Ex Post Evaluation Study Of Ifpri S Research On High Value Agriculture 1994 2010

This paper reports on an ex-post assessment of IFPRI’s research on High-Value Agriculture (HVA) over 1994–2010. HVA is defined to include perishable agricultural commodities produced for the market that yield high returns to land, labor, or both. IFPRI’s research on HVA has been housed mainly in GRP27 (Participation in high value agricultural markets). Questions for the study included whether IFPRI had the right research strategy for this topic; was focused on the right issues; was a leader in the field; used the most relevant approaches and methods; and was successful in sensitizing/influ-encing the policies of governments, agribusiness, academia, civil society, and the international donor community. Finally, what has been the impact of the HVA policies that IFPRI influenced?

This study uses country-level panel data on 57 countries in Africa and Asia from 1981 to 2014 to assess the relationships between IFPRI’s in-country presence (as measured by staff present) and various policy and outcome indicators in those countries. An econometric model with country fixed-effects, year fixed-effects, and country-specific time trends is used, controlling for several factors deemed to affect the different policy and outcome indicators such as the country’s research capacity, production environment and resources, political economy and institutions, and complementary investments.

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.

In 2015, IFPRI commemorated its 40th anniversary. For the past four decades, the Institute has worked tirelessly to provide research-based policy solutions to bring an end to hunger and malnutrition. The impact of IFPRI’s research travels far beyond its walls. This past year witnessed substantial gains in food and nutrition security on the global stage, and IFPRI was proud to contribute to these shared global achievements.

IFPRI’s Poverty, Health, and Nutrition Division (PHND) and the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) have conducted research since 2003 on the critical links between nutrition, health, and agriculture. This evaluation considers the impact of the work carried out through 2016, looking at the research strategy, engagement, capacity building, and impact on programs and policies and global dialogue. Findings suggest that the Diet Quality and Health of the Poor program has been successful in developing and sharing valuable research, knowledge, and data, and has brought new issues and approaches to partners and stakeholders. Through a range of projects, the program has effectively engaged with stakeholders, partners, and governments to support capacity enhancement and to help shape national interventions to improve nutrition.

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.

Methods and practice for the impact evaluation of policy-oriented research (POR) lag behind many other research sectors, such as agricultural technology research, making it difficult to prioritize investments in POR and retarding institutional learning about how to make POR more effective. To address these issues within the context of the CGIAR, a workshop on “Best Practice Methods for Assessing the Impact of Policy-Oriented Research” was cosponsored by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), and the Standing Panel for Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the CGIAR’s Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC), and held at IFPRI headquarters in Washington, DC, November 11–12, 2014. This paper provides a summary of the workshop discussions and draws on this, together with findings from the literature, to derive guidelines for assessing policy-oriented research in the CGIAR.