Download Free Impact Assessment Of The Ifpri Agricultural Science And Technology Indicators Asti Project Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Impact Assessment Of The Ifpri Agricultural Science And Technology Indicators Asti Project and write the review.

Well-funded and well-staffed agricultural research systems with efficient allocation of research resources are important for improving agricultural productivity and for meeting other agricultural development goals. Assessing research system funding adequacy and staffing, as compared to alternative investments, and allocating research resources within systems require data on agricultural research investments. The Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) initiative at IFPRI is the most comprehensive source of agricultural research statistics for low- and middle-income countries. Since 2001, building on an earlier International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) effort, ASTI has developed a network of institutional collaborators at national and regional levels who assist in implementing surveys to collect agricultural research investment data in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. ASTI compiles, processes, and publicizes the data at national, regional, and global levels. It has published a broad set of country briefs, notes, and regional synthesis reports that have been cited in national and international policy documents. The primary outputs from ASTI are the country data sets, which are now published on the website, http://www.asti.cgiar.org/. Data are published for 32 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, 15 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, 5 countries in South Asia, 7 countries in East and Southeast Asia, 5 countries in the Middle East and North Africa, and 1 country in the Pacific. The ASTI website’s Data Tool aids in accessing the data. The website’s readers can click on a world map to find for individual countries’ data on five types of research expenditure variables (in US$ and PPPs), five types of research staff variables, and five research share variables. Readers can then plot variables against each other in a graph or export and download data in Excel files. Data can also be uploaded using a survey form available in three languages. Since 2004, ASTI has produced 91 country-level publications: 50 country briefs, notes, and reports and 16 fact sheets on gender-disaggregated capacity indicators for Sub-Saharan Africa; 13 briefs and reports for the Asia-Pacific region, 5 for the Middle East and North Africa, and 7 for Latin America and the Caribbean. ASTI researchers themselves have conducted relatively few in-depth analyses using the data, but they have teamed with other researchers on papers and presentations and other researchers have made significant use of ASTI data.
Despite Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators’ (ASTI) global and regional visibility-and the use of its data for institutional decision-making by various national agricultural research institutes-the incorporation of ASTI evidence into national policymaking remains mostly ad hoc and is often indirect. Moreover, interventions to influence the uptake of ASTI data for this purpose have been limited. Given agricultural research’s important role in increasing agricultural productivity, economic growth, and poverty reduction, ASTI initiated a pilot study in three African countries (Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania) to develop a clearer understanding of how to promote the uptake of agricultural research evidence. The study focused on how evidence in general, and ASTI evidence in particular, could be more effectively integrated at the national level, particularly to promote the allocation of sustainable resources to agricultural research. The study was conducted in two stages: (1) the mapping of each country’s agricultural research interests and issues; and (2) identifying initial activities through which those interests offered opportunities both to fill research gaps and enhance the utility of agricultural research. Findings from the pilot studies point to opportunities for improving the availability, accessibility, appropriateness, and ownership of ASTI evidence to ensure that it contributes more effectively as a valuable resource for decision-making. Strong relationships and networks are needed to increase awareness of ASTI evidence and to institute linkages with official national data systems. Outcomes indicated both interest in the evidence and recognition of its merit. Greater outreach and connectivity with local institutions may be useful next steps. These findings lead to some general recommendations for improving the use of evidence, along with specific recommendations for the ASTI network approach moving forward. Shifting ownership of the data and systems to the regional and national levels-a key objective of the network approach-is a long-term undertaking. A transition period is needed, accompanied by a strategic plan to shift responsibility and action, first to the regional level and then to the national level where feasible.
Marking IFPRI’s 40th year, this report draws on external sources of evidence to review the Institute’s policy influence and impact to date and provides recommendations to improve. The external evidence includes citations data, external program and management reviews commissioned by CGIAR, and a series of independently conducted impact assessment studies of many of IFPRI’s research programs and projects between 1995 and 2015. The report also reviews recommendations as to how IFPRI might improve its impact.
Many development programs that aim to alleviate poverty and improve investments in human capital consider women’s empowerment a key pathway by which to achieve impact and often target women as their main beneficiaries. Despite this, women’s empowerment dimensions are often not rigorously measured and are at times merely assumed. This paper starts by reflecting on the concept and measurement of women’s empowerment and then reviews some of the structural interventions that aim to influence underlying gender norms in society and eradicate gender discrimination. It then proceeds to review the evidence of the impact of three types of interventions—cash transfer programs, agricultural interventions, and microfinance programs—on women’s empowerment, nutrition, or both. Qualitative evidence on conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs generally points to positive impacts on women’s empowerment, although quantitative research findings are more heterogenous. CCT programs produce mixed results on long-term nutritional status, and very limited evidence exists of their impacts on micronutrient status. The little evidence available on unconditional cash transters (UCT) indicates mixed impacts on women’s empowerment and positive impacts on nutrition; however, recent reviews comparing CCT and UCT programs have found little difference in terms of their effects on stunting and they have found that conditionality is less important than other factors, such as access to healthcare and child age and sex. Evidence of cash transfer program impacts depending on the gender of the transfer recipient or on the conditionality is also mixed, although CCTs with non-health conditionalities seem to have negative impacts on nutritional status. The impacts of programs based on the gender of the transfer recipient show mixed results, but almost no experimental evidence exists of testing gender-differentiated impacts of a single program. Agricultural interventions—specifically home gardening and dairy projects—show mixed impacts on women’s empowerment measures such as time, workload, and control over income; but they demonstrate very little impact on nutrition. Implementation modalities are shown to determine differential impacts in terms of empowerment and nutrition outcomes. With regard to the impact of microfinance on women’s empowerment, evidence is also mixed, although more recent reviews do not find any impact on women’s empowerment. The impact of microfinance on nutritional status is mixed, with no evidence of impact on micronutrient status. Across all three types of programs (cash transfer programs, agricultural interventions, and microfinance programs), very little evidence exists on pathways of impact, and evidence is often biased toward a particular region. The paper ends with a discussion of the findings and remaining evidence gaps and an outline of recommendations for research.
The Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) scheme aims to provide income support to farmers to facilitate timely access to inputs by easing their liquidity needs. This study, based on 1,406 farmers of Uttar Pradesh and using a binary choice model, examines the scheme’s targeting accuracy and the correlates of farmers’ spending patterns. Triple difference with matching estimators are used to identify the differential impact of PM-KISAN on Krishi Vigyan Kendras (farm science centers, or KVKs) beneficiaries. Results show that PM-KISAN reached to one-third of all the farmers in the first three months of its implementation. Moreover, the study finds no selection bias based on social, economic and agricultural characteristics. The scheme has significantly helped those who are relatively more dependent on agriculture and have poor access to credit. Moreover, scheme has significantly stimulated the KVK ’s impact on the adoption of modern cultivars.
There is a low number of studies on the impact of policy oriented research (PORIA) and an even lower number of those that undertake a quantitative assessment of impacts. In comparison, there are numerous quantitative impact assessment studies of technology research, thus creating an imbalance of evidence for decisionmakers interested in investing in agricultural research. There are many reasons for this, but one has been the challenges in PORIA, notably in methods to assess attribution of policy outcomes to research and the measurement of impacts of policy outcomes. To respond to this, a workshop was convened from November 12-14, 2014 at IFPRI headquarters in Washington, DC. It was cosponsored by IFPRI; the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM); and the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the CGIAR’s Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC).
Strengthening national capacities for undertaking, communicating, and using evidence-based food policy analysis has long been one of the International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI’s) major objectives. To that end, IFPRI has engaged in different kinds of capacity strengthening that include formal training, (policy) networks, country strategic policy support, research collaboration with individuals and organizations, institutional development, support to university degree programs, visiting fellows, and training of postdoctoral fellows.
The performance of the International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI’s) research program that focuses on water resource issues is reviewed for the period 1994–2010 around the three themes that constitute the program: global modeling, river basin modeling, and institutions. The IFPRI water team has been involved in leading-edge research in a number of dimensions: it has focused on analysis at varying geographic scales; the work has been truly interdisciplinary by engaging economics with biophysical science and other social sciences; and research outputs have been innovative in advancing institutional analysis and water pricing and in policy measures addressing the complexities of water supply management. In the research tasks, IFPRI’s water team actively collaborated with a wide range of researchers from within the CGIAR network, national research institutes, and universities. Within the team, a largely stable group of leaders has been responsible for the professional development of a substantial cohort of junior staff who have moved onto successful careers elsewhere. The output of the program has been prolific and prominent in academic, policy, and development communities. The approach taken is to review selected publications from the themes; assess the quality of the journals in which papers have been published; and evaluate the performance, on average, of researchers in the program. In addition, surveys of stakeholders were carried out, and three specific projects were subjected to detailed review. The assessment demonstrated the high regard in which the program research outputs and researchers are held. The IFPRI water team has been remarkably productive throughout the 16 years considered, working on issues that are of high relevance to policy and producing work that has largely been cutting edge. However, impacts generated by individual projects were not consistently or readily identifiable. To maximize the benefits of this performance and to overcome challenges associated with securing more outcomes, this report recommends that a more coordinated approach be taken to develop the research project portfolio. This would involve better targeting of projects to policy objectives through a more systematic review of research demand forces and improved integration of research work with policy development processes. The latter in particular requires the development of a sense of research project “ownership” within the policy circles the research is designed to influence. More effort in the development of in-country research partnerships can aid this process as local researchers can act as “champions” within local policy circles. Where government agencies have a research function, their integration into the partnerships is recommended. Avoidance of completing research projects in a “policy vacuum” is critical but requires both advanced planning of each research project as well as constant adaptation of the work plan to (often rapidly) evolving policy contexts. To achieve project impacts beyond the immediacy of the specific case study context, a more targeted and coordinated publication strategy should be developed in light of changing publication technology. Project webpages within the IFPRI website, with readily downloadable reports, are useful during the implementation of each project and more formal papers should be targeted for publication in high-impact factor technical journals with parallel papers prepared for more policy-oriented journals that have high circulations.
The Innovation for Agribusiness (InovAgro) project, which launched with its first three year phase in 2010, uses a market system development (MSD) approach towards the goal of increasing incomes of men and women small-scale farmers in northern Mozambique. InovAgro interventions promote improved agricultural productivity, participation in selected high-potential value chains and the development of inclusive and sustainable market systems, such that impacts are expected to last long beyond the termination of the project. This paper presents results from a midline quantitative impact evaluation of the second phase of the InovAgro project interventions (2014-2017). In it, we use a carefully designed and executed quasi-experimental study design to credibly attribute changes in market engagement and welfare of participating farmers to exposure to the InovAgro II project, identifying and testing in what respects the intervention was most successful, and what regard it had less impact. Although InovAgro II projects operate in 11 districts of Zambézia and Cabo Delgado provinces, this impact evaluation focuses on two districts in Zambézia province (Alto Molócue and Molumbo), and in terms of value chains, focuses on the soybean and pigeon pea high-potential value chains, while the InovAgro II project interventions focus on these in addition to maize, sesame and groundnut. A baseline survey was undertaken in 2015 covering the 2014/2015 agricultural season and a midline follow-up survey was conducted in 2017, covering the 2016/2017 agricultural season and reaching 1,749 households of the original 1,886 households interviewed in the baseline survey. Using difference-in-difference estimation and propensity score matching, we find that exposure to the InovAgro II project is associated with an increase in the proportion of households selling soybean and pigeon pea by approximately 5% and 16%, respectively (significant at the .01 level). Exposure to the InovAgro II project also results in significantly higher shares of smallholder farmers using improved seed for soybean and pigeon pea (an increase of 6% for soybean and 2% for pigeon pea). We find that the InovAgro II project is also associated with significant increases in access to agricultural output market information from formal sources (5%) and hired labor for farming activities (8%). Despite the significant impacts on short term outcome variables, exposure to the InovAgro II project had limited impact on long term outcome variables, such as on rural-urban migration as well as engagement in the non-farm sector (two proxies for assessing potential welfare implications of the project) however this finding is not surprising given the impact evaluation covers only two years-a short period of time to bring about the long-term impacts expected to eventually emanate from an MSD project.