. As a result, some towns in the department of Antioquia have the highest 
urban per capita air mercury pollution in the world (as of 2011) (Cordy et al, 2011).130 The country has 
passed legislation banning the use of mercury in mining that went into effect in July 2018, but a full 
implementation of this ambitious goal presents yet major challenges along the chain of control. 
The USAID´s strategic development goals can be divided in two levels: 1) An Agency´s overarching 
objective known as “Journey to Self-Reliance” -J2SR- which looks for (a) helping countries to build 
capacity and (b) to impact behaviors triggering positive changes; so the ultimate goal of foreign assistance 
is ceasing to exist in the future. 2) A USAID/Colombian Mission´s Environmental Development 
Objective of improving the environmental resiliency by strengthening the management of natural 
resources [Intermediate Result 4.1 / CDCS 2014-2020]. 
USAID supports the GOC’s efforts to create a durable and inclusive peace in the wake of the country's 
50-year armed conflict. Tackling illegal activities, including illegal mining, and providing alternative 
incomes through the licit economy, is paramount for a sustainable and participatory peace. Given the 
important challenges posed by uncontrolled gold mining, USAID has responded with the Agency’s 
largest and most ambitious artisanal gold mining activity to build effective governance capacity for gold 
mining activities, aimed to strengthen Colombian Government capacity to enforce gold mining legislation 
and address the environmental impact caused by illegal mining. The Artisanal Mining Program (Oro 
Legal) promotes responsible legal mining, alternative livelihoods, and environmental rehabilitation. 
The main goal of the Artisanal Gold Mining - Oro Legal Activity (the Activity, from now on) is to help 
the Government of Colombia (GOC), the mining sector, and the communities to address the 
informality of the artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) to reduce its environmental liabilities 
through: 1) Building effective governance capacity for gold mining activities via: (a) Strengthening 
Colombian government capacity to enforce gold mining legislation; (b) Enhancing the participation of 
artisanal gold mining associations and Afro Colombian and indigenous communities in mining 
formalization programs; and (c) Providing training and technical assistance to artisanal miners; and 2 ) 
Increasing the capacity of Colombian Government (GOC entities to address the environmental impact 
caused by illegal mining through: (a) Restoration of degraded areas; (b) Generating alternative livelihoods 
for communities that cannot or should not be involved in gold mining, and (c) Improve drinking water 
quality in mining areas.
130 Cordy P, Veiga MM, Salih I, Al-Saadi S, Console S, Garcia O, Mesa LA, Velásquez-López PC, Roeser M. Mercury 
contamination from artisanal gold mining in Antioquia, Colombia: The world's highest per capita mercury pollution. Sci Total 
Environ. 2011 Dec 1;410-411:154-60. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.006. Epub 2011 Oct 15. PMID: 22000915.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 304
This Artisanal Mining Program contract totaling almost $22.1 million follows on to the mining 
component of the previous USAID/Colombia BioREDD+ activity implemented by Chemonics from July 
2013 to May 2015. 
DESCRIPTION OF THEORY OF CHANGE AND RESULTS FRAMEWORK
The Theory of Change (TOC) underlying the Oro Legal Activity is that if the program strengthens 
government capacity to effectively manage gold mining and address environmental damages, then the 
social, environmental, and economic performance of gold mining operations will be improved, thereby 
supporting the GOC to create a sustainable and inclusive peace. Each of the two objectives of the Oro 
Legal has its own TOC.
The Oro Legal Activity has two Objectives: the first objective focuses on supporting mining sector 
institutions and organizations to improve and/or better enforce regulations covering gold mining in 
target regions, thus reducing the negative environmental and social impacts often implied by these 
activities. The second objective seeks to increase the capacities of the GOC, communities and the 
private sector to address the environmental degradation caused by unauthorized gold mining.
The results framework (see chart below) guides Oro Legal’s approach to implementing USAID’s vision 
for the Activity is linked directly to USAID/Colombia Strategy at CDCS 2014-2020. It incorporates 
crosscutting responses to tasks, including a focus on our differentiated approach on gender inequity and 
vulnerable population.
305 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
Exhibit 72: The Oro Legal Results Framework
*ASM: Artisanal and Small-Scale Miners. NAMA: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions.
The following are the underlying critical assumptions accompanying the results framework and acting as 
external potential factors influencing objectives: 
• The security situation in target municipalities is conducive to implementation.
• The GOC continues supporting Oro Legal objectives through the implementation of policies and 
legal reforms conducive to responsible artisanal gold mining.
• There are a sufficient number of MPU131s in the defined geographies, able and willing to become legal 
and formal.
• Cooperation and goodwill between key partners are maintained: GOC, municipal administrations, 
mining associations and private mining companies, etc.
The set of Oro Legal goals depends on the following factors that fall outside Activity control:
131 MPU: Mining Production Unit
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 306
• Fluctuation in gold prices, which affects miner earnings and provides incentives/disincentives for 
operators to enter or exit this activity.
• The opportunity cost to mining of prices of alternate goods and services that produce returns on 
investment for private investors, and returns to labor and investment for small-scale miners, affecting 
the decision to mine.
Geography of Intervention of Oro Legal: See Annex A.
LINES OF INTERVENTION 
Based on the objectives and sub-objectives previously set forth in the Oro Legal Results Framework, the 
Activity develops four main lines of work:
A: TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mining Legalization and Formalization: Legalization (titling) and formalization (compliance with all 
relevant regulatory requirements) is one of the best means to reduce illegal activity and environmental 
devastation caused by illegal mining, which includes mercury contamination, deforestation, and a costly 
legacy of abandoned mining sites. Oro Legal’s goal is to support small and medium miners to legalize 
$155 million dollars worth of gold, effectively removing it from the illegal economy, while averting the 
discharge of 55 tons of mercury to the environment.
Alternative Livelihoods: A key component to combating illegal economies is strengthening 
opportunities for licit economic activities. Where responsible mining is not economically, technically, or 
environmentally feasible, which is the case for the vast majority of artisanal miners, Oro Legal provides 
assistance to generate licit economic alternatives to illegal mining. Oro Legal is supporting commercial 
honey production in Antioquia and annatto production in Choco. Together, these two value chains are 
expected to benefit 1,000 families and produce an income per participant of approximately twice the 
Colombian minimum wage.
B: TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL REHABILITATION:
Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands: Oro Legal aims to rehabilitate 11,500 hectares of highly 
degraded land using reforestation with Acacia mangium in Antioquia and assisted natural regeneration in 
Choco. In Chocó, agreements have been signed with Afro Colombian Community Councils (CCs) to 
rehabilitate 8,220 hectares (18%) of an estimated total of 45,000 hectares of degraded land. In 
Antioquia, 8 projects with private investors, local governments and communities will rehabilitate 3,280 
hectares (15%) of an estimated total of 22,000 hectares of degraded land.
Mercury Elimination: The formalization process supported by Oro Legal introduces technologies 
and practices that initially reduce and, if fully implemented, have the capacity to fully eliminate the use of 
mercury. Through this work with small and medium mines in the process of formalization, the program 
will remove 55 tons of mercury from the gold production chain. In addition, Oro Legal worked to 
measure airborne mercury contamination, a far greater risk to human health and located right in the 
middle of mining towns. USAID is collaborating with several diplomatic Missions in a joint effort to 
implement a communications campaign to support the elimination of mercury. Past mid-2019 it was 
approved a cost and time extension of $2.1million dollars and six months to focus on (Component 1) 
piloting 3-6 zero-mercury devices building on the gains of formalization.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, AND DATA OF THE ORO LEGAL ACTIVITY
307 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
The following documents contain information regarding the design, implementation, reporting and 
performance monitoring of the Oro Legal Activity. The Contractor must do a careful and detailed 
review and analysis of the documents, information, and data listed below as follows:
Mandatory:
• USAID/Colombia Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS)132
• Section C and F of the Base Contract, and Contract Modifications on these sections
• Program Annual Work plans
• Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (MEL Plan)
• Performance monitoring data logged into the USAID/Colombia “Monitor System”
• Baseline data for performance indicators (those requiring it)
• Annual Performance Reports
• Gender Analysis
• Stakeholders Analysis
• Brief Updates
• Lists of beneficiaries by type, sex, organization, value chain, geolocation in order to design 
surveys or other instruments.
As Needed:
• Mid-term Performance Evaluation to the Oro Legal Activity - Final Report
• Journey to Self-Reliance - Principles/Policy
• USAID Briefer: Oro Legal - Artisanal Gold Mining
• Quarterly Performance Reports
• Annual and/or quarterly financial reports
• Airborne Mercury Monitoring in Mining Municipalities in Colombia (2019, Oro Legal)
• Biweekly Highlights, videos, press materials, and social media posts
• BioREDD/Mining documentation as available. Check the Development Experience 
Clearinghouse (DEC)133. 
• UNODC y GOC. Colombia. Explotación de Oro de Aluvión: Evidencia a partir de percepción 
remota. Reportes: 2016, 2017, and 2018.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
Considering the Oro Legal Activity purpose stated above, the Contractor will conduct the systematic 
analysis around the performance and development of the Activity in its main goals and lines of work in 
order to answer the questions stated below. The questions might be reviewed and refined in any 
technical aspect prior to the finalization of the evaluation design in collaboration with USAID and the IP, 
following general co-creation principles.
1. Mining Formalization: To what extent do the application by Mining Production Units of the 
formalization standards, improved operational efficiency, and access to legal markets (MPU) gained 
through Oro Legal´s (OL’s) intervention provide sufficient incentives for miners involved in artisanal and 
small gold mining (ASGM) to remain legal/formal and improve the environmental performance of their 
mining operations? 
132 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1862/USAID-Colombia-CDCS.pdf
133 https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/search.aspx
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 308
Context and how this question are expected to be answered: This is a follow-on to question #3 from 
the Mid-term Evaluation, adjusted to capture the outcome of the contribution of mining formalization 
towards one of the main goals of the Activity. Given a national context marked by a steady increase in 
international gold prices, local pressure from illegal actors, and a widespread culture of unlawfulness, 
have formalized gold miners been able to change their behavior in ways that demonstrate USAID´s 
contribution in this sector to the J2SR? If the benefits of formalization cited above have not provided 
sufficient incentives for ASGM miners to change mining and environmental behavior in a majority of 
cases, what underlying factors are preventing uptake of formalization and what other approaches can be 
identified/suggested to increase interest/uptake and under what requisite conditions?
2. Mining Governance and Policy: What have been the main factors (internal to Oro Legal or 
external arising from the sector context, stakeholder attitudes/behaviors, or existing government 
policy and capacity) that have contributed to or hindered OL’s progress in strengthening Colombian 
mining and environmental governance, and policies at national, regional, and municipal levels? 
Context and how this question is expected to be answered: This is a follow-on to question #2 from the 
Mid-term Evaluation. OL’s Theory of Change (ToC) proposes that the Activity will strengthen mining 
governance and policy, including at the municipal level. However, mining policy is a national purview, 
which is a flaw in the ToC not identified during the Mid-term Evaluation. Municipal authorities are only 
responsible for administration of the mining registry (RUCOM), have limited environmental authority, 
and lack the budget and means to enforce the mining and other laws against illicit armed groups linked 
to gold mining. Also, Antioquia is the only department with a Mining Secretariat with delegated mining 
authority by the Ministry of Energy (ME), whereas the department of Chocó does not enjoy similar 
status. Additionally, central government capacity to facilitate formalization is limited because of the sheer 
number of ASGM and other informal/illegal mining operations in Colombia, difficulties experienced in 
transferring operational responsibility for ASGM formalization from the ME to the National Mining 
Agency (ANM), and hesitant political will for effective mining policy reform. Given this context, it is 
critical to understand how effective OL’s approaches (both formal and informal) have been to policy and 
institutional capacity strengthening and what factors supported or hindered the Activity’s effectiveness in 
this area. The evaluation will suggest or recommend other approaches where it is relevant to do so.
3. Value Chain Development and Alternative Livelihoods: How do beneficiaries involved in 
OL´s value chains activities perceive the impact of alternative livelihoods on their present and future 
well-being outside the ASGM activities? 
Context and how this question is expected to be answered: This is a follow-on to question from the 
Mid-term Evaluation. The economic (not simply financial) and/or environmental rationale for offering 
alternative livelihoods to ASGM families is to: (i) provide an alternative licit source of income; (ii) reduce 
the disproportionate environmental impact of ASGM in tropical ecosystems; (iii) reduce the pressure on 
vulnerable populations from illegal armed groups linked to illicit gold mining; and (iv) consolidate 
broader regional security.
Economic reconversion includes a set of real and perceived values, benefits, and costs beyond 
investment in time and inputs and income generation from the economic activity per se; e.g., peace of 
mind, quality of life, more time to devote to the family (particularly relevant for single women heads of 
household), personal health and safety, higher productivity, participation in a legal marketplaces, etc., 
which are often hard to quantify, but are paramount for stakeholders and contribute to broader 
Government of Colombia (GOC and USAID/Colombia development goals, objectives and priorities and, 
therefore, should be considered in answering this question.
309 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
4. Rehabilitation of Areas Degraded by Illegal Mining. How appropriate and effective since the 
environmental, social, and economic point of view have been the differentiated rehabilitation models 
developed by Oro Legal in Antioquia and Chocó in areas previously degraded by illegal mining?
Context and how this question is expected to be answered: Rehabilitation initiatives are one of the 
most visible and potentially valuable USAID contributions under Oro Legal that were not properly 
addressed during the Mid-term Evaluation. Large-scale degradation of land and water resources by 
unregulated alluvial mining and river dredging is one of the most significant environmental problems in 
Antioquia and Chocó, with particularly serious impacts to critical and fragile ecosystems along the 
Cauca and Atrato and Quito rivers and tributaries, respectively. Most rehabilitation or reclamation 
models are complex and costly, and not suitable or economically viable for remedying impacts in 
degraded areas considered “environmental orphans” by the state, communities, and landowners. The 
Oro Legal models were purposely designed to be low-cost, practical approaches that are appropriate 
for private landowners and collective communities, and particularly relevant for global and national 
initiatives in forest restoration and climate change mitigation. Are the models cost-effective in 
comparison to other approaches employed in Colombia and elsewhere? Are they good for each 
regional reality? How robust are the models in quickly reestablishing vegetative cover, reversing 
degradation, and recovering biodiversity? How committed are beneficiaries to future maintenance of 
the models over the medium to long term? What conditions are required and/or what changes could 
be made to the models to make them more effective and replicable? 
5. Elimination/Reduction of Mercury from the ASGM Supply Chain What combination of 
instruments and approaches employed in the effort to reduce mercury usage in the ASGM have 
proven to be most effective and why?
Context and how this question is expected to be answered: Mercury has historically been used in 
ASGM, particularly by small-scale alluvial miners and river dredgers, as a cheap and effective amalgam to 
recover fine gold. Exposure to mercury is extremely harmful to humans and one of the major public 
health and environmental risks both in and downstream from areas where gold mining and processing 
are concentrated. Colombia is a signatory to the MINAMATA Convention on Mercury, a global treaty 
to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury. Colombia also 
promulgated its own Mercury Law that bans all use of mercury in mining as of July 2018 and mandates 
financial support to mining operators for the transition to non-mercury processing, a provision of the 
law that has not been implemented. Through rigorous monitoring methods and documentation, Oro 
Legal beneficiary MPUs have eliminated or significantly reduced the amount of mercury used per gram of 
gold produced. How was this achieved and what were the motivations of beneficiary MPUs? What 
combination of instruments/approaches employed was most impactful? To what extent did external 
factors contribute to or hinder the Activity’s initiatives to reduce or eliminate the use of mercury? 
6. Perceived Relevance and Impact of the Activity: What are the main perceptions of the 
relevance and effectiveness of the USAID - Oro Legal´s intervention among direct and indirect 
stakeholders - ASGM operators, gold mining private sector, academia, international donors, USG 
agencies, GOC agencies, etc.? 
Context and how this question is expected to be answered: The end of Oro Legal is an appropriate 
time for objective reflection and to seek honest feedback from all key stakeholders on the Activity’s 
contribution to ASGM, impact on the environment, and the socio-economic development in its two 
main geographies and in Colombia more generally. Stakeholders’ perceptions are influenced by three 
factors: (i) their personal circumstances and world view; (ii) their interests and expectations; and (iii) 
how well informed and knowledgeable they are about the Activity’s objectives, implementation, and 
outcomes. Assessment of key stakeholder opinions and feedback on specific components or activities, as 
well as incorporating broader cross-cutting considerations may uncover needs, expectations, and ideas 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 310
that are otherwise hard to capture, which, in turn, could trigger awareness, adaption, recognition, 
innovation, and learning for improvement in the future.
The evaluation must offer information, analyses and findings, allowing USAID to: (i) have an objective 
and complementary perspective of the performance achieved by the Oro Legal Activity; (ii) make 
decisions for improving or refining future program designs.
Those analyses and findings must consider or be disaggregated by department and by municipal level as 
well as categorized by the actors as working dimensions of the Activity’s developments: GOC, gold 
miners, livelihood and watershed beneficiaries, private sector, etc. Information and analysis should also 
be disaggregated by sex and ethnicity as much as possible. According to the findings obtained from the 
analyses to answer the questions, the evaluation must provide conclusions, actionable and context￾specific recommendations, and lessons learned for improving future designs, including potential means 
for replication and scalability. In general, the evaluation must offer a body of relevant information for 
future mining programming of USAID/Colombia and sharing with its stakeholders. Its design and 
methodology must be replicable in order to have technical validity and to be heuristic for other 
performance evaluation in the portfolio of USAID.
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The Contractor through the Evaluation Team (ET) must propose the design and mixed methods 
methodology that will generate the highest-quality and most credible evidence in order to correspond 
to the evaluation purpose and questions. The final evaluation design and methodology will be approved 
by USAID.
The design and methodology must be formal, documented, and replicable; if any novel or non-traditional 
method of sampling, data collection or analysis is employed, it must be technically justified, properly 
documented in the reports, and supported by indexed references. As a general guiding principle and 
pursuant of USAID policy, all the procedures and methods used must be documented and the sources 
properly cited or credited, regardless of whether any was partially or fully employed.
Once the Contractor through the ET defines and agrees upon the design and methodology with 
USAID/Colombia, they must proceed to collect, organize, filter, compile, analyze, summarize and 
present the field data transformed into results and information according to the Evaluation Plan. The 
analysis will offer findings, conclusions, actionable and context-specific recommendations, and lessons 
learned that will concretely respond to the evaluation questions.
The Contractor through the ET must take into account the following methodological approach and 
technical principles for the evaluation design and methodology:
DESIGN MATRIX
The Contractor must construct, propose and use a Design Matrix based in the USAID
Evaluation Design Matrix Template134and corresponding guidance. The matrix must have at least the 
following columns:
134 https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/evaluation_design_matrix_templates.pdf
311 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
1. Researchable Question(s) and Subquestion(s)
2. Dimensions and variables identified
3. Information Required and Source(s)
4. Type of data required: quantitative & qualitative; primary and secondary
5. Scope, Methodology, and Analytical Tools
6. Unit(s) of Analysis
7. Limitations and Key Assumptions
8. What the answer to the researchable question will likely allow the Evaluation to Say
The final version of the design matrix will be approved by USAID / Colombia, and its latest version will 
be an annex to the final report.
IDENTIFICATION OF BENEFICIARIES AND STAKEHOLDERS
A central aspect of the evaluation design will be the definition of the universes of beneficiaries and 
stakeholders, and the identification of the sample (see next subtitle) of those who will be surveyed or 
interviewed; the Contractor will propose the criteria to identify the universe and must work closely 
with USAID/Colombia and the Implementer (IP) to determine this identification. The Contractor will 
revisit and update the map of stakeholders linked directly to Oro Legal and other key agents relevant 
for the analyses by using the objectives of the Activity, the Theory of Change, the Brief Updates, and 
establishing communications with Oro Legal.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE DIMENSIONS, VARIABLES, INDICATORS, UNITS OF ANALYSIS, AND SAMPLE 
FOR THE EVALUATION
The Contractor will devise any instrument necessary to collect the quantitative and qualitative data 
necessary to respond to the various questions of the evaluation by using mixed methods. The 
Contractor, in agreement with USAID, may explore alternative but valid ways to collect the necessary 
data.
The Contractor will identify the dimensions, variables and indicators necessary to include in the design 
aimed to respond to the evaluation questions, based on the evaluation question laid out, the Results 
Framework, the Lines of Intervention of the Activity previously set forth, and the monitoring and 
performance information available. The Contractor will work together with the Implementer (IP) to 
define in the design matrix the units of intervention linked to each component of Oro Legal and to the 
evaluation questions; according to these, the Contractor will specify the unit of analysis for each 
dimension and variable selected for the evaluation.
The Evaluation must use a mix of secondary and primary data sources at the national, departmental, 
municipal, organizational, and individual (or household) level. Also, the evaluation must obtain 
information of individuals from all relevant demographic groups to report on differential perception and 
experience among them, including men, women and LGBTI; youth; afro-colombian and Indigenous 
populations. It is not necessary to build a statistically representative sample for each demographic 
category. 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 312
The Contractor will define and devise the sampling methods (when required)135, as well as the 
appropriate overall sample size to produce significant and reliable results. Previous to the collection of 
data, the ET will perform a Power Analysis in order to determine whether the minimum overall sample 
size is enough to detect an existing effect with at least 90% of chance, in those statistical analysis 
identified to respond partially or in full to any questions of the evaluation. If the calculated overall sample 
size results very large to be practicable, the ET will adjust and document the practical power level in 
agreement with USAID before proceeding to the collection of data.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE ANALYTICAL TOOLS AND THEIR RANGES 
The Contractor will define clearly in methods presented and in the design matrix the mixed analytical 
and statistical tools deemed as the most appropriate to respond to each of the different evaluation 
questions. The selection of these analytical tools and statistical instruments will be as specific as possible 
based on the information available and the moment of the design, the type and amount of data planned 
to collect during the field phase, and in any key assumption or operational limitations foreseeable during 
the planning phase. The final selection of the mixed analytical and statistical tools will be agreed with 
USAID.
The contractor will follow the formal customary practice of selecting specific analytical tools, mixed 
methods and statistical instruments before proceeding with the collection of data and information 
compilation, unless the Contractor agrees with USAID in what cases a backward approach is the most 
appropriate given constraints. The Contractor will analyze in advance the requirements, limitations, and 
appropriateness of each tool(s) to test or respond to the respective evaluation question(s). The 
limitations and weaknesses in the analyses, deviations from the key assumptions, missing data, biases, 
marginal testing levels, likelihood, level of significance, sample size, degrees of freedom, etc., will be 
succinctly included into the notes to the results and findings presented, and documented in the final 
design matrix annexed to the final report.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT
The Contractor will annex to the Final Report a matrix of sources of information used during the 
evaluation. All the primary and secondary sources of information used must be traceable, and properly 
cited or credited in the drafts and final report, including personal oral or written communications. 
For the purpose of this evaluation, primary data are directly produced or attributed to the source. 
Secondary data are used by other sources; secondary sources citing or using other secondary sources 
should be carefully employed, and the citing secondary source should be renowned or credible. When 
using primary or monitoring data by USAID or the USG136, the ET must assess the quality of the data 
before using it; when using primary or secondary data from other sources the Contractor must note in 
the analysis and the results any limitations and data quality issues identified.
135 In cases of using a sample, the contractor must clearly specify the techniques to use (randomized, purposively, 
etc.). Samples should allow representativeness for the most relevant variables at the clusters of interventions with a 
margin of error equal or less than 5 percent in every possible case. 136 USG: The United States Government
313 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
The ET must put in place protocols for ensuring respondents of primary sources instruments are not 
harmed (especially if there are sensitive questions involved) and for the collection and safety handling of 
private data (PII).
All the data collection instruments devised and used must be annexed to the final report in a widely 
used readable digital format. The main outputs from analytical software packages such as statistical or 
qualitative analyses containing further details should be annexed in full to the final report. All the 
surveys, queries, recordings, and data retrieved to respond to the evaluation must be digitized and 
annexed in known formats to the final report; the datasets collected and built, including GIS137
information must include either annexed or embedded metadata USAID / Colombia will provide 
metadata template suggested). Filenames, tabs or tables within databases or datasets containing Personal 
Identifiable Information (PII), should be labeled or named with the prefix “PII_”. The Contractor will 
follow the guidelines of USAID for the handling and transmission of PII provided by the Contractor´s 
COR.
All quantitative data and coded qualitative data collected or retrieved by the ET must be provided in 
digital machine-readable, non-proprietary formats as required by USAID’s Open Data Policy (see ADS 
579). The data should be organized and fully documented (i.e. containing metadata) for use by anyone 
not fully familiar with the Activity or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all 
datasets developed. The contractor will prepare in a timely manner the datasets to be uploaded to the 
USAID Development Data Library (DDL).
RECORD KEEPING
Record keeping is paramount to allow USAID to search and retrieve easily any supportive 
documentation developed at any time along the evaluation process. It reinforces the replicability and 
freedom of access to information.
The Contractor will keep, organize, store, and retrieve in a digital readable known format all the 
primary and secondary sources records, data retrieved or built, and information used for the evaluation, 
and will annex it the final report.
The Contractor will keep, organize, store, and retrieve in a digital readable known format all the digital 
outputs of the statistical and qualitative analysis performed and other methods used for the evaluation. 
The Software packages used must be documented in the final version of the design matrix and will 
contain: make, package version, and digital platform used (Windows, Linux, etc).
The contractor will develop a hierarchical filing system and convention to keep, organize, store, and 
retrieve the above-mentioned records. Acronyms and abbreviations should be listed and included in a 
code dictionary at the root folder in order to understand and consult the filing system. It may be used 
the following naming convention suggested as guidance:
1. File naming convention: always avoid proprietary, unmeaning, and short file names like 
“survey.doc”, “final.pdf”, “field.xlsx”, “solo-Antioquia.dbs”, “Kamilo5.ppt”
2. Date prefix (date of file creation or approval): yymmdd_
3. Phase on the timeline: it is recommended to create folders and subfolders according to the next 
structure:
137 Geographic Information Systems
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 314
Data Collection (raw data): DC_
Data Processing: DP_
Analysis: Anls_
Question #:
 Q1_ 
 Q2_ 
 Q3B_, etc
Results: Res_
Reporting: Rep_
4. Subject naming: use meaningful and specific names. For example, to name the output of a 
regression use “Regress” instead of “rg”. 
5. Suffix for consecutive version coding (integers only): V1, V2, V3, ..., etc. Avoid using “final” 
unless it is fully approved by another person than the producer of the document.
For instance, a t-student test output from Stata package could be named like: 200812_Anls_Q2_T￾studentEthnic_V1.txt; a database could be named like 200730_DC_PII_RockMinersSurvey_Q3B_V1.sql, 
while the first draft could be: 201024_Rep_Draft-Report-FindingsOnly_V2.ppt 
EXECUTION, GEOGRAPHY AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
The evaluation will be conducted in Colombia. Specific geographic areas the Contractor’s ET will visit 
are the Oro Legal geographic coverage (see Annex A), which includes Bogotá where national institutions 
are based. Although the list of departments and municipalities covered by Oro Legal is at Annex A, the 
definite list of municipalities visited by the ET to retrieve the necessary information will be defined 
during the design stage of the evaluation. 
It is estimated that this evaluation will be carried out over a seven month period, approximately from 
May through November of 2020. The Contractor is expected to begin work immediately upon official 
acceptance of the Contractor´s COR.
The contractor will present a succinct but comprehensive Design and Work Plan with the following 
consecutive stages or parts:
1. Design and Methodology
2. Planning and Fieldwork
3. Data Processing and Analysis
4. Results and Reporting
5. Dissemination Plan
6. Annex 1: Evaluation Team
The plan must include at minimum: a) a graphic calendar of the phases with suggested dates matching 
the timeline set forth below; b) Main lead or responsible at each phase -if applicable-; c) Milestones 
and/or deliverables; d) Geographic location and/or venues; e) Main stakeholders and parties involved; f) 
Main limitations, risks and assumptions considered. USAID will approve the Design and Work Plan 
presented by the contractor. The dissemination plan will include activities, deliverables and means of 
315 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
communication to share with selected stakeholders the main findings, actionable and context-specific 
recommendations, conclusions, and lessons learned of this final performance evaluation.
a) The Evaluation in this SOW will be considered successfully executed and completed once:
Every phase of the Evaluation Plan has been successfully executed and completed by the contractor 
upon official notice of the Contractor´s COR.
b) All the deliverables in this SOW have been submitted by the contractor and have been accepted and 
approved by USAID/Colombia, according to the Acceptance Criteria set forth below.
c) The contractor has uploaded to the USAID Development Clearinghouse (DEC) the approved 
version by USAID/Colombia of the final report; the contractor has uploaded the datasets to the 
USAID Development Data Library (DDL); and the CORs of both Activities are notified about it.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERABLES
USAID/Colombia through the EAM may request to the Contractor a summarized report about the 
progress at any time during the length of the contract for this evaluation.
The contractor through the ET must submit to the USAID the deliverables detailed in the plan below, 
taking into account the timeframe and order set forth to be finalized.
A. Planning Phase, weeks 1 – 4 
1. Evaluation Planning Meeting and Meeting Minutes, week 1: At the outset of the work, USAID 
and the ET will hold an initial meeting in Bogotá to review expectations and brief the ET on 
the context and the Activity to inform the preparation of the evaluation. The contractor will 
prepare and submit to USAID a succinct meeting minutes in bullets with actions, guidances, 
steps and other matters discussed or agreed upon.
2. Context Session and Minutes, week 1: At the outset of the work, the ET will hold an initial 
meeting in Medellin to get familiar with IP´s team and to have a wide grasp and understanding 
of the Activity and the current gold mining context before proceeding with the Desk Review, 
interviews or any collection of data. In this one-day session, other relevant stakeholders may 
participate to help outline the context for the ET. The Contractor will prepare and submit to 
USAID a succinct meeting minutes in bullets with the topics addressed. It is recommended 
the contractor to start reviewing the relevant documentation (see Section 3.3).
3. Desk Review, week 2: The ET will conduct a desk study that covers all relevant documents 
(see Section 3.3) and identifies likely dimensions, variables, revisit the stakeholders´ analysis 
and in general, to acquire a more in-depth understanding of the Activity and the Context. The 
ET will hold initial conference calls with USAID and Oro Legal to seek their guidance and 
feedback on a draft design matrix and the list of stakeholders to be interviewed.
4. Drafts of the Design Matrix and summarized Work Plan, week 3: The ET will present and 
submit the draft Evaluation Design Matrix and a summarized draft version of the work plan. 
based on the feedback from USAID, the Contractor will prepare the Evaluation Design and 
Work Plan document. The Contractor should start planning the logistics for the field phase 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 316
and contact USAID´s security liaison for further security guidance. The IP to Oro Legal might 
also provide some guidance on the security and logistic aspects to take into account at each 
field site.
5. Evaluation Design and Work Plan, week 4: The revised draft evaluation design and work plan 
document will be submitted to USAID for final review and approval, highlighting any agreed￾upon changes from the draft submitted to USAID. The evaluation design and work plan must 
include at minimum: a fully developed design matrix; the methodology; data collection 
instruments; the proposed sampling design and sites; the proposed list of survey and interview 
participants; the schedule, including locations and dates for sampling; logistical arrangements; 
an outline of the final report; and the draft dissemination plan.
B. Fieldwork and Analytical Phase, weeks 5 - 15
6. Fieldwork conducted and weekly bullets submitted, weeks 5 - 14: The contractor will 
commence the fieldwork by week 5 of the contractors´ COR approval of this SOW and upon 
USAID approval of the Evaluation Design and Work Plan. The fieldwork implies the 
implementation of the instruments and other methods to collect qualitative and quantitative 
data and revisiting relevant documents. The analytical part implies the application of the 
analytical tools and methods to build information. The ET will report each week to the EAM 
or his designate. Weekly bulleted lists of key achievements and/or issues -no more than 12 
bullets- must be delivered to USAID/Colombia; each consecutive report issued and submitted 
should be numbered.
7. Pre-drafting debriefing meeting, week 15: Prior to commence drafting the evaluation report, 
the ET will hold a debriefing with the EAM, and any others that the ET and EAM consider 
should attend, to present orally their preliminary insights on findings and results from the 
analysis to that point. Some of these preliminary notions will change as analysis and drafting 
continue. Draft recommendations and lessons learned should be discussed with USAID, the 
IP, and stakeholders to check their feasibility.
C. Reporting Phase, weeks 16- 24
8. CLA meetings for final report drafting, week 18: Three weeks after the debriefing meeting (by 
week 18), The contractor through the ET will make detailed presentations (Power point 
format) of the findings, conclusions and recommendations to USAID and the IP. These spaces 
will aim to present the collected evidence in depth and to receive feedback in order to 
strengthen the evaluation exercise within the framework of a collaborative scheme and active 
participation of the parties. USAID and the IP will submit comments on the presentations to 
the ET, within two weeks after CLA meetings. Recognizing that the review of the 
presentation by USAID and the IP may not agree with all comments, and to be sure that each 
and every comment is considered carefully by the ET, the Contractor will build a table that 
lists each comment, the response of the ET to the comment, and where the changes resulting 
from the comment – if any – will be found in the final report. This same cell will also indicate 
if no changes were made and why not.
9. Final Evaluation Report, weeks 20-22: Two weeks after receiving USAID’s comments, the ET 
will submit to USAID/Colombia the final report electronically; USAID/Colombia, including the 
317 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
aforementioned table to track comments. After the submission of the final report, USAID can 
still send comments that may entail final adjustments before approval and acceptance of the 
final report. These comments will be based on the criteria for ensuring the quality of the 
Evaluation as listed in the Section “Acceptance Criteria of this Evaluation”.
10. Dissemination, weeks 22-24: The ET is expected to present the findings and 
recommendations of the final. At least 2 (and no more than 4) final presentations may be 
required in person to discuss the summary of findings and recommendations with USAID, the 
Evaluation contractor and other key stakeholders identified by USAID. These presentations 
will be scheduled as agreed upon with USAID. Some of the presentations may be orally in 
English. 
FINAL REPORT
The evaluation final report should include an abstract of no more than 250 words in English and Spanish; 
an executive summary in English and Spanish; background of the local context and the 
strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation purpose and main evaluation questions; the 
methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations. For more detail, see “USAID How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” and 
ADS138 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. A suggested evaluation report template is 
available in the Evaluation Toolkit. 
The executive summary should be 2–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the 
project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations, and lessons learned (if applicable). 
The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail in annexes. l. Limitations to the 
evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the 
evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator 
groups, etc.)
The body of the report (apart from the abstract, the executive summary and the annexes) should be no 
more than 60 pages. All other detailed analysis or data must be included in annexes. 
The annexes to the report will include: 
• The most recent version of this Evaluation Statement of Work (SOW);
• All data collected, methodologies, and analytic tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as 
questionnaires, checklists, maps and GIS data, analytical outputs, technical procedures, etc;
• All sources of information properly cited and listed using a widely accepted standard format.
138 USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) or Operational Policy.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 318
• Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a 
lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts of interest.
• Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, 
implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team.
• Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role 
on the team.
In accordance with USAID ADS 201, the contractor will make the final evaluation report publicly 
available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) repository within one month of 
the approval of the final report by USAID; also, during that time, the Contractor will upload the datasets 
to the USAID Development Data Library (DDL) within the same period of time.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA OF THIS EVALUATION
The acceptance criteria or definition of “job done” of this evaluation is based on (a) the submission and 
receipt of all the deliverables in this Statement of Work; (b) each deliverable fulfills the terms to be 
accepted with minimum grade of “satisfactory”; and (c) the evaluation report meets each and every 
quality criteria established at the USAID ADS 201maa and the USAID Evaluation Policy with a 
minimum grade of “satisfactory”.
Pursuant to the ADS 201 (Part 201.3.5.17) the Office of Environment of USAID / Colombia will employ 
a peer technical committee to review and rate the draft reports and technical deliverables, as follows:
1. MEL specialist to the Office of Environment.
2. COR of the Activity Evaluated.
3. Technical member of any office within the USAID / Colombia; Technical Bureaus or the Regional 
Bureau. 
In order to rate other deliverables of this SOW such as meetings, procedures performed, etc by the ET, 
the contractor´s COR may serve as the third member of the committee.
Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final 
evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation 
report.139 
• Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to 
objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. 
• Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and 
succinctly. 
139 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the 
Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance
319 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
• The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of 
the most critical elements of the report.
• Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the 
evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with 
USAID. 
• Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. 
• Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention 
to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, 
unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).
• Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on 
anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. 
• Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or 
qualitative evidence.
• If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed 
for both males and females. 
• Recommendations included should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action￾oriented, practical, specific.
The evaluation criteria to rate the deliverables in this SOW will follow the same criteria defined in the 
FAR 42.1503 (Table 35 summarized below:
TABLE 35: EVALUATION CRITERIA
RATING REQUIREMENTS PROBLEMS CORRECTIVE 
ACTIONS
Exceptional Exceeds Many – Gov’t 
Benefit Few Minor Highly Effective
Very Good Exceeds Some - Gov’t 
Benefit Some Minor Effective
Satisfactory Meets All Some Minor Satisfactory
Marginal Does Not Meet Some – 
Gov’t Impact
Serious; Recovery Still 
Possible
Marginally Effective; Not 
Fully Implemented
Unsatisfactory Does Not Meet Most – 
Gov’t Impact
Serious; Recovery Not 
Likely Ineffective
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 320
OTHER PROVISIONS
OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT
The ET will report to USAID’s Evaluation Activity Manager, as named above, or subsequently delegated. 
The Evaluation Activity Manager will work in close collaboration with the COR of the Artisanal Mining 
Program, as named above.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
The Contractor will be responsible to ensure that the ET complies to the objectives of this 
evaluation, respond technically to the evaluation questions, and have evidence-supported and 
verifiable argumentation to present the findings, and elaborate the lessons learned, recommendations 
and conclusions.
Although the USAID Evaluation Policy140 embraces the principle of the “mutual accountability” with 
the stakeholders, the current evaluation is not meant to be an auditory of the implementation. The 
analyses, recommendations and conclusion must respond objectively to the questions laid out 
regarding the purpose of the evaluation, not to what ought to be respect to personal stands of the ET 
members. Every possible achievement and/or shortcoming of the implementation must be measured 
and documented and will respond to the best empirical evidence and most suitable objective analysis 
available.
MANAGEMENT OF SERIOUS REMARKS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Should any irregularity or serious remark arise, neither contractor will reach directly to the other to 
address the matter without the consent and/or presence of the other party´s Contracting Officer 
Representative (COR). The decorum, professionalism, excellent communication, and proactive 
attitude will be the governing principles for any dispute resolution.
If the Contractor through the ET discovers irregularities or has serious remarks about the 
performance of the implementation during the evaluation process, it will communicate in a separate 
summary written report those findings to its own COR, who will transmit it to the COR of the other 
Activity, before submitting those in any draft report and/or communication to the IP. Likewise, the 
same mechanism will be applied if the IP discovers irregularities or has serious remarks on any part of 
the evaluation developed by the Evaluation Contractor. The defendant will have the right to reply and 
will present its arguments and counter-evidence only to its respective COR in the first instance.
Given that USAID has established other mechanisms to assess the contractual performance of each 
contractor, the Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) and/or the Contracting Officers (COs) 
to both Oro Legal and to the Contractor´s Evaluation, will decide based on the evidence and 
allegations presented by both parties in which extent the irregularities or remarks pertain to the 
technical scope of the current evaluation or should be addressed by a different mechanism established 
by the USAID. The CORs of both contractors may arrange moderated meetings and other 
mechanisms to convene the contractors and other relevant parties to address the contentious 
matter(s). 
Each COR or CO will communicate in writing the decision of USAID and/or the technical guidance 
arrived at to each respective contractor to settle the matter(s).
140 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf
321 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
When applicable, the evaluation report will include “Statements of Differences” regarding any 
significant unresolved differences of opinion on the part of funders, implementers, and/or members of 
the evaluation team.
LOGISTICAL SUPPORT
The Evaluation Contractor is responsible for arranging all logistical support for the evaluation. 
However, given the difficulties of travel within project intervention sites, Oro Legal will be available to 
provide advice on security issues to the ET.
SECURITY
The evaluation contractor will be responsible for its own security coordinations as per stated in its 
contract and will follow the channels and procedures mandated or established by USAID/Colombia. As 
part of the overall security requirements, the Evaluation Contractor must report any security threats 
and/or incidents immediately to USAID/Colombia. All subcontractors will be required to report any 
threats or incidents to the prime Contractor, who will immediately after, notify the USAID/Colombia.
EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION
An experienced team performing the task must implement the field data collection. This work can be 
done through a subcontract and may need to be coordinated or supported by a survey team with 
proven successful experience.
The personnel that the Evaluation Contractor must furnish for the performance of this Evaluation are as 
follows and will constitute the ET:
a) Evaluation Team Leader
b) Evaluation Specialist
c) Mining Affairs Specialist
d) Environmental Specialist
e) Value Chain Specialist
f) Social Specialist
g) Quantitative Expert
h) Data Collection Firm
The following are the recommended responsibilities and qualifications the respective Evaluation Team 
members should have:
a) Evaluation Team Leader
Responsibilities: the Team Leader will have responsibility for all technical and operational development 
of the evaluation. S/he will be primarily responsible for maintaining the technical communication with 
USAID and the Implementing Partner, implementing the detailed methodology, managing and 
implementing the work plan and all the related evaluation team activities, and leading the writing of the 
main technical deliverables and technical communications. S/he will also be responsible for presenting 
findings during briefings, out-briefings, final presentations, and final report writing.
Required Qualifications: 
- Masters or other advanced degrees in any relevant related area to the evaluation.
- Strong analytical skills.
- Skills or knowledge on project administration, economics, and team management.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 322
- At least five (5) years of experience in managerial positions at international cooperation 
projects, field-based academic projects, and/or field-based public or private social investment 
projects. Minimum of three (3) years of that experience conducting or leading the evaluation of 
projects.
- Relevant subject matter expertise demonstrated by published evaluations, peer reviewed 
publications; and/or professional trajectory of at least five constant years (5) in the academy, 
environmental, economic, development or the extractive sector.
- Good knowledge of mining or extractive issues in Colombia, Latin America or the tropics; highly 
desirable to have knowledge regarding regulatory and environmental aspects of mining.
- Good knowledge of the rural societal and economic contexts in Colombia.
- Understanding of USAID or Public International Organizations.
- Excellent written and oral communication skills in English and Spanish.
b) Evaluation Specialist
Responsibilities: the Evaluation Specialist will lead the design and methodology, sampling, and will 
conduct or lead the technical analyses. S/he will lead the literature and desk reviews, will guide the 
collection of data, surveys and/or interviews; S/he will be responsible for the information management 
and record keeping, and will assist the Team Leader in the compilation and presentation of results, 
findings, recommendations, and lessons learned. 
Required Qualifications:
- Professional in social, natural, earth or data sciences.
- Masters or other advanced degrees in evaluation, economy, econometry, statistics, data 
sciences, business intelligence, or related area.
- Working knowledge in geographic information systems (GIS).
- At least five (5) years of proven experience in experimental design-testing, conducting and 
leading field-based evaluations of projects or public policy. in Two (2) of the five (5) years can be 
replaced by experience in monitoring and evaluation of development projects.
- Proven knowledge and experience in evaluation by mixed (qualitative and quantitative) methods, 
preferably in the context of rural development.
- Demonstrated capability in designing evaluation tools, conducting evaluation interviews, focus 
groups, managing and interpreting qualitative and quantitative data collection, analysis processes 
and utilizing secondary data.
- Experience working with survey statistics, integrating and analyzing different datasets, and 
conducting structured and non-structured interviews, and focus groups.
- Ability to manage logistics, including arranging key informant interviews and group 
interviews/focus groups, accommodations, and travel.
- Experience or knowledge in team management.
- Excellent oral and writing skills in Spanish and English.
c) Mining Affairs Specialist
Responsibilities: The Mining Affairs Specialist will serve on the evaluation team and will support the 
Team Leader with research, subject matter consultations, data collection, analysis, and subject writing.
Required Qualifications:
- Professional in engineering, natural or earth sciences.
- Graduated degree in mining, geology, industrial engineering, civil engineering, environmental 
engineering, production engineering, landscapes, industrial ecology or geography.
- Desirable working knowledge and skills in geographic information systems (GIS).
- At least six (6) years of experience in the mining sector of metals in Colombia.
323 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
- Good knowledge of mining or extractive issues in Colombia, Latin America or the tropics.
- Good knowledge of the regulatory and operational aspects of gold mining.
- Desirable working-level written and verbal communication skills in English and Spanish and 
ability to conduct interviews and focus groups in Spanish and provide presentations and 
documents in English.
d) Environmental Specialist
Responsibilities: the Environmental Specialist will serve on the evaluation team and will support the 
Team Leader with research, subject matter consultations, data collection, analysis, and subject writing.
Required Qualifications: 
- Professional in engineering, natural or earth sciences.
- Graduated degrees in environmental sciences, geography, environmental engineering, 
landscapes, industrial ecology, forestry, resources management, or related areas.
- Desirable working knowledge and skills in geographic information systems (GIS).
- At least six (6) years of experience working in Colombia on environment issues.
- Relevant expertise and experience conducting program evaluation or similar research and 
analytical work.
- Strong knowledge regarding environmental issues as related to mining, forestry, land 
reclamation, resources management, environmental toxicology, landscape ecology, 
environmental biology and/or conservation. 
- Good knowledge of the regulatory and environmental aspects of mining or gold mining.
- Working-level written and verbal communication skills in English and Spanish and ability to 
conduct interviews and focus groups in Spanish and provide presentations and documents in 
English. 
e) Value Chain Specialist
Responsibilities: the Value Chain Specialist will serve on the evaluation team and will support the Team 
Leader with research, subject matter consultations, data collection, analysis, and subject writing.
Required Qualifications: 
- Professional in engineering, social, natural or earth sciences.
- Graduated degree in economy, business, social projects, production, agronomy, agroecology, 
agriculture, development, industrial ecology, environmental engineering or related areas.
- At least six (6) years of experience working in Colombia on agricultural value chain issues.
- Relevant expertise and experience conducting program evaluation or similar research and 
analytical work.
- Strong knowledge regarding value chains development and commercialization in rural Colombia.
- Working-level written and verbal communication skills in English and Spanish and ability to 
conduct interviews and focus groups in Spanish and provide presentations and documents in 
English. 
f) Social Specialist
Responsibilities: the Social Specialist will serve on the evaluation team and will support the Team Leader 
with research, subject matter consultations, data collection, analysis, and subject writing.
Required Qualifications: 
- Professional in social sciences.
- Graduated degree in anthropology, economy, development studies, gender or ethnic studies, 
cultural studies, governance, sociology or related areas.
- At least five (5) years of experience working or researching in Colombia on rural social or 
development issues.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 324
- Relevant expertise and experience conducting program evaluation or similar research and 
analytical work.
- Strong knowledge regarding culture of unlawfulness/illicit economies, extractive industries, 
socio-economic issues, or rural development in Colombia.
- Strong background and training in mixed methods research.
- Experience and knowledge of qualitative data analysis and qualitative data management 
techniques using NVivo.
- Working-level written and verbal communication skills in English and Spanish and ability to 
conduct interviews and focus groups in Spanish and provide presentations and documents in 
English. 
g) Quantitative Expert
Responsibilities: The Quantitative Expert will serve on the evaluation team and will support the Team 
Leader with quantitative methodology for the Work plan drafting including sampling methodology, 
design instruments for quantitative data collection, analysis, and drafting of quantitative final report
Required Qualifications: 
- Professional in economics, statistics, social sciences and related fields.
- Graduated degree in economics, statistics and related fields.
- A minimum of seven years (7) of experience conducting quantitative research.
- Proven experience in conducting high quality quantitative analysis.
- Education in specific subject area, with country experience would be helpful.
- Strong background and training in mixed methods research.
- Experience and knowledge of data analysis and data management techniques.
- Working-level written and verbal communication skills in English and Spanish
h) Data Collection Firm
The Data Collection Firm will perform the data collection following the technical direction of the 
Contractor based on the requirements of this SOW and the needs identified during the design and 
planning phases.
Required Qualifications:
- Proven experience in household level surveys in conflict areas of Colombia.
This team may also be supported by assistants with at least three (3) years of experience in its 
respective field.
a) All the members of the ET are considered essential to the work being performed under this SOW. 
The Evaluation Contractor will get personnel for the ET with a dedication of at least 50% for the term 
of this SOW unless otherwise approved by USAID. Each ET person will be under the direct 
supervision of the prime Contractor (not under a subcontractor), unless otherwise approved by 
USAID.
b) Failure to provide ET personnel may be considered non-performance unless such failure is beyond the 
control of the Evaluation Contractor. All individuals listed as ET Personnel must reside in Colombia for 
the duration of the SOW.
c) The Contractor must immediately notify USAID / Colombia of any ET personnel’s departure and the 
reasons therefore. The Contractor must promptly propose a replacement for each vacated position. 
The proposed replacement should possess the qualifications listed above for the corresponding 
325 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
personnel. The Contractor must not replace any of the ET Personnel without the prior written 
approval of USAID / Colombia.
d) ET members should not have any past or current business relationships with the USAID Oro Legal 
Activity or the USAID BioREDD+ project / Mining component. The proposed personnel should sign an 
Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) letter submitted as an annex within the Work Plan.
e) The team members should not have any known adverse remarks concerning past performance or 
communication in Activities or projects funded by USAID.
f) USAID / Colombia reserves the right to vet the ET personnel proposed by the Contractor as well as 
to adjust the number of the ET Personnel during the performance of this SOW.
MODIFICATIONS TO THIS SOW
All modifications to the required elements of this SOW in technical requirements, evaluation questions, 
evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline, or deliverables, must be agreed upon in writing 
by the Contractor´s COR and by USAID/Colombia. Any revisions should be updated in the SOW that 
will be included as an annex to the final evaluation report. 
THE ARTISANAL GOLD MINING (ORO LEGAL) GEOGRAPHY BY DEPARTMENT AND 
MUNICIPALITY
Department of Antioquia
1. Barbosa
2. Buriticá
3. Cáceres
4. Caucasia
5. Don Matias
6. El Bagre 
7. Nechí
8. Remedios
9. San Roque
10. Segovia
11. Tarazá
12. Zaragoza
 
Department of Choco
1. Atrato (Yuto)
2. Cértegui 
3. Condoto
4. El Cantón San Pablo
5. Istmina 
6. Nóvita 
7. Quibdó 
8. Rio Quito,
9. Tadó
10. Unión Panamericana
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 326
Exhibit 73: GIS Representation of the The Artisanal Gold Mining (Oro Legal) Geography
327 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
ANNEX VIII: SUMMARY INFORAMTION ABOUT EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERSBERS
TABLE 36: EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS
POSITION NAME PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
Evaluation Team 
Leader
Manuel Castro MA in Public Policy and Public Administration, BA in economics, BA in political science. Experience as 
government executive, multilateral agency official, publicsector specialist, international consultant, 
evaluation director and university teacher in public policy and public administration with emphasis in 
public sector reform, territorial investment and capacity strengthening policies, public investment, and 
results-based management. Expert in the design and implementation of territorial development policies 
and tools, planning, implementation capacity, monitoring and evaluation systems linked to the budget 
process. Specialist in the design and implementation of results-based budgeting reforms aimed at 
improving quality of service delivery and public expenditure. Support in implementing and advising such 
reforms nationally and sub nationally in a range of countries, including in Latin America (Mexico, 
Colombia, Uruguay, Panama, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Honduras, Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica), Asia 
(China, Indonesia, Filipinas), and Africa (South Africa, Mauritius, Seychelle Islands).
Evaluation 
Specialist
Mauricio 
Aguilar
Economist and Master in Economics from the National University of Colombia and Master in Evidence￾Based Social Intervention and Policy Evaluation from the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. 
He has more than six (6) years of experience in the application of statistical research methodologies. He 
has a history of 15 years in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of public policies, 
where his work stands out in different entities such as the DNP, the ministry of health and social 
protection, social prosperity, USAID, IOM, UNHCR, FINDETER, IDB, the development research center 
(CID) of the national university of Colombia, holding positions of project director, advisor on evaluation 
issues, quantitative expert, among others. Additionally, he has been a postgraduate professor at the 
Universidad de Atlántico de Barranquilla, the Higher School of Public Administration (ESAP), as well as 
an undergraduate professor at the Universidad de los Andes and the Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Mining Affairs 
Specialist
Jairo Herrera Geologist engineer and master in resource management from Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 
specialist in mining and energy law from Universidad Externado de Colombia. 20 years of integrated 
experience in mining sector planning, mining exploration (coal, gold, barite and emerald), environmental, 
hydrology, hydraulics and fluvial geomorphology. Director of Mines of the National Mine Planning Agency 
(UPME) for three years; exploration manager for Zamin Group (2 years) and Trident Gold (1 year). 
Geologist consultant for companies as Volador, Carbones del Cerrejón, Canacol Energy, RCS, Austmine, 
Sikuri Mining, San Pancrecio Mining, Co-author in investigations for national authorities: National Mining 
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 328
TABLE 36: EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS
POSITION NAME PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
Development Plan (2006-2010, View to 2019 and 2011-2014), Mercury chain in Colombia with emphasis 
in gold mining, Plan for climate change in the mining and energy sector of Colombia, Effects caused by 
gold and coal mining on the availability of water resources.
Environmental 
Specialist
María Andrea 
Rueda
Biologist from Universidad Javeriana, with a master's degree in environmental law from Universidad 
Externado de Colombia. 12 years of experience in the environmental sector, working mainly in central 
government institutions. Leader in evaluations of environmental interventions within the DNP, mining 
planning and environmental licensing process, additionally with experience in the formulation of policies 
for biodiversity conservation, sustainable forests and climate change. Principal investigator of different 
international environmental agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement 
and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Experience in promoting sustainable development in rural 
communities, with emphasis on forest management.
Value Chain 
Specialist
Luis Fernando 
Monroy
Industrial Engineer (Universidad Javeriana 1991) and MBA (Universidad de los Andes 1998). Experience 
as specialist for more than 12 years in design, implementation and monitoring of rural development 
projects in Colombia aimed at socio-business, financial and commercial strengthening of rural productive 
organizations focused on improving competitiveness, promoting sustainable development and social 
inclusion. This expertise has been developed with public institutions such as the productive alliances 
program of the ministry of agriculture, with the commercialization direction of rural development agency 
(ADR) and the productive projects program of land restitution unit (URT), as well as with the NGO PBA 
applying the rural participative innovation methodology and as consultant of Cadena de Valor, a rural 
development advisory firm.
Quantitative 
Expert 
Oscar Quiroz Bachelor of Economics (Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2009), Specialization of Statistics 
(Universidad Nacional, 2012) and MSc of Economics (Universidad de los Andes, 2018). Currently he has 
10 years of work experience related with economic research, quantitative and qualitative analysis. From 
2010 to 2011 he worked in market research firms such as IPSOS and YANHAAS leading quantitative 
research and samples designs. From 2011 to 2013 he worked in the Chamber of Colombian 
Construction – CAMACOL in the economic research team. In 2014 he joined the public sector in the 
Institute of Urban Development of Bogotá. From 2015 to 2018 he worked at the National Planning 
Department of Colombia advising the Territorial Affairs Office, Sustainable Rural Development Office 
and Territorial and Public Investment Sub-Directorate. In 2019 he returned to the Chamber of 
329 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
TABLE 36: EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS
POSITION NAME PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
Colombian Construction as Chief Economist and led a group of economists to do macroeconomic and 
sectoral research. In the most recent years, he worked as a consultant at UNDP managing and leading 
the design of a Governance Index for Colombian municipalities 
Social Specialist Juliana Moreno Bachelor of Economics (Universidad de los Andes Colombia, 2011) and MA in Critical and Creative 
Analysis (Goldsmiths, University of London, 2019). Over nine years of work experience as a public policy 
advisor in social security and poverty alleviation programs within the Colombian National Government. 
Experience in the implementation of policies targeted towards marginalized populations such as victims 
of internal forced displacement, children, indigenous and black people, youth, woman and LGBTQ. 
Involved in the roles of design, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of social strategies, 
including the leading supervision role in the impact evaluation of "Youth in Action" (Jóvenes en Acción),
the second-largest conditional cash transfer program in Colombia, during 2017.
Qualitative 
Specialist 
Camila 
Chavarría
Economist from Jorge Tadeo Lozano University and current student in the master program in social and 
cultural studies at El Bosque University. More than 5 years of experience as a research assistant and 
consultant in projects with qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods for private and state-owned 
organizations, including evaluating programs and public policies. Skilled in research, communitarian work, 
leadership ability, design and application of information collection instruments, including surveys, 
interviews, focus groups, ethnographies and case studies, also processing and analysis of large volumes of 
information through software such as AtlasTI, NVivo, Stata, SPSS and Tableau.
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 330
ANNEX IX: SIGNED DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
FROM EVALUATIONTEAM MEMBERS
331 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 332
333 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 334
335 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 336
337 | ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES USAID.GOV
USAID.GOV ORO LEGAL EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ANNEXES | 338