On the Impact Assessment of ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) Projects

The current ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) guidelines for impact assessment of agricultural development projects see impact assessment as being useful for both accountability to stakeholders and as a learning tool to find out what works, what doesn’t work and why. The methodology involves the use of conventional economic evaluation and the estimation of a money metric based on measuring outcomes in terms of economic surplus changes attributable to directed actions and activities. On the question of accountability to stakeholders, this paper suggests that the money metric may not be the best outcomes-based measure of performance against development goals and that other performance indicators ought to be considered. The paper also suggests exploring other approaches to assess accountability including qualitative (narrative) methods as well as process-based accountability. On the question of using impact assessment as a learning tool, the paper suggests this might be quite useful for more traditional non-adaptive research, but is less useful for adaptive research projects involving participatory action research (PAR). With PAR projects, learning about what works, what doesn’t work and why already occurs as an integral part of the research process. The paper concludes with some thoughts about project evaluation of an ACIAR-funded project with which the authors are involved in northwest Cambodia focusing on upland crop production and marketing.Project evaluation, impact assessment, adaptive project management, Cambodia., Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

The Economic Cost of Climate Change and the Benefits from Investments in Adaptation Options for Sri Lankan Coconut Value Chains

Agriculture in low latitude countries such as Sri Lanka is already operating at the maximum temperature limits for crop growth and face increased production risk from expected climate change. Sri Lanka is a developing country with limited economic and technological capacity to develop adaptation strategies; hence more vulnerable to climate change than developed countries. Coconut (Cocos nucifera L) is a rain fed perennial crop important in Sri Lankan culture, food consumption and the economy. It is the second most important food in the Sri Lankan diet after rice. Several studies have examined the impact of climate change on Sri Lankan agriculture, but none were conducted to simulate the impact of future climate change and future adaptation strategies on coconut production, or to calculate the economic welfare effects for different stakeholders in the coconut value chain. In this paper we report the development of an economic model of the coconut value chain that allows prediction of welfare impacts, and a quantitative representation of coconut yield that allows the impact of changing climatic conditions on yield. The average outcome of 16 climate models was used to generate future climatic conditions, with two future climatic scenarios for 2020, 2030 and 2050 considered for three production regions. The most important yield estimate was a yield decline of more than 10 percent in the wet zone with the expected increase of maximum temperature. Without extra adaptation measures this is predicted to result in a loss to the industry of 4,795 Rs.Million annually by 2020, which is nearly 4.7 percent of the total value of the industry at equilibrium. The negative impact of climate change has the potential to be reduced with the implementation of additional adaptation practices. However, the cost effectiveness of these practices needs to be considered in comparing the practices. Wider adoption of fertilizer application at specific times and moisture conservation practices are estimated to be economically beneficial

ACIAR’s Contribution to Lowland Rice Technologies in Laos

The lowland rice industry in Laos experiences dry conditions regularly. Rice producers also face rising labour costs as the Lao economy grows. Much of the crop is consumed by the farm households who grew it. Between 1997 and 2012 ACIAR co-funded a set of three projects with the main outcomes being the development of rice varieties more tolerant of dry conditions and direct seeding technologies to replace traditional hand transplanting. Human capacity and scientific knowledge were other significant outcomes from the projects. Direct seeding allowed the release of family labour for other on- and off- farm and household activities. Assessing ACIAR’s contribution to the economic and social impacts from this set of projects was difficult because of the length of time since the projects began, because of the lack of data about the adoption of the technologies and because the University team funded by ACIAR were not the only research team working on these technologies. We focussed on estimating the economic impact of the two technologies applying welfare analysis in a farm level market model of the Lao rice industry and on describing gains in scientific capacity and knowledge. Potential social impacts from the releasing labour from transplanting were also described. Given the uncertainties created by inadequate data, care was taken to develop plausible causal pathways between project research activities and economic and social outcomes. The present value in 2017 of the investment in the three projects by ACIAR and partners was estimated to be $A14.1m (all monetary values in 2017$AUD and applying ACIAR’s 5% discount rate). The present values in 2017 of the streams of measurable benefits from the adoption of more drought tolerant varieties and direct seeding technology were $A18.5m and$A44.1m respectively, for a total of $A62.6m. The net present value of these streams of benefits and costs in 2017 was$A48.5m. The benefit cost ratio was 4.44:1 and the internal rate of return was 16.0%. The modified internal rate of return, MIRR was 11.5% assuming that the net benefit stream can be reinvested through the life of the investment at a rate of 5%. By these three measures the set of three projects, whose impact has been assessed here, are likely to have been a good investment from ACIAR’s perspective. This conclusion is quite robust to the uncertainty surrounding our assumption about the rates of adoption of the technologies and the share of benefits from the two technologies attributable to the ACIAR projects. If both these parameters are halved (approximately) for both technologies, an unlikely scenario in our view, the investment in the projects still earns the required rate of return

ACIAR’s Contribution to Lowland Rice Technologies in Laos

The lowland rice industry in Laos experiences dry conditions regularly. Rice producers also face rising labour costs as the Lao economy grows. Much of the crop is consumed by the farm households who grew it. Between 1997 and 2012, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) co-funded a set of three projects with the main outcomes being the development of rice varieties that are more tolerant of dry conditions and direct seeding technologies to replace traditional hand transplanting. Increases in human capacity and scientific knowledge were other significant outcomes from the projects. Direct seeding allowed the release of family labour for other on- and off-farm, and household, activities. Assessing ACIAR’s contribution to the economic and social impacts from this set of projects was difficult because of the length of time since the projects began, because of the lack of data about the adoption of the technologies and because the University team funded by ACIAR were not the only research team working on these technologies. We focussed on estimating the economic impact of the two technologies applying welfare analysis in a farm level market model of the Lao rice industry and on describing gains in scientific capacity and knowledge. Potential social impacts from the release of labour from transplanting were also described. Given the uncertainties created by inadequate data, care was taken to develop plausible causal pathways between project research activities and economic and social outcomes. The present value in 2017 of the investment in the three projects by ACIAR and partners was estimated to be $A14.1m (all monetary values in 2017 A$ and applying ACIAR’s 5 per cent discount rate). The present values in 2017 of the streams of measurable benefits from the adoption of more drought tolerant varieties and direct seeding technology were $A18.5m and$A44.1m respectively, for a total of $A62.6m. The net present value of these streams of benefits and costs in 2017 was$A48.5m. The benefit cost ratio was 4.44:1 and the internal rate of return was 16.0 per cent. The modified internalrate of return was 11.5 per cent assuming that the net benefit stream can be reinvested through the life of the investment at a rate of 5 per cent. By these three measures the set of three projects, whose impact has been assessed here, are likely to have been a good investment from ACIAR’s perspective. This conclusion is quite robust to the uncertainty surrounding our assumption about the rates of adoption of the technologies and the share of benefits from the two technologies attributable to the ACIAR projects. If both these parameters are halved (approximately) for both technologies, an unlikely scenario in our view, the investment in the projects still earns the required rate of return

On the Impact Assessment of ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) Projects

The current ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) guidelines for impact assessment of agricultural development projects see impact assessment as being useful for both accountability to stakeholders and as a learning tool to find out what works, what doesn’t work and why. The methodology involves the use of conventional economic evaluation and the estimation of a money metric based on measuring outcomes in terms of economic surplus changes attributable to directed actions and activities. On the question of accountability to stakeholders, this paper suggests that the money metric may not be the best outcomes-based measure of performance against development goals and that other performance indicators ought to be considered. The paper also suggests exploring other approaches to assess accountability including qualitative (narrative) methods as well as process-based accountability. On the question of using impact assessment as a learning tool, the paper suggests this might be quite useful for more traditional non-adaptive research, but is less useful for adaptive research projects involving participatory action research (PAR). With PAR projects, learning about what works, what doesn’t work and why already occurs as an integral part of the research process. The paper concludes with some thoughts about project evaluation of an ACIAR-funded project with which the authors are involved in northwest Cambodia focusing on upland crop production and marketing

Factors Affecting Collective Actions in Farmer-Managed Irrigation Systems of Nepal

The efficient management of agricultural water to meet its growing demand and to increase farm productivity has become a major concern in many agrarian countries. Various management principles, such as changes in governance, and crafting locally devised institutions have been prioritised in recent literature. The Nepalese government has considered farmers’ governance in managing irrigation systems as a successful irrigation policy. One of the measures for a successful farmer-managed irrigation systems (FMIS), each farmer must engage actively in collective choice actions and share both the costs and benefits from the system, proportionately. Various aspects in an institution affects farmers’ cooperative behavior to engage in the irrigation management process. A study of 232 FMIS in Nepal revealed that there is a need for a revised institutional design that can empower farmers by investing them with more defined property rights so that they can actively engage in maintenance activities

The Economic Cost of Climate Change and the Benefits from Investments in Adaptation Options for Sri Lankan Coconut Value Chains

Agriculture in low latitude countries such as Sri Lanka is already operating at the maximum temperature limits for crop growth and face increased production risk from expected climate change. Sri Lanka is a developing country with limited economic and technological capacity to develop adaptation strategies" hence more vulnerable to climate change than developed countries. Coconut (Cocos nucifera L) is a rain fed perennial crop important in Sri Lankan culture, food consumption and the economy. It is the second most important food in the Sri Lankan diet after rice. Several studies have examined the impact of climate change on Sri Lankan agriculture, but none were conducted to simulate the impact of future climate change and future adaptation strategies on coconut production, or to calculate the economic welfare effects for different stakeholders in the coconut value chain. In this paper we report the development of an economic model of the coconut value chain that allows prediction of welfare impacts, and a quantitative representation of coconut yield that allows the impact of changing climatic conditions on yield. The average outcome of 16 climate models was used to generate future climatic conditions, with two future climatic scenarios for 2020, 2030 and 2050 considered for three production regions. The most important yield estimate was a yield decline of more than 10 percent in the wet zone with the expected increase of maximum temperature. Without extra adaptation measures this is predicted to result in a loss to the industry of 4,795 Rs.Million annually by 2020, which is nearly 4.7 percent of the total value of the industry at equilibrium. The negative impact of climate change has the potential to be reduced with the implementation of additional adaptation practices. However, the cost effectiveness of these practices needs to be considered in comparing the practices. Wider adoption of fertilizer application at specific times and moisture conservation practices are estimated to be economically beneficial

The Economic Cost of Climate Change and the Benefits from Investments in Adaptation Options for Sri Lankan Coconut Value Chains

Agriculture in low latitude countries such as Sri Lanka is already operating at the maximum temperature limits for crop growth and face increased production risk from expected climate change. Sri Lanka is a developing country with limited economic and technological capacity to develop adaptation strategies; hence more vulnerable to climate change than developed countries. Coconut (Cocos nucifera L) is a rain fed perennial crop important in Sri Lankan culture, food consumption and the economy. It is the second most important food in the Sri Lankan diet after rice. Several studies have examined the impact of climate change on Sri Lankan agriculture, but none were conducted to simulate the impact of future climate change and future adaptation strategies on coconut production, or to calculate the economic welfare effects for different stakeholders in the coconut value chain. In this paper we report the development of an economic model of the coconut value chain that allows prediction of welfare impacts, and a quantitative representation of coconut yield that allows the impact of changing climatic conditions on yield. The average outcome of 16 climate models was used to generate future climatic conditions, with two future climatic scenarios for 2020, 2030 and 2050 considered for three production regions. The most important yield estimate was a yield decline of more than 10 percent in the wet zone with the expected increase of maximum temperature. Without extra adaptation measures this is predicted to result in a loss to the industry of 4,795 Rs.Million annually by 2020, which is nearly 4.7 percent of the total value of the industry at equilibrium. The negative impact of climate change has the potential to be reduced with the implementation of additional adaptation practices. However, the cost effectiveness of these practices needs to be considered in comparing the practices. Wider adoption of fertilizer application at specific times and moisture conservation practices are estimated to be economically beneficial