• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Agricultural research and...
 Impact evaluations of projects...
 Findings of the impact evaluat...
 For further discussion
 Literature cited
 Annex A: Impact evaluation team...
 Annex B: Agricultural research...
 Annex C: Executive summaries of...






Group Title: Agricultural research and development : : the findings of eight impact evaluations : a background paper prepared for the Workshop on Impact of Agricultural Research, Leesburg, Virginia, June 14-17, 1982
Title: Agricultural research and development
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071934/00001
 Material Information
Title: Agricultural research and development the findings of eight impact evaluations : a background paper prepared for the Workshop on Impact of Agricultural Research, Leesburg, Virginia, June 14-17, 1982
Physical Description: 20, 18 p. : ; 29 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Murphy, Josette
United States -- Agency for International Development. -- Office of Evaluation
Conference: Workshop on Impact of Agricultural Research, (1982
Publisher: Office of Evaluation, Bureau for Policy and Program Coodination, U.S. Agency for International Development
Place of Publication: Leesburg?
Publication Date: 1982?
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Research   ( lcsh )
Agricultural development projects   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Developing countries   ( lcsh )
Genre: federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: Josette Murphy.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00071934
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 21700803

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Acknowledgement
        Acknowledgement
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Why evaluate AID-Sponsored agricultural research
            Page 1
        Purpose of this paper
            Page 1
    Agricultural research and development
        Page 2
        The problem
            Page 2
        AID's experience in agricultural research
            Page 3
            Page 3a
            Page 3b
            Page 4
            Page 4a
    Impact evaluations of projects in agricultural research
        Page 5
        Scope of the impact evaluation serious
            Page 5
        Characteristics of the projects evaluated
            Page 6
    Findings of the impact evaluations
        Page 6
        Policy and macro-economic environment
            Page 6
            Page 6a
            Host government committment to research
                Page 7
            Macro-level constraints to the use of improved technology
                Page 7
        Institution building and training
            Page 8
            Affiliation of the research institute
                Page 8
            Training agricultural researchers
                Page 9
        Technology generation and transfer
            Page 9
            Planning a research program
                Page 9
            Adaptation of research to farmers' conditions
                Page 10
                Page 11
            Dissemination of research results to the farmers
                Page 12
        Impact on farming households
            Page 12
            Agronomic impact
                Page 13
            Socio-economic impacts
                Page 13
    For further discussion
        Page 14
        Policy and macro-economic constraints
            Page 15
        Strengthening the scientific research capacity of a host country
            Page 16
        Adaptation of a research program to actual farming conditions
            Page 16
        A word of caution
            Page 17
            Page 18
    Literature cited
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Annex A: Impact evaluation team members
        Page A 1
        Page A 2
        Page A 3
    Annex B: Agricultural research documents published under the AID impact evaluation series
        Page B 1
    Annex C: Executive summaries of impact evaluation reports
        Page C
        Page C 1
        Page C 2
Full Text






..i..... .
S^.... s -" ": '..'."** -' *- ".. : ' . "
..... .
:,,- .Background paper : '
'. Workshop on the Impact of Agricultural Research .
.: Leesburg, Virgnia : ."
S'"' July 14-17, 1982 : : : -' '. ''. ." "



Agricultural search -,

lind Deel pent

.The Findings of Eight Impact Evaluations "


Josette Murphy .* .
Office of Evaluation ..
., Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination... ,
;U.S. Agency for International Development
-"r It lm- "

"! ' ,' -% : -' -'" ;,:'L .-" ,. ", : ",. .: !. a .-. --.=,,, ..-.. ..



.', ,!,.. :/ ';... , =..,. .;. i ... ,.,.; *.- '... '2. lt, :" 7 ,. c. :' .: .,, .=. =:." "~ ". ... .

% .' .. .' : "" ." : ..' : :- ; : .. ; ', : .
- ." .1 .'-, 1: ; ':" :- "',,,', ", : ";" I- :;,. ". ? " .', ,"''' .. .* 7 ." ' ", ,..



,: .'. -, ', ". :"- ::'"'= ', ":: .. : ,' .- .. : . ". .?- ",'. = '. .





















AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

THE FINDINGS OF EIGHT IMPACT EVALUATIONS


Workshop on


A Background Paper
Prepared for the
Impact of Agricultural Research


Leesburg, Virginia

June 14-17, 1982




JOSETTE MURPHY
Office of Evaluation

Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination
U.S. Agency for International Development











Acknowledgements


This paper synthesizes the activities of many individuals in the
Agency for International Development.

Recognition should first be given to Dr. Twig Johnson and to Ms.
Charlotte Suggs. Dr. Johnson planned and coordinated the activities
of the Studies Division in the agricultural research sector from
November 1979 until October 1981. Special appreciation is given
to Ms. Suggs, research assistant for the sector since December 1980.

The participants in the eight impact evaluations summarized in
this paper are listed in Annex A. Comments and suggestions on earlier
drafts of this background paper are gratefully acknowledged, from
USAID: Joan Atherton, Bonnie Baker, Joseph Beausoleil, Richard Blue,
Dana Dalrymple, Allen Hankins, Joseph Hartman, Twig Johnson, John
Lewis, Henry Miles, Mercedese Miller, Emmy Simmons, David Steinberg,
Charlotte Suggs, Philip Warren, and, Michael Wilson, and from the
International Agricultural Development Service: Francis Byrnes,
Steven Breth, and Guy Baird. Linda Densmore of IADS has been a most
efficient typist.



Josette Murphy, Ph.D.
Coordinator, Agriculture
Studies Division
Office of Evaluation







CONTENTS


I. INTRODUCTION 1

Why Evaluate AID-Sponsored Agricultural Research? 1
Purpose of this Paper 1



II. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 2

The Problem 2
AID's Experience in Agricultural Research 3



III. IMPACT EVALUATIONS OF PROJECTS IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 5

Scope of the Impact Evaluation Series 5
Characteristics of the Projects Evaluated 6



IV. FINDINGS OF THE IMPACT EVALUATIONS 6

Policy and Macro-economic Environment 6
Host government commitment to research 7
Macro-level constraints to the use of improved technology 7

Institution Building and Training 8
Affiliation of the research institution 8
Training agricultural researchers 9

Technology Generation and Transfer 9
Planning a research program 9
Adaptation of research to farmers' conditions 10
Dissemination of research results to the farmers 12

Impact on Farming Households 12
Agronomic impact 13
Socio-economic impacts 13





-2-


V. FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION 14

Policy and Macro-economic Constraints 15
Strengthening the Scientific Research Capacity 16
of a Host Country
Adaptation of a Research Program to Actual Farming Conditions 16
A Word of Caution 17


LITERATURE CITED 19

Annex A. Impact Evaluation Team Members

Annex B. Agricultural Research Documents Published under the
AID Impact Evaluation Series

Annex C. Executive Summaries of Impact Evaluation Reports






I. INTRODUCTION



A. Why Evaluate AID-Sponsored Agricultural Research?

Projects to assist the less developed countries in developing their
agricultural research capabilities have often been designed according
to the following reasoning:

(1) A country that increases its production of food crops achieves
a more rapid economic development, its food producers enjoy a higher stan-
dard of living, and more and cheaper food is available to its consumers.

(2) Research scientists can find ways to increase food production if
they are well trained and receive sufficient funds and adequate facilities.

(3) Therefore, if donor countries provide training and funding for
agricultural research, the less developed countries will achieve faster
economic growth and their farmers will be better off.

These assumptions may seem oversimplified, and they are rarely stated
so bluntly. Yet these assumptions, and the premise that increasing food
production is a technical problem that can be solved by agricultural science,
have underlaid much of the considerable efforts to promote agricultural
development in the less developed countries.

Are these assumptions valid? What are the mechanisms and constraints
within each premise and between the premises and the conclusion? Are
there constraints other than technical to increasing food production? If
so, how can we best address them?

The U.S. Agency for International Development has assisted the
development of agricultural research capabilities in the less developed
countries for over 30 years, both through financial and technical assis-
tance to national and international institutions, and through training
programs. While much has been accomplished in training of Third World
agriculturalists and creating or expanding research facilities, the
agronomic, economic, and social impacts of these efforts have often been
disappointing. Because AID has given priority to increasing food produc-
tion in the less developed countries for the late 1980's and has reemph-
asized its interest in supporting agricultural research (AID Food and
Agricultural Development Assistance, March 1982), it is important to
assess the achievements and difficulties of past development efforts so
as to plan and implement future activities most efficiently and to the
best advantage of the food producers.


B. Purpose of this Paper

Since November 1979, the office of Evaluation, Studies Division, has
been evaluating the impact of the AID's assistance in major development
sectors, so that the lessons learned can be incorporated into the AID's
policy, planning, and implementation activities.






I. INTRODUCTION



A. Why Evaluate AID-Sponsored Agricultural Research?

Projects to assist the less developed countries in developing their
agricultural research capabilities have often been designed according
to the following reasoning:

(1) A country that increases its production of food crops achieves
a more rapid economic development, its food producers enjoy a higher stan-
dard of living, and more and cheaper food is available to its consumers.

(2) Research scientists can find ways to increase food production if
they are well trained and receive sufficient funds and adequate facilities.

(3) Therefore, if donor countries provide training and funding for
agricultural research, the less developed countries will achieve faster
economic growth and their farmers will be better off.

These assumptions may seem oversimplified, and they are rarely stated
so bluntly. Yet these assumptions, and the premise that increasing food
production is a technical problem that can be solved by agricultural science,
have underlaid much of the considerable efforts to promote agricultural
development in the less developed countries.

Are these assumptions valid? What are the mechanisms and constraints
within each premise and between the premises and the conclusion? Are
there constraints other than technical to increasing food production? If
so, how can we best address them?

The U.S. Agency for International Development has assisted the
development of agricultural research capabilities in the less developed
countries for over 30 years, both through financial and technical assis-
tance to national and international institutions, and through training
programs. While much has been accomplished in training of Third World
agriculturalists and creating or expanding research facilities, the
agronomic, economic, and social impacts of these efforts have often been
disappointing. Because AID has given priority to increasing food produc-
tion in the less developed countries for the late 1980's and has reemph-
asized its interest in supporting agricultural research (AID Food and
Agricultural Development Assistance, March 1982), it is important to
assess the achievements and difficulties of past development efforts so
as to plan and implement future activities most efficiently and to the
best advantage of the food producers.


B. Purpose of this Paper

Since November 1979, the office of Evaluation, Studies Division, has
been evaluating the impact of the AID's assistance in major development
sectors, so that the lessons learned can be incorporated into the AID's
policy, planning, and implementation activities.






I. INTRODUCTION



A. Why Evaluate AID-Sponsored Agricultural Research?

Projects to assist the less developed countries in developing their
agricultural research capabilities have often been designed according
to the following reasoning:

(1) A country that increases its production of food crops achieves
a more rapid economic development, its food producers enjoy a higher stan-
dard of living, and more and cheaper food is available to its consumers.

(2) Research scientists can find ways to increase food production if
they are well trained and receive sufficient funds and adequate facilities.

(3) Therefore, if donor countries provide training and funding for
agricultural research, the less developed countries will achieve faster
economic growth and their farmers will be better off.

These assumptions may seem oversimplified, and they are rarely stated
so bluntly. Yet these assumptions, and the premise that increasing food
production is a technical problem that can be solved by agricultural science,
have underlaid much of the considerable efforts to promote agricultural
development in the less developed countries.

Are these assumptions valid? What are the mechanisms and constraints
within each premise and between the premises and the conclusion? Are
there constraints other than technical to increasing food production? If
so, how can we best address them?

The U.S. Agency for International Development has assisted the
development of agricultural research capabilities in the less developed
countries for over 30 years, both through financial and technical assis-
tance to national and international institutions, and through training
programs. While much has been accomplished in training of Third World
agriculturalists and creating or expanding research facilities, the
agronomic, economic, and social impacts of these efforts have often been
disappointing. Because AID has given priority to increasing food produc-
tion in the less developed countries for the late 1980's and has reemph-
asized its interest in supporting agricultural research (AID Food and
Agricultural Development Assistance, March 1982), it is important to
assess the achievements and difficulties of past development efforts so
as to plan and implement future activities most efficiently and to the
best advantage of the food producers.


B. Purpose of this Paper

Since November 1979, the office of Evaluation, Studies Division, has
been evaluating the impact of the AID's assistance in major development
sectors, so that the lessons learned can be incorporated into the AID's
policy, planning, and implementation activities.





-2-


Agricultural research was among the first sectors designated by senior
AID officers for in-depth study. The purpose is to examine critically
the impact of completed projects in agricultural research on the research
institutions that received assistance and on the food producers of the
host country. To achieve this purpose, the Studies Division has completed,
or is in the process of completing, the following:

o The entire portfolio of AID's activities in agricultural research
has been reviewed, and evaluation documents on a sample of 148 projects
have been analyzed. This work is presented in Discussion Paper No. 13.

o Eight projects, in Kenya, Central America, Guatemala, Korea, Nepal,
Thailand, West Africa, and Tunisia, were selected for an impact evaluation--
an in-country assessment by a multidisciplinary team of the impact of a
completed project on the people who were expected to benefit from it.
The evaluations have been published as separate reports (see Annexes B
and C). Each includes conclusions on the results of the project and
specifies "lessons learned" for design and implementation of future
projects with similar objectives.

o A workshop will be held near Washington, D.C. in June 1982 to
discuss the impact evaluations and the review of AID's portfolio in
agricultural research. Participants in the workshop will include AID
officers, host country officials and agricultural specialists from other
donor and research institutions and from the universities. The workshop
participants are expected to research conclusions and make suggestions
for incorporating the lessons learned into Agency programming, design
and implementation activities, and for future policy in agricultural
research.

o A final publication will synthesize the findings and conclusions of
all the activities outlined above.

This paper is intended as a background document for use during the
workshop. It summarizes the findings of the review of AID's portfolio
in agricultural research and of the impact evaluations. It does not
prejudge the conclusions and policy suggestions which will be reached by
the workshop participants, but does call attention to issues which have
been identified in the impact evaluations and in the review of AID's
portfolio and which need analysis and discussion.


II. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

A. The Problem

Fully one quarter of world population suffers from chronic under-
nutrition. Because the population is growing at a fast rate, it has been
estimated that food production must now increase by at least 4 percent
per year if consumption needs are to be met by 1990 (IFPRI, 1977 and
1979).





-2-


Agricultural research was among the first sectors designated by senior
AID officers for in-depth study. The purpose is to examine critically
the impact of completed projects in agricultural research on the research
institutions that received assistance and on the food producers of the
host country. To achieve this purpose, the Studies Division has completed,
or is in the process of completing, the following:

o The entire portfolio of AID's activities in agricultural research
has been reviewed, and evaluation documents on a sample of 148 projects
have been analyzed. This work is presented in Discussion Paper No. 13.

o Eight projects, in Kenya, Central America, Guatemala, Korea, Nepal,
Thailand, West Africa, and Tunisia, were selected for an impact evaluation--
an in-country assessment by a multidisciplinary team of the impact of a
completed project on the people who were expected to benefit from it.
The evaluations have been published as separate reports (see Annexes B
and C). Each includes conclusions on the results of the project and
specifies "lessons learned" for design and implementation of future
projects with similar objectives.

o A workshop will be held near Washington, D.C. in June 1982 to
discuss the impact evaluations and the review of AID's portfolio in
agricultural research. Participants in the workshop will include AID
officers, host country officials and agricultural specialists from other
donor and research institutions and from the universities. The workshop
participants are expected to research conclusions and make suggestions
for incorporating the lessons learned into Agency programming, design
and implementation activities, and for future policy in agricultural
research.

o A final publication will synthesize the findings and conclusions of
all the activities outlined above.

This paper is intended as a background document for use during the
workshop. It summarizes the findings of the review of AID's portfolio
in agricultural research and of the impact evaluations. It does not
prejudge the conclusions and policy suggestions which will be reached by
the workshop participants, but does call attention to issues which have
been identified in the impact evaluations and in the review of AID's
portfolio and which need analysis and discussion.


II. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

A. The Problem

Fully one quarter of world population suffers from chronic under-
nutrition. Because the population is growing at a fast rate, it has been
estimated that food production must now increase by at least 4 percent
per year if consumption needs are to be met by 1990 (IFPRI, 1977 and
1979).





-3-


The twentieth century has seen tremendous breakthroughs in agricul-
ture; indeed, the spectacular results of high-yielding wheat and rice
have been hailed as miracles. The very real increases in food production
and productivity in many less developed countries have been encouraging,
yet Bachman and Paulino (1979:13) calculated that the overall rate of
increase in food production in the less developed countries from 1961 to
1976 averaged only 2.6 percent per year. In more than half the countries,
according to Bachman and Paulino, the increase in food production has not
kept pace with population growth, so the situation is in fact worsening.
This is especially true in Africa (Table 1).

Such disappointing results are not because of a lack of effort. This
century has seen the organization of a systematic attempt to increase
food production, first in the developed countries and then in the less
developed countries. Despite the many achievements in agricultural re-
search, especially in developed countries, the task of increasing food
production in the less developed countries has been found to be much more
complex than expected. Demographic, agro-ecological, economic, and
political factors combine to make it so. More funds and more technical
assistance do not necessarily solve the problem, even if it were feasible
to increase the amounts involved.

The world's annual expenditure on agricultural research now stands
at $5,000 million, about double what it was in 1975, in constant 1975
terms (World Bank 1981:16), and about $1,600 million of that amount is
spent in the less developed countries. Oram and Bindlish (1981:18)
computed the amounts and distribution of expenditures on agricultural
research in 47 less-developed countries, together with the total number
of agricultural scientists in each region (Table 2). They point out that
total expenditures seem to have stagnated since 1978-79. The trend begun
in the early 1970's may be changing, especially as most donor countries
face internal economic difficulties.

Much effort has been directed toward institution building and training,
and an effective network of international agricultural research centers has
been established. In the context of increased need, a well-established
research network and possibly limited financial resources, it behooves
agricultural scientists and rural development specialists to learn from
past experience so that future financial and human investments in
agricultural research are as productive as possible.


B. AID's Experience in Agricultural Research

AID and its predecessor agencies have assisted agricultural research
in less-developed countries for more than 30 years. During the 1950's
the emphasis was on transfer of Western know-how, characterized by assis-
tance to extension services and training institutions, especially univer-
sities. As evidence mounted that Western know-how was not always success-
ful in the agro-economic context of most LDC's, the emphasis shifted, in
the 1960's, from extension to assisting national and regional research





















Table 1: Agriculture Production Indices per Capita (1969-71 = 100).


1970 1975 1980

Africa 100 95 89

Latin America 100 103 108

Asia 101 105 107

Near East 98 104 101


World 100 103 104

Source: FAO Production Yearbook 1980.







Table 2: Change in Expenditures on Agricultural Research and Numbers of Agricultural Scientists, 1970-80:
47 Countries




Expenditures Scientist Numbers

$ millions
(constant 1975 terms) Change (%) Change (%)
Regional/ 1971 1975 1980 .1971/75 1975/80 1971 1975 1980 1971/75 1975/80

South Asia (5) 41.2 73.3 139.7 78 91 2,529 6,120 12,293 42 101

Southeast/East Asia (5) 28.0 46.7 101.0 67 116 2,285 4,400 5,830 95 31

N. Africa/Middle East (5) 21.9 21.9 35.1 -1 60 1,432 1,163 1,375 -21 18

West Africa (6) 41.8 86.5 112.5 107 30 915 3,239 1,897 154 -42

East/Southern Africa (5) 18.0 18.9 27.9 5 47 513 605 861 18 42

Central America/ 18.6 22.7 59.9 22 86 967 1,393 1,680 44 21
Caribbean (11)
South America (10) 110.1 160.4 342.8 46 214 4,100 5,291 5,939 29 12


Total (47) 279.8 430.4 818.9 54 90 12,741 22,251 29,875 75 33


a/ Figures in parentheses denote the number

Source: Oram and Bindlish, 1981.


of countries in each region.


C 9




- 4 -


institutions through training, technical assistance, and by providing
these institutions with adequate facilities. During that period, the
achievements of the Green Revolution demonstrated that agricultural
research focused on commodity improvement (e.g. breeding rice varieties
whose yields were highly responsive to nitrogen and water application)
could indeed lead to production breakthroughs in the less developed
countries.

Since the 1970's, U.S. assistance has focused on the small and near
landless farmers. The "New Directions" have been reaffirmed in the 1978
AID Agricultural Development Policy Paper and a March 1982 statement on
AID Food and Agricultural Development Assistance. The latter states
that increasing the productivity and income of small farmers is a main
objective of AID's assistance (p. 3) and includes the generation and
adaptation of improved technology among the means to reach that objective.
The Foreign Assistance Act specifically requires that AID-assisted
agricultural research programs be adapted to the needs of small farmers
(Section 103A).

As the objectives of AID assistance have shifted, so have the ways
to meet them. The real world is far more complex than any laboratory or
experiment station. An improved technology is more likely to be adopted
by small farmers if it is adapted to the agronomic, economic, and social
dimensions of the farm. To develop such technology, many of the activi-
ties of the households need to be taken into account, in addition to the
resources (land, water, inputs and labor) available to the farmers. A
plant breeder or a soil scientist alone is not able to do this, so multi-
disciplinary work is a necessity.

The importance of testing and verifying the research output under
actual farm conditions also has become evident. A high potential yield
under optimal conditions is not an advantage if'other requirements, such
as early planting, a reliable supply of water, or high levels of fertili-
zation, prevent utilization of the new variety by most farmers.

Given the complexity of the task, no one research institution is
likely able to meet the total needs of a country, nor can quick results
be expected. Coordination and complementarity between national and
international research centers have become a major avenue for increasing
the efficiency of national research programs. It also is now recognized
that results cannot be expected from a research effort within the usual
4- or 5-year duration of a project, but are more likely to be achieved
within 15 or 20 years.

In 1981, USAID allocated about 20 percent of its appropriation for
agriculture, rural development, and nutrition to agricultural research
(Table 3). The actual expenditure has fluctuated considerably over the
last few years, but has ranged between 13 and 19 percent of all appropria-
tions for agriculture. The funds, which include a contribution-to the
international agricultural research centers, are about equally divided
between centrally funded and regional bureau- and mission-funded projects
(i.e. projects coordinated directly by the Science and Technology Bureau
of AID/Washington, and those coordinated by the regional bureaus).




Table 3: U.S. Agency for International Development, Agricultural Research
Appropriations, 1978-1981, By Subcategory1 (S000)

FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81
Actual Actual Actual Estimated


Agr. Technology-Research by U.S. Institution-


Africa
Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Near East
Science and Technology
Totals

International Centers3
Africa
Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Near East
Science and Technology
Totals

Agr. Technology-LDC Research4
Africa
Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Near East
Science and Technology
Totals

Total Agricultural Research
Africa
Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Near East
Science and Technology
Totals


117
1,100
150
20.244


2,756
1,060
1,511
1,200
21.315


700
4,032
19.104


2,350

1,051
6,451
15.058


21,611 27,822 23,836 24,910




10,000 -

21,652 29,758 33,800 40,100
31,652 29,758 33,800 40,100


15,971 29,827 28,586 39,406
920 6,042 9,000 30,600
8,645 20,569 2,165 8,636
2,896 1,456 1,115 -

28,432 57,894 40,866 78,642


15,571 32,583 22,944 35,356
1,037 7,082 9,000 30,600
19,745 22,080 2,865 9,687
3,014 2,656 5,147 6,451
45,335 51,073 52,904 55,158
84,702 115,474 103,502 143,652


Total Aid Appropriation for Agriculture
Rural Development and Nutrition
Africa 147,1
Asia 228,
Latin America and Caribbean 196,
Near East 19,:
Science and Technology 63,


Totals5


075
492
101
814
778


660,177


172,449
286,338
129,741
19,960
73,664
689,309


173,187
278,989
147,365
14,812
75,763
707,938


200,777
287,465
127,934
27,855
77,835
737,409


1 Source: Agency for International Development, Office of Planning and Budgeting
(PPC/P8). Figures as of 7/27/81. Amounts do not include Economic Support Funds
($22,366,000 for agricultural research in FY81).
2 Functional Subcategory "FNDR"--Activities financing direct research in agricul-
tural technology by U.S. institutions.
3 Functional Subcategory "FNIC"-Activities financing international agricultural
research centers. Includes appropriations for the International Center for Living
Aquatic Resources Management located in the Philippines ($300,000 in 1979, $200,000
in 1980, and $300,000 in 1981).
4 Functional Subcategory "FNDS"--Activities financing direct agricultural research
by LDC institutions.
5 Totals may not add because miscellaneous items are omitted.




-5-


Projects funded through the Science and Technology Bureau are usually
specific research activities in a commodity sector, while projects funded
through the regional bureaus and missions usually focus on institution
building and human resource development.

Funding levels for the regional bureaus are tending to increase.
Currently 24 missions have included agricultural research as an area of
particular importance in their Country Development Strategy Statements
for 1983, and the Africa and Asia Bureaus have given clear priority to
agricultural research for their future programs. The Asia Bureau, which
has a long history of agricultural research activities, is currently
conducting a review of its past experience in agricultural research
(Asian Agricultural Research Review).


III. IMPACT EVALUATIONS OF PROJECTS IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

A. Scope of the Impact Evaluation Series

In order to learn from AID's experience in agricultural research,
eight projects were selected for impact evaluations. The decision was
made to limit the evaluations, for the time being, to projects funded
through AID's missions and regional bureaus: two in Africa, three
in Asia, two in Latin America and one in the Near East. The projects
provided some form of assistance to a national (five) or regional (three)
institution, and all except one (Guatemala) had been completed prior
to the impact evaluation. However, AID has continued to assist some
of the institutions after the projects evaluated here ended.

Each project was evaluated by an interdisciplinary team (see list
in Annex A) during a visit of about 4 weeks. Agriculturalists, econo-
mists, social scientists, and development generalists were present, with
each team including one or more AID officers. Outside consultants
joined the teams where the necessary expertise was not available within
AID at the time of the evaluation.

The main goals of each evaluation were as follows:

o To determine whether the institution that had received assistance
was functioning and whether the researchers who had received training
were active, and to assess the quality of the research program and its
applicability in actual farming conditions.

o To determine the extent to which research findings have been adop-
ted by farmers, and how food producers have been affected by the new
technology.

While each team was given a list of topics to cover as a framework
for its inquiry, team members were free to draw their own priorities
for review and conclusions. Each team prepared its own scope of work
prior to departure.




-5-


Projects funded through the Science and Technology Bureau are usually
specific research activities in a commodity sector, while projects funded
through the regional bureaus and missions usually focus on institution
building and human resource development.

Funding levels for the regional bureaus are tending to increase.
Currently 24 missions have included agricultural research as an area of
particular importance in their Country Development Strategy Statements
for 1983, and the Africa and Asia Bureaus have given clear priority to
agricultural research for their future programs. The Asia Bureau, which
has a long history of agricultural research activities, is currently
conducting a review of its past experience in agricultural research
(Asian Agricultural Research Review).


III. IMPACT EVALUATIONS OF PROJECTS IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

A. Scope of the Impact Evaluation Series

In order to learn from AID's experience in agricultural research,
eight projects were selected for impact evaluations. The decision was
made to limit the evaluations, for the time being, to projects funded
through AID's missions and regional bureaus: two in Africa, three
in Asia, two in Latin America and one in the Near East. The projects
provided some form of assistance to a national (five) or regional (three)
institution, and all except one (Guatemala) had been completed prior
to the impact evaluation. However, AID has continued to assist some
of the institutions after the projects evaluated here ended.

Each project was evaluated by an interdisciplinary team (see list
in Annex A) during a visit of about 4 weeks. Agriculturalists, econo-
mists, social scientists, and development generalists were present, with
each team including one or more AID officers. Outside consultants
joined the teams where the necessary expertise was not available within
AID at the time of the evaluation.

The main goals of each evaluation were as follows:

o To determine whether the institution that had received assistance
was functioning and whether the researchers who had received training
were active, and to assess the quality of the research program and its
applicability in actual farming conditions.

o To determine the extent to which research findings have been adop-
ted by farmers, and how food producers have been affected by the new
technology.

While each team was given a list of topics to cover as a framework
for its inquiry, team members were free to draw their own priorities
for review and conclusions. Each team prepared its own scope of work
prior to departure.




- 6 -


In order to assess the impact of the project, each team interviewed
a sample of farmers as well as researchers and administrators, spent a
minimal time in the capital city, and travelled in rural areas. Every
team included members with previous experience in the country and with
knowledge of a local language.


B. Characteristics of the Projects Evaluated

The findings of each evaluation are described in Section IV. The
basic characteristics of each project (compiled from the impact evaluation
reports) are listed in Table 4. For ease of presentation, each project
will be referred to by its location.


IV. FINDINGS OF THE IMPACT EVALUATIONS

The institutions assisted by the projects all produced agronomic
or other findings of potential value to farmers, but actual adoption of
these findings were very unequal. The training component of each project
was successful, but the effectiveness and sustainability of the research
,network have been undermined in several countries by institutional and
managerial difficulties. Technical, institutional and policy constraints
were found to interact to determine the impact that a research institu-
tion has on the farmers and on national development.

The findings of seven impact evaluations (the findings of the Tunisian
evaluation are not yet available) can be grouped into four categories: (1)
macro-economic and policy environment; (2) institution building and manage-
ment; (3) technology generation and transfer; and (4) impact on farming
households. Findings in each category will be discussed separately. The
order in which they are presented has been chosen as a matter of conveni-
ence and does not prejudge their relative importance. While each evalua-
tion report touches on all sets of issues, the emphasis varies, so each
issue will not be covered in full detail for each evaluation.

A. Policy and Macro-economic Environment

The policy and macro-economic environment in a country determines
the long-term effectiveness of a research institution in at least two
ways. First, no matter how productive a research station may have been
during the implementation of the project, its ability to sustain research
activities on its own is a function of the host government commitment to
research and its ability to cover recurrent costs. Second, whether farmers
use the research results also depends upon government policy. The farm-
gate and consumer price of food and other agricultural commodities, prices
and distribution of inputs, and efficiency of marketing systems are poten-
tial constraints on farmers' actions that are affected by government
policy.




- 6 -


In order to assess the impact of the project, each team interviewed
a sample of farmers as well as researchers and administrators, spent a
minimal time in the capital city, and travelled in rural areas. Every
team included members with previous experience in the country and with
knowledge of a local language.


B. Characteristics of the Projects Evaluated

The findings of each evaluation are described in Section IV. The
basic characteristics of each project (compiled from the impact evaluation
reports) are listed in Table 4. For ease of presentation, each project
will be referred to by its location.


IV. FINDINGS OF THE IMPACT EVALUATIONS

The institutions assisted by the projects all produced agronomic
or other findings of potential value to farmers, but actual adoption of
these findings were very unequal. The training component of each project
was successful, but the effectiveness and sustainability of the research
,network have been undermined in several countries by institutional and
managerial difficulties. Technical, institutional and policy constraints
were found to interact to determine the impact that a research institu-
tion has on the farmers and on national development.

The findings of seven impact evaluations (the findings of the Tunisian
evaluation are not yet available) can be grouped into four categories: (1)
macro-economic and policy environment; (2) institution building and manage-
ment; (3) technology generation and transfer; and (4) impact on farming
households. Findings in each category will be discussed separately. The
order in which they are presented has been chosen as a matter of conveni-
ence and does not prejudge their relative importance. While each evalua-
tion report touches on all sets of issues, the emphasis varies, so each
issue will not be covered in full detail for each evaluation.

A. Policy and Macro-economic Environment

The policy and macro-economic environment in a country determines
the long-term effectiveness of a research institution in at least two
ways. First, no matter how productive a research station may have been
during the implementation of the project, its ability to sustain research
activities on its own is a function of the host government commitment to
research and its ability to cover recurrent costs. Second, whether farmers
use the research results also depends upon government policy. The farm-
gate and consumer price of food and other agricultural commodities, prices
and distribution of inputs, and efficiency of marketing systems are poten-
tial constraints on farmers' actions that are affected by government
policy.




- 6 -


In order to assess the impact of the project, each team interviewed
a sample of farmers as well as researchers and administrators, spent a
minimal time in the capital city, and travelled in rural areas. Every
team included members with previous experience in the country and with
knowledge of a local language.


B. Characteristics of the Projects Evaluated

The findings of each evaluation are described in Section IV. The
basic characteristics of each project (compiled from the impact evaluation
reports) are listed in Table 4. For ease of presentation, each project
will be referred to by its location.


IV. FINDINGS OF THE IMPACT EVALUATIONS

The institutions assisted by the projects all produced agronomic
or other findings of potential value to farmers, but actual adoption of
these findings were very unequal. The training component of each project
was successful, but the effectiveness and sustainability of the research
,network have been undermined in several countries by institutional and
managerial difficulties. Technical, institutional and policy constraints
were found to interact to determine the impact that a research institu-
tion has on the farmers and on national development.

The findings of seven impact evaluations (the findings of the Tunisian
evaluation are not yet available) can be grouped into four categories: (1)
macro-economic and policy environment; (2) institution building and manage-
ment; (3) technology generation and transfer; and (4) impact on farming
households. Findings in each category will be discussed separately. The
order in which they are presented has been chosen as a matter of conveni-
ence and does not prejudge their relative importance. While each evalua-
tion report touches on all sets of issues, the emphasis varies, so each
issue will not be covered in full detail for each evaluation.

A. Policy and Macro-economic Environment

The policy and macro-economic environment in a country determines
the long-term effectiveness of a research institution in at least two
ways. First, no matter how productive a research station may have been
during the implementation of the project, its ability to sustain research
activities on its own is a function of the host government commitment to
research and its ability to cover recurrent costs. Second, whether farmers
use the research results also depends upon government policy. The farm-
gate and consumer price of food and other agricultural commodities, prices
and distribution of inputs, and efficiency of marketing systems are poten-
tial constraints on farmers' actions that are affected by government
policy.











Table 4. Characteristics of eight AID projects.


Program Title


Project
Funding
(in millions)


Implementation
Dates


Institutions
Assisted


Date of
Evaluation


Evaluation Report


Crop Production and
Research (618-0644,
618-0657)

Small Farm Cropping
Systems (596-0064)


Food Productivity and
Nutrition Improvement
(520-11-130-232)




Agricultural Research
Project (DLC/P-2014,
489-11-088)


Food Grain Technology:
Agricultural Research
in Nepal (367-11-110-054,
367-0054)

Agricultural Development,
Agricultural Research
(493-11-190-180.2)

Accelerated Cereals
Production (654-0205.1)
and related regional
projects (698-0173)


AID grant,
$1.633


AID, $1.7
(plus $1.0
in earlier projects)




Loan, $5.0
Korean contribution,
$3.124


about $20.0 total




AID, $6.272
Thai Government,
$6.8


$1.715


1969-81



1975-79


East African
Community


Center for
Tropical Agri-
culture Research
and Training (CATII


1975-79






1974-80




1957-74




1966-75



1967-77


December 1979



February 1980


Institute of October 1979
Agricultural Science
and Technology (ICTA)




Office of Rural January 1982
Development,
Ministry of Agricul-
ture and Fisheries

Ministry of Food and January 1982
Agriculture, with
assistance to five
research stations

Thai Phra Agricul- February 1981
tural Research
Center

Office of Cereals April 1982


Kitale Maize: The
Limits of Success


Central America: Small
Farmer Cropping Systems



Guatemala: Development d
the Institute of Agricul-
tural Science and Tech-
nology and its Impact on
Agricultural Research
and Farm Productivity

Korean Agricultural
Research: The Inte-
gration of Research
and Extension

Food Grain Technology:
Agricultural Research
in Nepal


Agricultural Research in
Northeastern Thailand


in preparation


West Africa Rice Devel-
opment Association:
Rice Research and
Production (698-11-190-382,
698-0382)


AID, $5.166
WARDA, $0.3
(in kind)


1975-80
(first phase)


West Africa Rice
Development Asso-
ciation (WARDA)


October 1981


West Africa Rice
Research and Pro-
duction


Location


Kenya


Central
America


Guatemala


Korea


Nepal


Thailand,
Northeast
Region


Tunisia


West Africa'





-7-


1. Host Government Commitment to Research. The success of the Korea
project is attributable in large degree to the commitment of the government,
which gave agricultural research and extension high priority. Research
stations existed and were already effective prior to the AID project evalu-
ated here. This program to increase the production of rice and other
crops was conducted with the full support of the government, which
revised its pricing policy for rice to encourage widespread use of the
Tongil variety and to increase the farmers' incomes.

The government in Nepal has also given support to the research
centers, and has recently taken measures to ensure greater coordina-
tion of research and extension.

In contrast, the lack of government commitment to research and
extension greatly undermined the effectiveness of the research center
in Northeastern Thailand. The center was created, with AID assistance,
but was never given legal recognition. After departure of the AID
technical assistants, the center received only a limited budgetary
support, and eventually its purpose was switched from research to plan-
ning and coordinating development activities.

Government support also seemed weak and somewhat unreliable in
Kenya and for some of the countries cooperating in Central America. The
team in Guatemala found government interest in ICTA but was uncertain
whether support would continue in the future.

At issue here may be the long duration of a program of agricultural
research research and the low visibility of research activities, which
make research unattractive for a government that depends upon rapid
achievement for survival. Yet without assurance of adequate, continuous
and timely funding for staff and research facilities, a research program
can quickly become ineffective. Recurrent costs can be a burden on
public funds, especially when incurred for activities that are not
receiving any further external assistance.

2. Macro Level Constraints to the Use of Improved Technology. In
deciding whether to adopt a new crop, variety, or farming practice, a
farmer does not look solely at its potential productivity. The farmer
calculates whether the change is worthwhile in economic terms, taking
into account the costs of production, farmgate price, the opportunity
cost to the household in time, labor and land, and the risk of failure.
High-yielding varieties can reach their production potential only if
adequate water and inputs are available. Access to inputs on a timely
basis and at a reasonable cost then becomes a key constraint in their
adoption, a constraint that is outside the control of either the re-
searcher or farmer.

For example, in Nepal most of the farmers interviewed complained
about the unavailability of fertilizer at the right time, and even some-
times about shortages or poor quality of improved seeds, which have
limited their use of improved seeds. They also noted that increases in
the official producer price of wheat did not keep up with the increased
cost of fertilizer.





-7-


1. Host Government Commitment to Research. The success of the Korea
project is attributable in large degree to the commitment of the government,
which gave agricultural research and extension high priority. Research
stations existed and were already effective prior to the AID project evalu-
ated here. This program to increase the production of rice and other
crops was conducted with the full support of the government, which
revised its pricing policy for rice to encourage widespread use of the
Tongil variety and to increase the farmers' incomes.

The government in Nepal has also given support to the research
centers, and has recently taken measures to ensure greater coordina-
tion of research and extension.

In contrast, the lack of government commitment to research and
extension greatly undermined the effectiveness of the research center
in Northeastern Thailand. The center was created, with AID assistance,
but was never given legal recognition. After departure of the AID
technical assistants, the center received only a limited budgetary
support, and eventually its purpose was switched from research to plan-
ning and coordinating development activities.

Government support also seemed weak and somewhat unreliable in
Kenya and for some of the countries cooperating in Central America. The
team in Guatemala found government interest in ICTA but was uncertain
whether support would continue in the future.

At issue here may be the long duration of a program of agricultural
research research and the low visibility of research activities, which
make research unattractive for a government that depends upon rapid
achievement for survival. Yet without assurance of adequate, continuous
and timely funding for staff and research facilities, a research program
can quickly become ineffective. Recurrent costs can be a burden on
public funds, especially when incurred for activities that are not
receiving any further external assistance.

2. Macro Level Constraints to the Use of Improved Technology. In
deciding whether to adopt a new crop, variety, or farming practice, a
farmer does not look solely at its potential productivity. The farmer
calculates whether the change is worthwhile in economic terms, taking
into account the costs of production, farmgate price, the opportunity
cost to the household in time, labor and land, and the risk of failure.
High-yielding varieties can reach their production potential only if
adequate water and inputs are available. Access to inputs on a timely
basis and at a reasonable cost then becomes a key constraint in their
adoption, a constraint that is outside the control of either the re-
searcher or farmer.

For example, in Nepal most of the farmers interviewed complained
about the unavailability of fertilizer at the right time, and even some-
times about shortages or poor quality of improved seeds, which have
limited their use of improved seeds. They also noted that increases in
the official producer price of wheat did not keep up with the increased
cost of fertilizer.




- 8 -


In Thailand and Kenya, the necessary inputs were often deemed too
expensive by the smaller farmers. The Korean project also failed to
take into account important issues such as the price of crops other than
rice, the cost of labor and of fertilizers.

The research programs evaluated were oriented to the eventual produc-
tion of a food or cash crop, which depend upon the farmers' access to
marketing outlets and transportation. The governments' failure to alter
their policies towards pricing and marketing to compensate for the shift
from shortage to surplus has also resulted in disincentives and waste,
for example in Kenya.


B. Institution Building and Training

All the projects included a component for institution building at
either regional or national levels and for training. Whether the research
institutions are functioning adequately after the project has ended is a
crucial element in determining the sustainability of the project achieve-
ments. There are two sets of issues: the location of the institution
within a country's administrative system and within the research community,
and the staff and resources allocated to the institution.


1. Affiliation of the Research Institution. Three of the projects
evaluated were to develop a research institution serving several neigh-
boring countries (WARDA in West Africa, CATIE in Central America, and an
East African Community Institution in Kenya). The other projects assisted
national institutions, usually affiliated to the ministry of agriculture
rather than linked to a university. The institution in East Africa
(Kenya) has collapsed, the institutions in Thailand and West Africa are
functioning but with difficulties, and those in Guatemala, Korea, Nepal,
and Central America have been found effective. Aside from the political
changes in East Africa, one key to sustained activity seems to be the
ability to establish linkages (vertical and horizontal) among the re-
search institutions, related government agencies, and, eventually,
institutions in neighboring nations and international research centers.
Indeed, five of the reports state this as a lesson learned.

Effectively linking different parts of a country's administrative
system is often difficult.. This is especially true when the research
institution is attached to the "wrong" line of government, for instance,
to the planning ministry if all other agricultural activities are handled
through the ministry of rural development. Coordination among research,
extension, training, and input supply is difficult at best. It can be
close to impossible if three or four ministries are involved. The choice
of host-country channels for implementation of an agricultural research
program is an important step that should be carefully planned and discus-
sed with the host country at the project design phase.




- 8 -


In Thailand and Kenya, the necessary inputs were often deemed too
expensive by the smaller farmers. The Korean project also failed to
take into account important issues such as the price of crops other than
rice, the cost of labor and of fertilizers.

The research programs evaluated were oriented to the eventual produc-
tion of a food or cash crop, which depend upon the farmers' access to
marketing outlets and transportation. The governments' failure to alter
their policies towards pricing and marketing to compensate for the shift
from shortage to surplus has also resulted in disincentives and waste,
for example in Kenya.


B. Institution Building and Training

All the projects included a component for institution building at
either regional or national levels and for training. Whether the research
institutions are functioning adequately after the project has ended is a
crucial element in determining the sustainability of the project achieve-
ments. There are two sets of issues: the location of the institution
within a country's administrative system and within the research community,
and the staff and resources allocated to the institution.


1. Affiliation of the Research Institution. Three of the projects
evaluated were to develop a research institution serving several neigh-
boring countries (WARDA in West Africa, CATIE in Central America, and an
East African Community Institution in Kenya). The other projects assisted
national institutions, usually affiliated to the ministry of agriculture
rather than linked to a university. The institution in East Africa
(Kenya) has collapsed, the institutions in Thailand and West Africa are
functioning but with difficulties, and those in Guatemala, Korea, Nepal,
and Central America have been found effective. Aside from the political
changes in East Africa, one key to sustained activity seems to be the
ability to establish linkages (vertical and horizontal) among the re-
search institutions, related government agencies, and, eventually,
institutions in neighboring nations and international research centers.
Indeed, five of the reports state this as a lesson learned.

Effectively linking different parts of a country's administrative
system is often difficult.. This is especially true when the research
institution is attached to the "wrong" line of government, for instance,
to the planning ministry if all other agricultural activities are handled
through the ministry of rural development. Coordination among research,
extension, training, and input supply is difficult at best. It can be
close to impossible if three or four ministries are involved. The choice
of host-country channels for implementation of an agricultural research
program is an important step that should be carefully planned and discus-
sed with the host country at the project design phase.




-9-


Overcentralization and rigidity are counterproductive in any develop-
ment project and they have been cited as problems in several evaluations.
In West Africa, none but the simplest decisions can be made by the field
stations. Among the projects assisting national institutions, Nepal
seems to have reached a practical compromise, with each station preserving
its autonomy (budget, programming), but with regular workshops being
held for all the stations' research staff, during which the researchers
present their work to their peers, discuss each other's programs, and
arrange for some common research activities. Both the Thailand and Korea
evaluations emphasized the danger of over-centralization and the need for
flexibility in the design and implementation of the research program.

2. Training Agricultural Researchers. All the projects included a
training component in agricultural disciplines. The basic problems did
not lie with training per se--this seems to have been achieved success-
fully everywhere--but with keeping the returned trainees working in
research. Low salaries, poor working conditions, insufficient career
incentives are cited in four projects as detrimental to the institutions'
effectiveness and sustainability.

While young professionals in less-developed countries are eager for
a period of training abroad, steps have to be taken to ensure there will
be adequate incentives to keep the trainees at the research institutions
upon their return. The evaluations in Kenya, Guatemala, Korea and
Thailand cited the lack of salary or career incentives as a problem in
retaining researchers at the station.


C. Technology Generation and Transfer

The projects were all expected to generate varieties adapted to
local conditions, and all did achieve that result, but with varying
success in adoption rates. Many of the difficulties can be traced to
poor planning and lack of understanding of farmers' needs.

1. Planning a Research Program. What kind of research does a country
need? Is adaptive research sufficient in some countries? Should a coun-
try use the resources available for research to concentrate on a few main
crops? The type of research capabilities that should be developed is not
always clearly defined when plans are made to create or expand a research
institution. Yet it is a crucial decision that determines the potential
impact of the research.

The projects evaluated varied from a single-commodity focus (rice
in West Africa, maize in Kenya), to those focusing on several commodities
(Nepal, Korea), to programs focusing onthe cropping system of small
farmers (Guatemala, Central America).

A commodity focus can use research abilities efficiently if the
commodity is indeed one worth encouraging and if the improved varieties
and/or practices are suitable for small farmers. Rice in West Africa is




-9-


Overcentralization and rigidity are counterproductive in any develop-
ment project and they have been cited as problems in several evaluations.
In West Africa, none but the simplest decisions can be made by the field
stations. Among the projects assisting national institutions, Nepal
seems to have reached a practical compromise, with each station preserving
its autonomy (budget, programming), but with regular workshops being
held for all the stations' research staff, during which the researchers
present their work to their peers, discuss each other's programs, and
arrange for some common research activities. Both the Thailand and Korea
evaluations emphasized the danger of over-centralization and the need for
flexibility in the design and implementation of the research program.

2. Training Agricultural Researchers. All the projects included a
training component in agricultural disciplines. The basic problems did
not lie with training per se--this seems to have been achieved success-
fully everywhere--but with keeping the returned trainees working in
research. Low salaries, poor working conditions, insufficient career
incentives are cited in four projects as detrimental to the institutions'
effectiveness and sustainability.

While young professionals in less-developed countries are eager for
a period of training abroad, steps have to be taken to ensure there will
be adequate incentives to keep the trainees at the research institutions
upon their return. The evaluations in Kenya, Guatemala, Korea and
Thailand cited the lack of salary or career incentives as a problem in
retaining researchers at the station.


C. Technology Generation and Transfer

The projects were all expected to generate varieties adapted to
local conditions, and all did achieve that result, but with varying
success in adoption rates. Many of the difficulties can be traced to
poor planning and lack of understanding of farmers' needs.

1. Planning a Research Program. What kind of research does a country
need? Is adaptive research sufficient in some countries? Should a coun-
try use the resources available for research to concentrate on a few main
crops? The type of research capabilities that should be developed is not
always clearly defined when plans are made to create or expand a research
institution. Yet it is a crucial decision that determines the potential
impact of the research.

The projects evaluated varied from a single-commodity focus (rice
in West Africa, maize in Kenya), to those focusing on several commodities
(Nepal, Korea), to programs focusing onthe cropping system of small
farmers (Guatemala, Central America).

A commodity focus can use research abilities efficiently if the
commodity is indeed one worth encouraging and if the improved varieties
and/or practices are suitable for small farmers. Rice in West Africa is




-9-


Overcentralization and rigidity are counterproductive in any develop-
ment project and they have been cited as problems in several evaluations.
In West Africa, none but the simplest decisions can be made by the field
stations. Among the projects assisting national institutions, Nepal
seems to have reached a practical compromise, with each station preserving
its autonomy (budget, programming), but with regular workshops being
held for all the stations' research staff, during which the researchers
present their work to their peers, discuss each other's programs, and
arrange for some common research activities. Both the Thailand and Korea
evaluations emphasized the danger of over-centralization and the need for
flexibility in the design and implementation of the research program.

2. Training Agricultural Researchers. All the projects included a
training component in agricultural disciplines. The basic problems did
not lie with training per se--this seems to have been achieved success-
fully everywhere--but with keeping the returned trainees working in
research. Low salaries, poor working conditions, insufficient career
incentives are cited in four projects as detrimental to the institutions'
effectiveness and sustainability.

While young professionals in less-developed countries are eager for
a period of training abroad, steps have to be taken to ensure there will
be adequate incentives to keep the trainees at the research institutions
upon their return. The evaluations in Kenya, Guatemala, Korea and
Thailand cited the lack of salary or career incentives as a problem in
retaining researchers at the station.


C. Technology Generation and Transfer

The projects were all expected to generate varieties adapted to
local conditions, and all did achieve that result, but with varying
success in adoption rates. Many of the difficulties can be traced to
poor planning and lack of understanding of farmers' needs.

1. Planning a Research Program. What kind of research does a country
need? Is adaptive research sufficient in some countries? Should a coun-
try use the resources available for research to concentrate on a few main
crops? The type of research capabilities that should be developed is not
always clearly defined when plans are made to create or expand a research
institution. Yet it is a crucial decision that determines the potential
impact of the research.

The projects evaluated varied from a single-commodity focus (rice
in West Africa, maize in Kenya), to those focusing on several commodities
(Nepal, Korea), to programs focusing onthe cropping system of small
farmers (Guatemala, Central America).

A commodity focus can use research abilities efficiently if the
commodity is indeed one worth encouraging and if the improved varieties
and/or practices are suitable for small farmers. Rice in West Africa is





- 10 -


an example. The commodity is essential to the economic development of
the countries involved because the demand for rice in the cities is higher
than current national production and is likely to continue to increase.
Maize in Kenya is also a case of a food staple with a strong demand.

Korea, Nepal and Thailand focused on several commodities. In Nepal,
several research stations were created, each specializing in one of the
main crops. Over the years, the stations have come to coordinate their
work more closely, while still maintaining their basic specialization,
and improved varieties of wheat, rice, and maize have been made available.

The two Latin American institutions differ from the others in that
they focus not on one crop, but on the cropping systems used by the small
farmers, and this seems to have had positive results.

Whether research is to be conducted on one crop or on cropping sys-
tems, the problem remains that the potential of any given crop depends
greatly upon local agro-climatic conditions. Indeed, this is a major
stumbling block in agricultural development as a variety bred under con-
trolled conditions cannot be recommended for adoption without a lengthy
period of testing, and perhaps further adaptive research in other loca-
tions. A basic decision must be made when attempting to develop a nation-
al research institution: can the research center focus exclusively on
selecting strains obtained from regional or international centers in
similar climates, or is breeding within the country necessary?

It so happens that all the projects evaluated did propose to dissem-
inate improved varieties, obtained either through in-country breeding
or selection within imported materials. However, agricultural research
need not necessarily be limited to varietal research. In many cases,
great benefits can be derived from improvements to existing farming
practices such as identifying optimum planting dates and weeding prac-
tices, which do not require many changes on the part of the farmers.
Indeed, the West Africa team concluded that research on farming practices
with rice might be a more useful program at this stage than varietal
trials.

2. Adaptation of Research to Farmers' Conditions. Regardless of
the of research planned (breeding or selection among imported materials,
varietal improvement or research on cultural practices), two steps were
found lacking in most projects: (1) obtaining information on current
practices before planning the research program, and (2) testing the
research outputsunder actual farming conditions.

Most evaluation reports indicate that the research program was
designed without sufficient information about existing farming systems
and an assessment of the needs and constraints of the small farmers. For
example, in Korea, the researchers are trying to develop better varieties
of wheat and barley, which are grown in winter. While research is under
way, the farmers are beginning to grow vegetables during the late winter
and are finding this activity to give higher returns than the cultivation





- 11 -


of cereals, as the demand for vegetables is great. Improved varieties
of wheat and barley are not likely to be competitive with vegetable
production. The two Latin American programs are different. There, an
effort was made to identify the existing farming practices and to study
how and why they fit together. This was found efficient in both cases.

Even if the program is well adapted to the existing situation, any
research is likely to involve some trial and error, so a testing and
verification phase is an essential part of the research process. Yet
few of the projects included an attempt at systematic feedback from the
farmers to the researchers.

When trials were held outside of the research station, they were
sometimes supervised so closely by the researchers, who controlled the
timing of all farming activities and supplied all necessary inputs, that
the farmers only contributed free land and unpaid labor. This is not
quite like conditions prevalent on a real farm, where inputs may not be
available on time, or where the farmer may not be able to perform some
necessary tasks.

The only project which described a systematic feedback from the
farmers to the researchers was in Guatemala. In accord with the concept
of farming-systems research, the recommended practices were tested by the
farmers rather than in research stations or under controlled conditions
in farmers' fields. Researchers then evaluated the results and requested
the opinions of the farmers before determining whether to disseminate
the new practices.

When researchers seek improvements that enhance the productivity of
the farm as a whole and not just those improvements that maximize produc-
tion of any one crop, disciplines other than agronomy become potentially
useful. Five of the eight projects did call for multidisciplinary work,
at least on paper. The disciplines ranged from soil and agricultural
sciences to economics and rural sociology.

Both the Thailand and the Korea projects called for multidisciplinary
research but neither was very successful in this area. In Korea, the
problem lay in the hierarchical social structure in which the importance
given to rank made teamwork difficult. In Thailand, multidisciplinary
research was never established because of institutional constraints along
with adverse government policies.

However, even when agricultural scientists are convinced of the advan-
tages of multidisciplinary work, they may not be able to obtain the neces-
sary funds and positions. Some of the station directors in Nepal complained
that they had requested an agricultural economist for their staffs for years,
to no avail.

In Guatemala though, multidisciplinary work proved to be beneficial.
Social scientists, economists, entomologists and agronomists worked together




- 12


to develop a comprehensive program that takes into account social, agronomic,
and economic factors.

3. Dissemination of Research Results to the Farmers. Research results
are quite useless if the farmers are not aware of them. Six of the reports
indicated that research and extension need to be linked. This may seem
obvious, since there is no point in developing improved technology for
farmers' use if there is no coherent effort to inform them of its existence
and how to use it. Yet, making research results available to farmers is
not always easy, especially when there is little cooperation--or outright
rivalry--between the research institutions and the extension service of a
country. However, if a new technology is worth using, the first farmers
who learn of it will pass on the word and the adoption rate will likely
be high and fast, with or without further intervention by extension.
This was clearly shown in Kenya.

The eight projects vary greatly in their approach to dissemination.
In Korea, the extension service was effective and comprehensive and played
a major role in the successful, rapid spread of the Tongil rice variety.
The team cited "the integration of research and extension" as a key to
the project's wide impact. Extension activities included the monitoring
of farm trials, training programs, and demonstration plots.

In Thailand, formal extension channels were found ineffective,
but radio programs and a mobile information unit were useful in providing
information to the farmers.

In Nepal, the focus of development activities in the project being
evaluated shifted from extension to research in the 1960's, but now
there is a concerted effort on the part of the extension and research
people to coordinate their efforts, with a renewed emphasis on extension.

In Central America, extension had not been included in the first
phase of the project, and this has been found to hamper dissemination of
research results. The situation in Guatemala was different; there, research
findings were disseminated to the farmers by a specialized extension unit
attached to the researchers, circumventing the existing extension agency.
This has been cause for conflicts between the research and extension
agencies.

The private sector has contributed to the rapid dissemination of re-
search results in at least two projects, Kenya and Guatemala, through its
involvement in seed multiplication and distribution activities.


D. Impact on Farming Households

The adoption of new agricultural technologies and practices affect
farming and rural households in many ways, both economic and social, and
these changes in turn affect the economic development of the country. For
ease of presentation, the agronomic and socio-economic impacts 'of the'
seven projects evaluated will be discussed separately.




- 12


to develop a comprehensive program that takes into account social, agronomic,
and economic factors.

3. Dissemination of Research Results to the Farmers. Research results
are quite useless if the farmers are not aware of them. Six of the reports
indicated that research and extension need to be linked. This may seem
obvious, since there is no point in developing improved technology for
farmers' use if there is no coherent effort to inform them of its existence
and how to use it. Yet, making research results available to farmers is
not always easy, especially when there is little cooperation--or outright
rivalry--between the research institutions and the extension service of a
country. However, if a new technology is worth using, the first farmers
who learn of it will pass on the word and the adoption rate will likely
be high and fast, with or without further intervention by extension.
This was clearly shown in Kenya.

The eight projects vary greatly in their approach to dissemination.
In Korea, the extension service was effective and comprehensive and played
a major role in the successful, rapid spread of the Tongil rice variety.
The team cited "the integration of research and extension" as a key to
the project's wide impact. Extension activities included the monitoring
of farm trials, training programs, and demonstration plots.

In Thailand, formal extension channels were found ineffective,
but radio programs and a mobile information unit were useful in providing
information to the farmers.

In Nepal, the focus of development activities in the project being
evaluated shifted from extension to research in the 1960's, but now
there is a concerted effort on the part of the extension and research
people to coordinate their efforts, with a renewed emphasis on extension.

In Central America, extension had not been included in the first
phase of the project, and this has been found to hamper dissemination of
research results. The situation in Guatemala was different; there, research
findings were disseminated to the farmers by a specialized extension unit
attached to the researchers, circumventing the existing extension agency.
This has been cause for conflicts between the research and extension
agencies.

The private sector has contributed to the rapid dissemination of re-
search results in at least two projects, Kenya and Guatemala, through its
involvement in seed multiplication and distribution activities.


D. Impact on Farming Households

The adoption of new agricultural technologies and practices affect
farming and rural households in many ways, both economic and social, and
these changes in turn affect the economic development of the country. For
ease of presentation, the agronomic and socio-economic impacts 'of the'
seven projects evaluated will be discussed separately.





- 13 -


1. Agronomic impact. A change in farming activities for one crop
is likely to affect the production of other crops, and indeed may re-
quire changes in the household's other activities. These changes in
turn influence productivity, food supply, income and pattern of land use.
There will be consequences both at the household and at the community
level.

Kenya is a clear example of a technical improvement, a high-yielding
hybrid maize, which was quickly accepted by the farmers because it fitted
easily within the traditional practices and did not change the schedule
of farming activities. Simply switching to the hybrid resulted in higher
yields. Many Kenyan farmers promptly adopted the hybrid seeds, even though
new seeds had to be bought each year. The evaluation team hypothesized
that the farmers could assign less land to maize, their staple food crop,
and still assure an adequate food supply for the household. That left
land that could then be used for a cash crop. The introduction of hybrid
maize enabled Kenya to become self-sufficient in that crop for the first
time.

But the situation differs in Nepal for both wheat and maize. The
high-yielding wheat varieties, which perform best if planted in early
November, can conflict with a last harvest of rice, and their production
potential can be realized only with adequate irrigation and high levels
of fertilizer. The improved varieties of maize yield more than the local
strains, and the farmers know it, but the ears do not keep as well. Many
producers are compromising by planting part of their land to improved
maize for immediate sale, as a source of cash income, and the rest to
local maize for household consumption.

In Korea, the Tongil variety of rice produced more than previous
varieties under farmers' conditions and its widespread use led to a de-
crease in cultivation of other crops. This was also because of a higher
official farmgate price for rice. While these were positive economic
results for the Korean farmers, the use of Tongil rice also made them
more dependent upon that one source of income and therefore more vulner-
able. Since 1977 the profitability of Tongil has decreased as yields
declined because of the occurence of rice blast disease and several years
of unfavorable cold weather.

The agronomic impact of the project in Guatemala is different, be-
cause the project sought to improve the entire cropping systems rather
than focus on one or a few crops. The impact of the project is reported
as very favorable, with increased yields despite a decrease in fertilizer
use.

2. Socio-economic Impacts. The socio-economic impact of a project
was to be evaluated both at the level of individual farms and at the
community level. Within the time frame of an impact evaluation, it has
been difficult to obtain quantitative information on the incomes of the





- 13 -


1. Agronomic impact. A change in farming activities for one crop
is likely to affect the production of other crops, and indeed may re-
quire changes in the household's other activities. These changes in
turn influence productivity, food supply, income and pattern of land use.
There will be consequences both at the household and at the community
level.

Kenya is a clear example of a technical improvement, a high-yielding
hybrid maize, which was quickly accepted by the farmers because it fitted
easily within the traditional practices and did not change the schedule
of farming activities. Simply switching to the hybrid resulted in higher
yields. Many Kenyan farmers promptly adopted the hybrid seeds, even though
new seeds had to be bought each year. The evaluation team hypothesized
that the farmers could assign less land to maize, their staple food crop,
and still assure an adequate food supply for the household. That left
land that could then be used for a cash crop. The introduction of hybrid
maize enabled Kenya to become self-sufficient in that crop for the first
time.

But the situation differs in Nepal for both wheat and maize. The
high-yielding wheat varieties, which perform best if planted in early
November, can conflict with a last harvest of rice, and their production
potential can be realized only with adequate irrigation and high levels
of fertilizer. The improved varieties of maize yield more than the local
strains, and the farmers know it, but the ears do not keep as well. Many
producers are compromising by planting part of their land to improved
maize for immediate sale, as a source of cash income, and the rest to
local maize for household consumption.

In Korea, the Tongil variety of rice produced more than previous
varieties under farmers' conditions and its widespread use led to a de-
crease in cultivation of other crops. This was also because of a higher
official farmgate price for rice. While these were positive economic
results for the Korean farmers, the use of Tongil rice also made them
more dependent upon that one source of income and therefore more vulner-
able. Since 1977 the profitability of Tongil has decreased as yields
declined because of the occurence of rice blast disease and several years
of unfavorable cold weather.

The agronomic impact of the project in Guatemala is different, be-
cause the project sought to improve the entire cropping systems rather
than focus on one or a few crops. The impact of the project is reported
as very favorable, with increased yields despite a decrease in fertilizer
use.

2. Socio-economic Impacts. The socio-economic impact of a project
was to be evaluated both at the level of individual farms and at the
community level. Within the time frame of an impact evaluation, it has
been difficult to obtain quantitative information on the incomes of the




- 14 -


families interviewed, but it was often possible to ask the families
whether they considered themselves better off than before, and why or
why not. It was also possible to understand how the project may have a
different impact on families with varying access to farming resources
such as land, irrigation, or credit.

The question of equity, i.e. giving all farmers equal access to
benefits from the project, is a very difficult one for several reasons.
Governments often place a higher priority on assuring the food supply of
the urban populations than on bettering the income distribution among
farmers. It is also a difficult question from a technical viewpoint
because many new or improved farming technologies simply are not effi-
cient on a very small scale, or demand a level of investment in tools,
inputs, water, or labor beyond the reach of the smaller farmers, especially
those who are tenants.

In Nepal, farmers with some irrigated land have had immediate advan-
tage over those with only rainfed land in using the improved varieties of
wheat and maize. Farmers who were better off in the first place were more
likely to be able to finance the necessary inputs. Tenant farmers were
disadvantaged because they did not qualify for credit to buy inputs, and
probably had less incentive to invest in the land.

Even in Kenya, where the overall output of maize was greatly in-
creased as a result of research, the impact on equity within the country
was probably negative. Disparity increased between the large and small
farmers because the smallest farmers were reluctant to adopt the hybrid.
Their main concern was to minimize the risk of crop failure (which the
hybrid maize did not do) rather than to increase production. In addition,
they were not able to finance inputs; even the need to buy new seeds each
year was a problem.

In contrast, the project in Korea contributed positively to equity
among farmers because of the price subsidies provided by the government
and relatively equitable land distribution.

These evaluations did not look specifically at the projects' impact
on consumers. However, the projects may have influenced the food price
structure through increased production and also through changes in crop-
ping systems. A shift in land use towards a crop (e.g. rice) or a variety
that is especially in demand in urban areas, is likely to benefit the urban
consumers, although not necessarily the poorer ones.


V. FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

Firm conclusions and suggestions for future policy will be advanced
only at the end of the 4-day workshop on the impact of agricultural re-
search. The findings of the seven impact evaluations of agricultural
research projects described in this paper already point out some key
factors that seem to affect the impact of agricultural research 7on food
producers and should be further discussed.





- 15 -


The projects have been successful in training host-country agricul-
turalists and in implementing productive research activities. However,
these achievements have sometimes fallen short of having the expected
impacts on the long-term research capacity of the host countries and
on the farmers' productions and income. Three sets of problems have
hampered the effectiveness of training and research activities: (a)
lack of government commitment and unfavorable economic environment; (b)
organizational and administrative difficulties, and (c) lack of adapta-
tion of the research program to actual farming conditions and the needs
of rural households. Only the third set of problems is technically
within the realm of expertise of agriculturalists; the first two are
problems of management and policy not specific to agricultural research.
A project that addresses only the third set or problems is likely to
fail in countries where the policy, administrative, and economic environ-
ments are not favorable.


A. Policy and Macro-economic Constraints

Research institutions in several projects have been found ineffective
because of a combination of the following problems:

o Lack of commitment on the part of the host government, as evidenced
by a lack of continuity in programming and funding. This may be a question
of timing: research is a long-term process while government decisions are
often made on a short-term basis. It may also reflect a lack of under-
standing on the part of policy makers of the potential contribution of
research to economic development.

o Lack of coordination between the research institution and policy
makers and planners in the host government, other host-government insti-
tutions that control activities linked to agricultural development,
such as extension, marketing, pricing and subsidies, and agricultural
inputs.

o Research projects of insufficient duration.

In the 1960's, it became understood that a simple transfer of agri-
cultural know-how from developed to developing countries would not
be sufficient to systematically increase food production. An apparent
solution was to transfer the knowledge of how to conduct research (in
technical terms) rather than a direct transfer of research results. The
impact evaluations have found this to be helpful but not sufficient.
Planning research programs adapted to the administrative, policy, and
economic environments is as important as designing technically effective
research programs. To do this, the interactions between changes in agri-
cultural production and the rest of the economy must be understood.

In the Western world, these interactions were often takeninto account
as a matter of course when research programs were planned at the request
of farmers, or by private enterprises for commercial purposes." A host





- 16 -


government establishing a research infrastructure is likely to need
assistance in planning and management, as well as technical assistance
in agricultural science. The deputy minister of agriculture in one of
the countries evaluated, himself an agriculturalist trained under the
AID agricultural research project, stated that AID technical and finan-
cial assistanceto the agricultural research centers would have been
more effective on the long term if assistance had also been available
for planning and policy decisions regarding the place and role of the
research networks within the host government.


B. Strengthening the Scientific Research Capacity of a Host Country

The training of agricultural researchers has been achieved according
to plans in most projects, but the actual benefits from training have
sometimes been disappointing. This is because the financial or career
incentives offered to researchers in less-developed countries are often
insufficient to keep them on the job for which they were trained.

In the U.S., research activities are closely linked with the uni-
versities. This is not always the case in less-developed countries where
a research institution may be part of the government ministry, and where
universities are likely to be controlled by the government. Whether
agricultural research positions are given civil service status will
influence the salary level and career opportunities available to the
trainees. It will also determine how much flexibility the researchers
have in planning their research programs and controlling research funds.

Other factors contributing to low productivity and eventual loss of
trained professionals are inadequate support of research programs and
inefficient administration of support .services.

Scientific exchanges between the host country researcher and those
in other national and international research institutions have been found
effective as personal and professional rewards.


C. Adaptation of a Research Program to Actual Farming Conditions

The impact evaluations have found that a research program is more
likely to result in improved technology that the farmers find useful if
it takes the following into consideration. First, the existing farming
practices and the agro-ecological environment in which they are used
should be known. Assessing the existing cropping and farming systems
rather than isolated commodities has been found effective. Second, the
socio-economic constraints that bear on the farm household should be
understood. These range from the availability of production resources
(land, water, labor, inputs, credit) to felt needs and priorities of the
food producers and their families.





- 16 -


government establishing a research infrastructure is likely to need
assistance in planning and management, as well as technical assistance
in agricultural science. The deputy minister of agriculture in one of
the countries evaluated, himself an agriculturalist trained under the
AID agricultural research project, stated that AID technical and finan-
cial assistanceto the agricultural research centers would have been
more effective on the long term if assistance had also been available
for planning and policy decisions regarding the place and role of the
research networks within the host government.


B. Strengthening the Scientific Research Capacity of a Host Country

The training of agricultural researchers has been achieved according
to plans in most projects, but the actual benefits from training have
sometimes been disappointing. This is because the financial or career
incentives offered to researchers in less-developed countries are often
insufficient to keep them on the job for which they were trained.

In the U.S., research activities are closely linked with the uni-
versities. This is not always the case in less-developed countries where
a research institution may be part of the government ministry, and where
universities are likely to be controlled by the government. Whether
agricultural research positions are given civil service status will
influence the salary level and career opportunities available to the
trainees. It will also determine how much flexibility the researchers
have in planning their research programs and controlling research funds.

Other factors contributing to low productivity and eventual loss of
trained professionals are inadequate support of research programs and
inefficient administration of support .services.

Scientific exchanges between the host country researcher and those
in other national and international research institutions have been found
effective as personal and professional rewards.


C. Adaptation of a Research Program to Actual Farming Conditions

The impact evaluations have found that a research program is more
likely to result in improved technology that the farmers find useful if
it takes the following into consideration. First, the existing farming
practices and the agro-ecological environment in which they are used
should be known. Assessing the existing cropping and farming systems
rather than isolated commodities has been found effective. Second, the
socio-economic constraints that bear on the farm household should be
understood. These range from the availability of production resources
(land, water, labor, inputs, credit) to felt needs and priorities of the
food producers and their families.






- 17


Probably as a result of the complexity of the problems addressed
by research institutions, programs which maximize linkages between the
research activities and related activities have been found most success-
ful. This included establishing maximum contacts among researchers,
farmers, and extension services, conducting on-farm trials of varieties
and practices, and establishing a systematic feedback from farmers to
researchers.

Such programs could not be implemented by agricultural scientists
alone, but call for multidisciplinary activities.


D. A WORD OF CAUTION

The U.S. Agency for International Development has reaffirmed its
objectives to "enable countries to become self-reliant in food," with
"an emphasis on effectively increasing the productivity, incomes and
market participation of small producers." (AID Food and Agricultural
Development Policy, March 1982, pp. 3 and 6, emphasis in text).

The emphasis on food production and the well-being of small prod-
ucers will be kept as a central focus throughout the Workshop on Impact
of Agricultural Research. The following questions are in order, even
though they are not specifically discussed in all the impact evaluations.

Is it enough to increase food production? There is evidence that
an increase in food production does not necessarily lead to an increase
in net income of the farm household. The additional costs of inputs and
opportunity costs of added labor or non-farming activities can counter-
balance the increased production. Few of the reports discussed this
problem, but the Nepal impact evaluation showed that some farms could
have a negative rate of return for high-yield varieties. The assumption
"increased production equals increased income" may be incorrect, and this
could explain why farmers cannot always be convinced to adopt innovations
that are technically valid.

Who benefits from a higher income? The impact of improved technology
in agriculture among rural households is also complex. The diffusion of
improved technology can have both negative and positive impacts over time
or on different sections of the population. Improved technology can open
better opportunities for those food producers with a larger resource base
(land, water labor, access to credit), therefore widening the gap between
the poorer and better-off farmers.

In addition, a high household income does not necessarily benefit
all household members. While most development projects take the household
as the smallest target unit, it is not so in reality. In most cultures,
there is a clear division of labor obligations and of rights to production
and income among household members, and especially between the male head
of household and his wife or wives. Improved technology can increase the





- 18 -


overall farm production or income while leaving some household members--
typically the women--worse off than before. There is little opportunity
within the time frame of an impact evaluation to go down to such a level
of detail. Nevertheless, it is well to keep in mind that an increase in
farm income does not always mean that everyone in the household is better
off than before.

Finally, the potential impact of agricultural research on consumers
(both rural and urban) should be considered in terms of type, quantity,
reliability of the food supply, and market prices.








- 19 -


LITERATURE CITED




Bachman, Kenneth and Leonardo A. Paulino. Rapid Food Production
Growth in Selected Developing Countries. IFPRI No. 11, 1979.

Borlaug, Norman E. "Feeding Mankind in the 1980's: The Role
of International Agricultural Research", Third Annual
Agricultural Sector Symposia. World Bank, Washington, D.C.,
January 1982.

Cummings, Ralph W. Jr. "Strengthening Linkages between Agricultural
Research and Farmers: An Overview," A Background Document
for the Workshop on Linkages between Agricultural Research
and Farmers in Developing Countries, May 1981.

Dalrymple, Dana G., "The Adoption of High-Yielding Grain Varieties
in Developing Nations", Agricultural History, 53(4), 1979.

Evenson, Robert E. and Yoav Kislev. Agricultural Research and
Productivity. Yale University Press, 1975.

Food and Agriculture Organization. The Planning and Programming
of Agricultural Research. 1975.

---------------- Yearbook 1980.

International Agricultural Development Service, "Preparing
Professional Staff for National Agricultural Research
Programs", Report of a Workshop, Bellagio, Italy,
February 1979.

Madamba, Joseph, "Strengthening National Agricultural Research:
The Role of International Associations", A Paper presented
at an ISNAR-IADS workshop,-November 30 December 4, 1981.

Moseman, Albert H. Building Agricultural Research Systems in the
Developing Nations. Agricultural Development Council, 1970.

Oram, Peter A. and Vishva Bindlish. Resource Allocations to
National Agricultural Research: Trends in the 1970's.
(A review of Third World systems.) IFPRI and ISNAR,
November 1981.

Oram, Peter et al, "Investment and Input Requirements for Accelerating
Food Production in Low Income Countries by 1990", IFPRI No. 10,
1979.






- 20 -


Pinstrup-Andersen, Per and Francis C. Byrnes, "Methods for Allocating
Resources in Applied Agricultural Research in Latin America",
CIAT/ADC Workshop, November 26 29, 1976.

Presidential Commission on World Hunger. Overcoming World Hunger
The Challenge Ahead. March, 1980.

Schuh, G. Edward and Helio Tollini. Costs and Benefits of Agricul-
tural Research: The State of the Arts. World Bank Staff
Working Paper No. 360, 1979.

Scobie, Grant M. Investment in International Agricultural Research:
Some Economic Dimensions. World Bank Staff Working Paper
No. 361, October 1979.

Shearer, Eric B. and H. P. Minis, Jr. Synthesis of DAC Project
Evaluation Studies, Agricultural Research. AID Evaluation
Working Paper No. 41, April 1982.

Whyte, William F. Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research
and Development: A State-of-the-Art Paper. Cornell University,
1981.

Willett, Joseph W., "Research for Agriculture in Developing Countries:
The U.S. Role", Food Policy. February 1982.

World Bank. Agricultural Research Sector Policy Paper. June 1981.

U.S. Agency for International Development. Agricultural Development
Policy Paper. June 1978.

---------------------- A.I.D. Food and
Agricultural Development Assistance. March 1982.



















The Limits of Success


Central America: Small-Farmer
Cropping Systems















Guatemala: Development of the
Institute of Agricultural Science
and Technology (ICTA) and its
Impact on Agricultural Research
and Farm Productivity


Title


Kitale Maize:


Annex A




Impact Evaluation Team Members


Charles W. Johnson, Team Leader
(Bureau for Asia)
Keith M. Byergo, Agronomist
(Bureau for Development Support)
Patrick Fleuret, Anthropologist
(Bureau for Program and Policy
Coordination)
Emmy Simmons, Agricultural Economist
(Bureau for Program and Policy
Coordination)
Gary Wasserman, Political Scientist
(Administrator's Office)


Harlan H. Hobgood, Team Leader
(Bureau for Development Support)
Rufo Bazan, Agricultural Scientist
(Interamerican Institute of
Agricultural Sciences)
Rollo Ehrich, Agricultural Economist
(Bureau for Development Support)
Francisco Escobar, Rural Sociologist
(University of Costa Rica)
Twig Johnson, Development Anthropologist
(Bureau for Program and Policy
Coordination)
Marc Lindenberg, Political/Institutional
Analyst (Development Studies Program)





James McDermott, Team Leader
(Bureau for Science and Technology,
Office of Agriculture)
David Bathrick
(USAID/Thailand)














Title

Korean Agricultural Research:
The Integration of Research
and Extension


Food Grain Technology:
Agricultural Research in Nepal


Agricultural Research in
Northeastern Thailand












Tunisia (in preparation)


Impact Evaluation Team Members



David I. Steinberg, Team Leader
(Bureau for Program and Policy
Coordination)
Robert I. Jackson
(Bureau for Development Support)
Kwan S. Kim
(Bureau for Program and Policy
Coordination)
Song, Hae-kyun
(Seoul National University)


Emmy B. Simmons, Team Leader
(Bureau for Program and Policy
Coordination)
Joseph Beausoleil
(Bureau for Science and Technology)
Gary Ender
(U.S. Department of Agriculture)
Gregory Heist
(Cornell University)
Josette Murphy
(Bureau for Program and Policy
Coordination)


Michael M. Calavan, Team Leader and
Anthropologist (Development Studies
Program)
James D. Wilson
(Development Studies Program)
John DeBoer, Agricultural Economist
(Winrock International)
Isara Sooksathan, Agronomist
(Kasetsart University)
Paitoon Rodwinij, Agricultural Economist
(Kasetsart University)

William F. Johnson, Team Leader and
Agricultural Economist (BIFAD)
Carl Ferguson, Consultant Agronomist
Mona Fikry, Consultant Anthropologist












Impact Evaluation Team Member


West Africa Rice
Research and Production


John Van Dusen Lewis, Team Leader
(Bureau for the Near East)
Robert I. Jackson, Agronomist
(Bureau for Science and Technology)
Sidney F. Bowers, Agronomist
(Bureau for Africa)
Elon Gilbert, Agricultural Economist
(University of Colorado)
William Scott, Agricultural Economist
(Consultant)


Title






Annex B


AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH DOCUMENTS

Published under the

A.I.D. IMPACT EVALUATION SERIES



Project Impact Evaluations


No. 2: Kitale Maize: The Limits of Success
(May 1980) PN-AAH-768

No. 14: Central America: Small Farmer Cropping Systems
(December 1980) PN-AAH-977

No. 27: Korean Agricultural Research: The Integration of
Research and Extension

No. 30: Guatemala: Development of the Institute of Agricultural
Science and Technology (ICTA) and its Impact on Agricultural
Research and Farm Productivity


in progress:


in progress:


Thailand: Agricultural Research in Northeastern
Thailand

Nepal: Food Grain Technology: Agricultural
Research in Nepal


in progress: WARDA: West Africa Rice Research and Production


in progress:


Tunisia: Regional Wheat Development and Accelerated
Cereals Projects Impact Evaluation


Discussion Paper

13: A.I.D. Experience in Agricultural Research: A Review of
Project Evaluations


















Annex C

EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF IMPACT EVALUATION REPORTS




I\-LTA1iJ ;A1: THtE LIMITS Ur' SUCCUSbb


A.I.D. first became involved with hybrid maize research in Kenya in
1963, through the Organization of African Unity and the East African
Community. By 1970, the yield of the original hybrids had been suc-
cessfully improved by 25 percent under research station conditions. The
breeding program was continuously followed with similarly positive re-
sults until the EAC broke up in 1977. Other aspects of the A.I.D. pro-
gram were less rewarding. Research to improve maize protein quality and
S to develop varieties for low rainfall areas did not succeed. Nor did
the attempt to train Kenyans and integrate them into the research opera-
tion succeed. When the last American scientist left almost 15 years
after the first A.I.D. project began, the effort was not sustained by
Kenya.

In 1964, the first hybrid maize seeds were released for commercial pro-
duction. Hybrids produced a remarkable 40 percent increase in yield
over local seed and proved appropriate to the environment of the high
potential area of Kenya, with their fertile soils, abundant rainfall,
and moderate temperatures. At the time, it was assumed that African
farmers would continue to use the local improved variety rather than the
new hybrid--it was less prone to crop failure and it could be re-used
year after year whereas hybrid seed had to be re-purchased each year.
But the hybrid was cleaily superior in yield, enjoyed the status of a
crop used by large farmers, and small farmers soon demanded it. By
1977, the major~tf of smallholders in high potential Central, Rift
Valley and Western Provinces grew hybrid maize and their production far
surpassed large farmer output.

An aggressive private firm, the Kenya Seed Company, reproduced the seed,
distributed it, and promoted it throughout the country via a network of
private shopkeepers. -Extension agents demonstrated the use of improved
cultivation techniques. The government-supported official prices and
marketing system provided incentives, particularly for large farmers, to
adopt and profit by the hybrid technology.

Innovations are usually unfair in the sense they reward those who have
the means to benefit from them. Consequently, it is not surprising that
hybrid maize was of greater value to those farmers with sufficient land,
labor and capital to fully utilize the innovation. More surprising is
the large number of smallholders who did gain access to the hybrid maize
technology and who have improved their food security as a result. The
overall impact of the increased maize production attributable to the use
of hybrid seed is that Kenya has continued to be more or less self-
sufficient in maize, the country's staple food. As a result, Kenya,
despite a very high rate of population growth, has not had to face some
food policy problems which have confronted other developing countries.
Without hybrid maize, population pressure would likely have led to a
demand for more land for food crops and a reduction in less essential
export crops. Hybrid maize helped to keep the price of food down in the
cities, thus muting the pay demands of urban workers and keeping Kenya
attractive for foreign investment.

There is a question, however, whether the government saw the increased
production of maize as more of a problem than an opportunity. The





- 2-


government continued a pricing and marketing system more suited to deal-
ing with the problems of scarcity than those of abundance. The Maize
and Produce Marketing Board responded to an obvious need for increased
storage capacity, for example, with too little, too late. Nor did the
government take adequate measures to ensure the continued success of
hybrids by: guarding the flow of critical inputs, including sufficient
credit and chemical fertilizers; and being supportive of the research
facilities which made the hybrids possible. The loss of the incremental
benefits which the A.I.D. project demonstrated were possible by improv-
ing hybrid seed year to year, cannot be calculated--but based upon the
benefits derived from the program in early years, the loss is sub-
stantial.

Smallholders have not yet exerted policy influence on the government (as
did the European-dominated large farm sector prior to Independence) by
forming effecti''e organizations of their own. If government policy to-
ward maize is to become more effective, it will require not only better
long range planning but wider popular participation, especially among
smallholders, in its formulation.

From the experience of hybrid maize in Kenya and from the observations
of Kenyan maizegtowers and consumers, an A.I.D. evaluation team drew
seven key lessons:

1. Simplicity and viability were the decisive factors in the
success of hybrid maize.

2. The private sector was crucial in the rapid diffusion of hybrid
maize.

3. Perfect equity cannot be expected even from the most successful
technology.

4. The long-term continuity of foreign experts was basic to the
success of the breeding program.

5. Foreign advisors and finance do not automatically create
institutional capacity to perform agricultural research.

6. Pragmatism and skepticism should surround A.I.D. support for
regionalism.

7.. Too many lessons should not be drawn from a unique experience in
one African country.




For additional information contact the Administrative Assistant, PPC/E,
Room 2839, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs