National fsa training Module 18: Impact assessment studies


C = the percentage farmers who use the technology on at least part of their land



Download 236.26 Kb.
Page3/6
Date02.02.2017
Size236.26 Kb.
#15461
1   2   3   4   5   6

C = the percentage farmers who use the technology on at least part of their land


A = for the farmers who use the technology, the percentage of the new technology as compared to the total area planted with crop
Example of the Index of Acceptability
150 farmers participated in trial, after one year 65 are using the technology on part of they land e.g. C = 65 : 150 being 43 percent. The area planted with the new technology by the 65 farmers was on average 4.3 hectares while these farmers had on average 6.1 hectares under the crop e.g. A = 4.3 : 6.1 being 70 percent. The index is (43 x 70) : 100 = 30.1 As a rule of thumb a technology, a technology has a good chance to be adopted if the index is more than 25 and C is equal or higher than 50 percent.
Rapid Technology Assessment

The primary goal of a Rapid Technology Assessment (RTA) is to make a rapid evaluation of the technical impact of the innovation on the society where it is introduced including its impact on the environment. For the specific recommendation domains, the focus of the RTA is mainly on the following two topics:


Suitability of the innovation to tackle the problem

For the recommendation domains, the following issues should be covered:



  1. Is the innovation technically performing as expected during recommendation?

  2. Which are constraints in its technical design?

  3. How does it technically perform compared to alternatives?


Suitability of the innovation compared to resources available

For the recommendation domains, the following issues should be covered:



  1. Is the innovation sufficiently adapted to the technical capabilities and skills of the farmers?

  2. Is the innovation sufficiently adapted to the technical capabilities of the land and crops?

  3. Does the innovation in practise create any ecological or environmental hazards?



Household Income & Expenditure Survey

Evaluation of the socio-economic position of farmers and households in the recommendation domains is required to evaluate to what extend the target group can afford to invest in the innovation. In addition, this may reveal the opportunities for risk management. It may show if, how much and in which period of the year target groups can afford to take the additional risk involved in the application of an innovation within their farming systems. The Household Income & Expenditure Survey (HIES) in designed to collect information on household budgets from a number of farming households belonging to specific recommendation domains. The participating farmers are expected to register the income and expenditure of their households on a day to-day basis over a longer time period. In addition, these farmers should allow registration of their household composition as well as their properties (buildings, land, cattle, crops, and capital goods). As this tool is demanding for the participating households it applied only to those farmer groups most committed (farmers which are part of the FRGs). In order to maintain their commitment regular feedback on the collected results has to be provided to participating farmers. Subsequently, it should be checked regularly to what extend the participating households are and remain representative for the recommendation domains of various innovations. This can be done by comparing the operational definitions of the recommendation domains with the characteristics of the households participating in the HIES.

Rapid Availability Assessment

The rapid Availability Assessment (RAA) intends to make a rapid analysis of the supply structure of the innovation. The following issues are covered:

  1. Locally available amount of the innovation including seasonal variations;

  2. Price structure of the locally available amount of the innovation;

  3. Agents capable and/or involved of supplying the innovation;

  4. Bottlenecks in the supply structure of the innovation;

  5. Maintenance and repair structure for innovations;

  6. Farmer’s awareness concerning the supply structures.

A recommended tool is sub-sector mapping. This is a schematic map of all public and private sector enterprises engaged in the production and distribution of a product (in this case the innovation) as well as the relationships between them.



Figure 18.1 Example of sub-sector map: cotton-seed

T

Local seed producers


he map describes the network of

enterprises as the product moves

-
Importers
from producers (input suppliers or

producer of the innovation such as a

seed company or a producer of an


Ginneries/Wholesalers


agricultural tool)

- via intermediates (importers and/or



wholesalers and/or small traders)

- to users (farmers).


Small traders

T
Shops


he map may also indicate the relative

importance of a certain channel

compared to others in order to identify

d
Farmers


ominant channels.


Partial budgets, marginal and minimum rate of return

The recommended tools to assess the attractiveness of the innovation compared to alternatives are the Partial Budgets and the Marginal and Minimum Rate of Return.


The Partial Budget shows the net effect of the innovation on the budget of the farmer. It reveals the change in the profitability of his/her farm due to the innovation. The Partial Budget incorporates only the cost and benefit that altered as a consequence of the innovation. The evaluation can judge if the total gain exceeded the total loss. The Partial Budget is an efficient tool to evaluate the innovation on its competitive strength. Apart from the monetary extra return it can also reveal the non-monetary extra return. For instance the return to labour. However a higher Net Benefit (the balance of the Partial Budget) of the innovation than of alternatives does not automatically mean that the innovation is more efficient generator of return on investment.
Calculation of the Marginal Rate of Return will show how much extra units of costs are required for the innovation to generate the extra unit of benefit. The Marginal Rate of Return is the change in Net Benefits (Marginal Net Benefit) of the innovation compared to alternatives divided by the change in the Cost that Vary (Marginal Cost). Consequently, it evaluates the return of one extra unit of capital or labour of the innovation compared to alternatives. What have farmers gained on average in return for their investment when they decided to use the innovation instead of one of its alternatives? As mentioned above for totally new innovations, the Net Benefit from the innovation should be high in order to make it worthwhile for a farmer to switch. If the innovation required the learning of new skills, the evaluation must reveal an obtained Minimum Rate of Return of about 100 percent. But even if the innovation required no or limited learning, the Minimum Rate of Return still had to be about 50 percent.
18.6. Specific and integrated impact assessments
The analysis of impact provides a measure of the contribution of research to broader development goals, such as increased production levels, improved food security, farmer empowerment, higher export earnings, more equity, less pollution or whatever the development objective may be. However, target groups must adopt a technology before they can see any impact. The term impact in the context of agricultural technology development and dissemination generally refers to direct production impact and their economic effects. Other types of impact like change in attitudes and behaviour, effects on different social groups, effects on the environment and the institutional environment receive less attention.

Type of impact

Indicators


Production impact

This could be positive or negative. It is indicated by acreage, yield, productivity gains or losses.

Economic impact

Comparison of benefits and costs with focus on income, rate of return, risk reduction, number and type of jobs created, distribution of benefits (by social group), changes in labour allocation, nutritional implications.

Social/Cultural impact

Could be positive or negative. Level of social organisation and cohesion, changes in status of women, changes in the knowledge and skills of people.

Environmental impact

Air and water pollution, soil erosion and sedimentation, contamination of soil and water by agro-chemicals, effects on the long-term functioning of the biosphere, potential climate change and effects on biodiversity.

Institutional impact

Changes in intermediate organisational structure, of methods and plans, changes in the proportion of funds allocated to research and extension, changes in the mix of public and private sector participation, improvements in interdisciplinary collaboration.


Download 236.26 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page