Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies, Downloads July 2008 - June 2009: 13,

Anandajayasekeram, Ponniah

Masters, William A.

Oehmke, James F.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Page 1
POLICY SYNTHESIS
for USAID - Bureau for Africa
Office of Sustainable Development
Number 28 February 1997
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL 
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER: 
Synthesis of Findings and Lessons Learned
By
P. Anandajayasekeram, William A. Masters, and James F. Oehmke
Food Security II Cooperative Agreement between U.S. Agency for International Development, Global Bureau, Economic Growth Center,
Office of Agriculture and Food Security and Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University 
BACKGROUND:  Since 1992, a series of studies
identifying and quantifying the impacts of technol-
ogy development and transfer (TDT) for agricultural
and natural resources in sub-Saharan Africa has
been funded by AID and other donors.  These
studies have played a crucial role in reversing the
conventional wisdom of the 1980s and early 1990s,
namely that TDT hadn’t generated impact.  In fact,
African agricultural TDT has contributed to
substantial improvements in the welfare of African
producers and consumers.  Moreover, the studies
have helped to delineate the role that agricultural
TDT can play in helping to address the very serious
challenges that confront Africa and Africans today.
This document synthesizes the current state of
knowledge about the impacts of African agricultural
TDT.  It is based on results presented at the
Roundtable Discussion on Impact Assessment of
African Agricultural Technology Development and
Transfer, held in Washington D.C., Jan. 9-10, 1997.
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS RESULTS:
Evidence: Although countries’ individual
experiences are complex and uneven, examination of
African aggregate data shows evidence of significant
deterioration between 1971 and 1984, followed by a
modest recovery over the past 12 years.  The FAO
index of total agricultural production fell
consistently from 1971 to 1984, for a cumulative
decline of 22%.  Coupled with rapid population
growth, this led a decline of 40% in agricultural
exports and a tripling of imports.  From 1984 to
1995 there is a sustained improvement in yields
in East, West and Southern Africa.  In the Sahel,
cereal grain production doubled between 1984
and 1995.  For all of sub-Saharan Africa,
agricultural production has kept pace with
population growth over the last 12 years.
A number of factors--policy reform, improved
rainfall in some regions, reduced population
growth in some areas, and relative political
stability, among others--have contributed to the
shift from a declining agricultural to one of
modest growth.  The aggregate evidence on
Africa’s success in increasing average cereal
yields also points to an unrecognized story of
successful TDT, as farmers adopt increasingly
productive varieties and production techniques.
Evidence from case studies is summarized by the
rate of return (ROR) on investment in TDT.  The
ROR is the single most convenient and accurate
number for summarizing the benefits, costs and
time pattern of TDT activities.  The benefits
included are usually directly related to producer
and consumer well-being.  The ROR studies are
categorized as ex post, those which quantify
historical benefits and costs (Table 1; for earlier
studies see Policy Synthesis No. 20), or ex ante,
which project future benefits and costs (Table 2). 
FS II Policy Synthesis No. 28 
Page 2
The evidence from the impact case studies indicates & Sub-national, national and regional
that agricultural and natural resource TDT activities collaboration.
have generated impact sufficient to justify the & Improving linkages with clients, stakeholders
investments.  Impacts have been generated across and  the  private  sector.
commodities and countries, in different agroclimatic & TDT is a lengthy process that requires
settings.  The evidence is sufficient to support continuity  in  funding  and  direction.
continued funding of agricultural and natural
resource TDT in Africa. To give one example, the ROR evidence indicates
Methodological Issues: The ROR may well be the generated  modest  RORs;  innovative  natural
best single-number summary available of TDT resource  management techniques may have
impact, but it is still only a single indicator.  This higher payoffs, and may improve the impact of
leads to three methodological issues that impact breeding.
assessments should address.  First, the current trend
of expanding the range of benefits quantified, for
example by including environmental benefits (and
costs), is appropriate and should be continued.
Second, the comprehensiveness of benefits included
needs to be more clearly communicated to policy
makers.  For example, the standard calculation of
consumer benefits implicitly includes better
nutrition, even if this benefit is not measured
explicitly and hidden in the economic calculations.
Third, efforts to understand the attribution of
benefits among TDT and complementary
investments should be continued.  The purpose of
these efforts is not to define which activity should
get a bigger share of the budget, but to design a
portfolio of complementary investments that
generates the greatest possible impact.  Similarly,
impact assessments that investigate constraints to
generating impact may help target funds toward
those areas that have the greatest potential payoffs.
Thematic and Programmatic Issues: The impact
case studies identify several  issues that will have
significant affects on the future impacts of TDT:
& Improving the enabling environment for TDT.
& Defining a research agenda for resource-poor
(rainfall, soil quality) areas.
& Defining an agenda for remote and poor-access
areas.
& Allocating effort between smallholders and large
commercial farmers.
& Improving institutional structures and terms of
service.
& Allocating funds to TDT activities with high
potential payoffs.
that breeding activities in low rainfall areas have
THE FUTURE OF IMPACT
ASSESSMENT: Impact assessment studies
serve several purposes. They can (and have) help
to generate additional funds; they provide
information that is used and is useful in
determining TDT priorities; they provide
recognition to and by scientists of social welfare
improvements; and they help policy makers to
think about the real benefits of agriculture and
agricultural TDT.  For these reasons, impact
assessment is being, and should continue to be,
institutionalized in national and regional research
organizations.  Future impact assessments can
improve by better communicating results,
providing information on critical areas of needed
TDT,  and by defining those characteristics of
the enabling environments that will help scientists
to generate the greatest improvements in social
well-being.
*Partial funding for this research was provided by the Technology
Development and Transfer Unit of the Productive Sector Growth and
Environment Division, Office of Sustainable Development, Bureau
for Africa, USAID (AFR/SD/PSGE/TDT).  The synthesis was
prepared under the Food Security II Cooperative Agreement Between
AID/Global Bureau, Office of Agriculture and Food Security, and
the Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State
University.  The views expressed in this document are exclusively
those of the authors.
Anandajayasekeram is Economic Impact Advisor, SACCAR;
Masters is assistant professor, Purdue Uniersity; and Oehmke is
associate professor, MSU.T
a
b
l
e
 
1
.
 
 
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
 
o
f
 
R
e
c
e
n
t
 
I
m
p
a
c
t
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
 
o
f
 
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
 
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
 
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
 
w
i
t
h
 
E
x
-
P
o
s
t
 
R
a
t
e
s
 
o
f
 
R
e
t
u
r
n
.
A
U
T
H
O
R
(
S
)
 
A
N
D
C
O
M
M
O
D
I
T
Y
,
 
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
R
O
R
D
A
T
E
 
O
F
 
S
T
U
D
Y
A
N
D
 
Y
E
A
R
S
 
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
(
%
)
A
N
N
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
w
e
l
l
,
 
1
9
9
2
E
a
s
t
 
A
f
r
i
c
a
,
 
p
o
t
a
t
o
,
 
1
9
7
8
-
1
9
9
1
 
9
1
%
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
 
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
/
N
A
R
S
 
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
S
a
n
d
e
r
s
,
 
1
9
9
4
G
h
a
n
a
,
 
m
a
i
z
e
,
 
1
9
6
8
-
1
9
9
2
 
7
4
%
N
e
w
 
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
 
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r
.
 
C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
,
 
s
o
r
g
h
u
m
,
 
1
9
8
0
-
1
9
9
2
 
2
%
O
n
e
 
n
e
w
 
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
 
(
S
-
3
5
)
.
S
m
a
l
e
 
a
n
d
 
H
e
i
s
e
y
,
M
a
l
a
w
i
,
 
m
a
i
z
e
,
 
1
9
5
7
-
1
9
9
2
 
4
-
7
%
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
 
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
 
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
 
s
i
n
c
e
 
1
9
8
5
.
1
9
9
4
K
u
p
f
u
m
a
,
 
1
9
9
4
Z
i
m
b
a
b
w
e
,
 
m
a
i
z
e
,
 
1
9
3
2
-
1
9
4
0
4
3
.
5
%
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
 
a
n
d
 
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
 
a
n
d
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
 
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
K
h
a
t
r
i
,
 
T
h
i
r
t
l
e
 
a
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
 
A
f
r
i
c
a
,
 
a
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
4
4
%
E
c
o
n
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
 
d
e
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
 
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
 
g
r
o
w
t
h
.
 
v
a
n
 
Z
y
l
,
 
1
9
9
5
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
A
h
m
e
d
,
 
M
a
s
t
e
r
s
S
u
d
a
n
,
 
s
o
r
g
h
u
m
,
 
1
9
7
9
-
1
9
9
2
5
3
-
9
7
%
N
e
w
 
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
 
(
H
D
-
1
)
 
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
 
i
n
 
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
 
s
c
h
e
m
e
,
 
w
i
t
h
 
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
 
S
a
n
d
e
r
s
,
 
1
9
9
5
i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
 
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r
 
a
n
d
 
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
 
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
S
e
c
k
,
 
S
i
d
i
b
é
,
 
a
n
d
S
e
n
e
g
a
l
,
 
c
o
t
t
o
n
,
 
1
9
8
5
-
1
9
9
3
3
4
-
3
7
%
N
e
w
 
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
s
;
 
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
 
t
o
 
h
i
g
h
 
l
e
v
e
l
s
 
o
f
 
i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
 
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r
s
 
w
e
r
e
 
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
B
é
y
e
,
 
1
9
9
5
i
n
 
u
s
e
.
O
u
e
d
r
a
o
g
o
,
 
I
l
l
y
 
a
n
d
B
u
r
k
i
n
a
 
F
a
s
o
,
 
m
a
i
z
e
,
 
1
9
8
2
-
1
9
9
3
7
8
%
V
a
r
i
e
t
a
l
 
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
L
o
m
p
o
,
 
1
9
9
6
O
u
e
d
r
a
o
g
o
 
a
n
d
 
I
l
l
y
,
B
u
r
k
i
n
a
 
F
a
s
o
,
 
s
t
o
n
e
 
d
i
k
e
s
,
 
1
9
8
8
-
7
%
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
 
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
 
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
/
s
o
i
l
 
a
n
d
 
w
a
t
e
r
 
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
 
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
.
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
4
S
e
i
d
i
,
 
1
9
9
6
G
u
i
n
e
a
 
B
i
s
s
a
u
,
 
r
i
c
e
,
 
1
9
8
0
-
1
9
9
4
2
6
%
N
e
w
 
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
s
 
f
o
r
 
m
a
n
g
r
o
v
e
-
s
w
a
m
p
 
a
r
e
a
s
.
M
a
k
a
n
d
a
 
a
n
d
K
e
n
y
a
,
 
w
h
e
a
t
,
 
1
9
2
1
-
1
9
9
0
0
-
1
2
%
B
a
s
e
d
 
o
n
 
e
c
o
n
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
 
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
 
i
m
p
a
c
t
 
o
n
 
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
 
y
i
e
l
d
.
O
e
h
m
k
e
,
 
1
9
9
6
A
k
g
n
u
n
g
o
r
 
e
t
 
a
l
.
,
K
e
n
y
a
,
 
w
h
e
a
t
,
 
1
9
2
1
-
1
9
9
0
1
4
-
3
0
%
T
i
m
e
-
s
e
r
i
e
s
 
e
c
o
n
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
 
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
.
 
 
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
d
a
t
a
 
s
h
o
w
 
m
o
r
e
 
r
a
p
i
d
 
y
i
e
l
d
1
9
9
6
g
r
o
w
t
h
 
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
 
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
.T
a
b
l
e
 
2
.
 
 
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
 
o
f
 
I
m
p
a
c
t
 
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
 
o
f
 
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
 
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
 
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
 
w
i
t
h
 
E
x
-
A
n
t
e
 
R
O
R
 
o
r
 
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
-
C
o
s
t
 
R
a
t
i
o
 
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
 
A
U
T
H
O
R
(
S
)
 
A
N
D
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
,
 
 
A
N
D
 
T
E
C
H
N
I
Q
U
E
 
B
-
C
D
A
T
E
 
O
F
 
S
T
U
D
Y
O
R
 
C
O
M
M
O
D
I
T
Y
 
R
A
T
I
O
A
N
N
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
,
 
Y
E
A
R
S
R
O
R
 
o
r
 
 
N
o
r
g
a
a
r
d
,
 
1
9
8
8
A
f
r
i
c
a
,
 
1
9
7
7
-
2
0
0
3
,
 
c
a
s
s
a
v
a
1
4
9
:
1
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
:
 
C
o
s
t
 
r
a
t
i
o
,
 
a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
 
m
u
c
h
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
v
a
l
u
e
 
o
f
 
c
a
s
s
a
v
a
 
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
 
m
e
a
l
y
b
u
g
 
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
S
c
h
w
a
r
t
z
 
e
t
 
a
l
.
,
 
1
9
8
9
S
e
n
e
g
a
l
,
 
1
9
8
1
-
2
0
0
5
,
 
c
o
w
p
e
a
6
3
%
T
D
T
 
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
 
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
 
o
f
 
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
 
f
o
o
d
 
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
 
a
n
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
 
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
M
a
c
M
i
l
l
a
n
 
e
t
 
a
l
.
,
 
1
9
9
1
Z
i
m
b
a
b
w
e
,
 
1
9
9
1
-
1
9
9
6
,
 
m
a
i
z
e
1
.
3
5
:
1
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
-
c
o
s
t
 
r
a
t
i
o
 
f
o
r
 
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
 
a
n
d
 
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
v
a
r
i
e
t
i
e
s
 
f
o
r
 
s
m
a
l
l
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
.
 
 
I
m
p
l
i
e
d
 
R
O
R
 
o
f
 
2
2
%
.
L
a
k
e
r
-
O
j
o
k
,
 
1
9
9
4
U
g
a
n
d
a
,
 
1
9
8
5
-
2
9
9
6
:
m
a
i
z
e
2
7
-
5
8
%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
S
u
n
f
l
o
w
e
r
1
0
-
6
6
%
s
o
y
b
e
a
n
<
0
-
2
0
%
S
t
e
r
n
s
 
a
n
d
 
B
e
r
n
s
t
e
n
,
C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
,
 
1
9
7
9
-
9
8
:
c
o
w
p
e
a
1
5
%
C
o
w
p
e
a
 
T
D
T
 
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
 
a
 
n
e
w
 
f
a
r
m
i
n
g
 
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
;
 
s
o
r
g
h
u
m
 
T
D
T
1
9
9
4
s
o
r
g
h
u
m
1
%
a
d
d
e
d
 
a
 
d
r
o
u
g
h
t
-
e
s
c
a
p
e
 
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
o
n
e
 
y
e
a
r
 
i
n
 
t
h
r
e
e
.
M
a
z
z
u
c
a
t
o
 
a
n
d
 
L
y
,
 
1
9
9
4
N
i
g
e
r
,
 
1
9
7
5
-
2
0
1
1
,
 
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
 
m
i
l
l
e
t
,
2
-
1
0
%
L
o
w
 
R
O
R
s
 
a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
b
l
e
 
t
o
 
f
e
w
 
v
a
r
i
e
t
a
l
 
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
s
 
(
3
 
m
i
l
l
e
t
 
a
n
d
 
1
s
o
r
g
h
u
m
 
a
n
d
 
c
o
w
p
e
a
c
o
w
p
e
a
)
 
a
n
d
 
l
o
w
 
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
d
 
v
a
r
i
e
t
i
e
s
.
B
e
r
t
e
l
s
e
n
 
a
n
d
 
O
u
é
d
r
a
o
g
a
,
B
u
r
k
i
n
a
 
F
a
s
o
,
 
1
9
9
0
-
2
0
0
3
,
 
z
a
ï
5
3
%
Z
a
ï
 
i
s
 
a
n
 
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
 
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
 
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
 
o
f
 
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
 
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
u
n
d
a
t
e
d
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r
 
i
n
 
s
o
r
g
h
u
m
 
a
n
d
 
m
i
l
l
e
t
 
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
 
h
o
l
e
s
 
b
e
f
o
r
e
 
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
s
e
e
d
.
F
i
s
h
e
r
,
 
F
a
l
l
 
a
n
d
 
S
i
d
i
b
é
,
S
e
n
e
g
a
l
,
 
1
9
9
5
-
2
0
0
4
,
 
r
i
c
e
6
6
-
8
3
%
N
e
w
 
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
s
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
 
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r
.
1
9
9
5
T
r
e
,
 
1
9
9
5
S
i
e
r
r
a
 
L
e
o
n
e
,
 
1
9
7
6
-
2
0
1
0
,
 
r
i
c
e
1
8
-
2
1
%
N
e
w
 
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
s
 
f
o
r
 
m
a
n
g
r
o
v
e
 
s
w
a
m
p
s
.
A
n
a
n
d
a
j
a
y
a
s
e
k
e
r
a
m
 
e
t
Z
i
m
b
a
b
w
e
,
 
1
9
8
0
-
9
9
,
 
s
o
r
g
h
u
m
2
2
%
N
e
w
 
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
 
(
S
V
-
2
)
.
a
l
.
,
 
1
9
9
6
N
a
m
i
b
i
a
,
 
1
9
8
8
-
9
9
,
 
m
i
l
l
e
t
1
1
%
N
e
w
 
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
 
(
O
k
a
s
h
a
n
a
 
1
)
.
K
u
y
v
e
n
h
o
v
e
n
,
 
B
e
c
h
t
 
a
n
d
M
a
l
i
,
 
r
o
c
k
 
p
h
o
s
p
h
a
t
e
4
3
-
2
7
1
%
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
 
5
0
%
 
o
f
 
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
 
v
a
l
u
e
 
d
u
e
 
t
o
 
p
h
o
s
p
h
a
t
e
.
R
u
b
e
n
,
 
1
9
9
6
A
g
h
i
b
 
a
n
d
 
L
o
w
n
b
e
r
g
-
T
e
n
 
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
,
 
1
9
8
5
-
2
0
0
9
,
 
s
o
r
g
h
u
m
5
8
%
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
s
 
8
 
I
N
T
S
O
R
M
I
L
 
s
t
r
i
g
a
-
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
 
v
a
r
i
e
t
i
e
s
 
i
n
 
t
e
n
 
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.
 
D
e
B
o
e
r
,
 
u
n
d
a
t
e
d
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
 
W
V
I
 
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
i
r
 
c
o
s
t
s
.

Impact Assessment of African Agricultural Technology Development and Transfer: Synthesis of Findings and Lessons Learned

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics