No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Impact pathway evaluation of an integrated Striga hermonthica control project in Northern Nigeria
Abstract
This paper evaluates a project that developed and introduced integrated Striga control (ISC) in Northern Nigeria. Adoption of ISC increased from 44 participating farmers in four pilot areas to more than 500 farmers in 16 villages and hamlets in three seasons. On average, farmers adopted 3.25 different Striga control options from a basket of six “best bets”. Resource-poor and -medium farmers were more likely to adopt than resource-rich ones. Adopting farmers enjoyed livelihood improvements, largely through selling ISC soybean. Women in most adopting households benefited through selling food products based on soybean. Adoption of ISC can be attributed to four factors: (1) farmer-field-school-type training that explained how the technologies worked; (2) incorporation of at least one technology in the ISC package that gave quick benefits to sustain farmer interest in adopting and learning other components whose effects took longer to become evident; (3) allowance for farmer experimentation and adaptation to local conditions; and, (4) use of a monitoring and evaluation component that identified and incorporated farmer modifications to continually improve the ISC package. These principles are likely to be valid for research and extension approaches for similar integrated natural resource management (INRM). Impact pathway evaluation methodology used for the evaluation helped give the project a greater impact focus; helped design and reporting of the evaluation; and, by identifying early adoption pathways, has provided a firm basis for any future ex post impact assessment of ISC in Northern Nigeria.
... Previous work on developing a framework for the evaluation of FFS identified impact pathways in the human, social, natural and financial capital domains (Douthwaite et al., 2007), which borrowed from the sustainable rural livelihoods approach (Scoones, 1998). The effects of the FFS have recently been reviewed by using an analytical framework that identified outputs, outcomes and impacts of the FFS in the human, social, natural and financial domains (van den Berg et al., 2020b). ...
... Based on previous work on developing a framework to evaluate farmer field schools (Douthwaite et al., 2007;van den Berg et al., 2020avan den Berg et al., , 2020b project-specific framework was prepared with participation of the FAO-Malawi team and DAES. It was anticipated that project activities caused a process of change in terms of outputs, outcomes and impacts, called the 'results chain', which corresponds with the 'impact pathway' in earlier work (Douthwaite et al., 2007). ...
... Based on previous work on developing a framework to evaluate farmer field schools (Douthwaite et al., 2007;van den Berg et al., 2020avan den Berg et al., , 2020b project-specific framework was prepared with participation of the FAO-Malawi team and DAES. It was anticipated that project activities caused a process of change in terms of outputs, outcomes and impacts, called the 'results chain', which corresponds with the 'impact pathway' in earlier work (Douthwaite et al., 2007). Targets should be set for what a project ultimately wants to achieve at the impact level; hence, outcomes and outputs become the milestones towards attaining the impact targets (van den Berg et al., 2023). ...
The farmer field school (FFS) has been promoted as an approach for educating farmers on making adaptive farming decisions. In Malawi, the FFS has been used to enhance food security within the context of adaptation to climate change. Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) extends the learning cycle from the core of the FFS to the project level to facilitate learning and adaptation for improvement of interventions. This study’s objectives were to test the utility of a MEL framework for the FFS, and to explore the effects of the FFS. The framework differentiated between four capital domains. Data were collected from 33 FFS groups at 2–4 years after the start of the FFS, using spider diagramming, focus group discussions, and direct observation. These tools demonstrated their feasibility and acceptability for use by practitioners at the district level and provided cross-verification of results, whereas limitations included the risk of biased results, e.g. due to vested interests of respondents. The MEL methods can be adapted for use in other FFS programmes and other contexts through modification of the framework’s targets or questions. The effects of the FFS were evident for most targets in the human, social and natural domains, whilst effects for some targets in the financial domain were smaller. Effects that were indicative of food security and adaptation to climate change included improvements in adaptive capacity, experimentation, crop cultivation practices, crop diversification, collective actions, food sources and meals, and savings.
... However, at the same time the people that carried out the survey mentioned apparent ignorance of farmers concerning the effects of Striga on crops[16]. Although 70% of the farmers in a different study in northern Nigeria mentioned weeding as a local Striga control method, the study also reported that an integrated Striga project increased Striga weeding from 4 to 82%[17]. However, the study did not specify the form(s) of weed management, but an earlier study in the same area and from the same research group reported that hand-pulling Striga is decreasing (and ranked by farmers as very costly), while hoe-weeding is increasing and universally applied[18]. ...
... With the benefit of hindsight it is also evident that projects that tackle single aspects of farming systems are bound to have little effect. This is also true for Striga where it has become almost a mantra to state that only integrated Striga control measures will be effective[17,19,20]. We think that very few farmers apply Striga control measures, they rather manage their cropping systems in ways that also affect Striga[21]. ...
... A major consequence of this differential conceptualization is that weeding, when mentioned by farmers, is likely interpreted by scientists as Striga management. This interpretation is in accordance with the observation that weeding was mentioned by many farmers in the study area (Table 3) and also in several countries of West Africa[16][17][18]. Hand-pulling Striga, which is recommended to prevent seed set and seed dispersal, does not directly affect crop yield and is therefore not effective in the short term[25]. ...
Surveys of Striga (S. hermonthica (Del.) Benth.) infestation in northern Cameroon over the period 1987–2005 assessed Striga dynamics and evaluated its control strategies. In that period the percentage of Striga-infested fields increased in North and Far-North Provinces. Striga incidence increased more in maize fields than in the already heavily infested sorghum fields, where it remained almost constant. During the study period increased land pressure led to a reduction in the use of fallow and a higher frequency of cereal (mono-) cropping. Yields from farmers’ fields did not correlate with Striga incidence, confirming farmers’ prioritization of soil fertility, weeds, and labour for weeding as production constraints, rather than Striga. We discuss how conceptualization of Striga as a weed in the research arena may have led to a misunderstanding of farmers’ constraints. The decline of the cotton industry reduced farmers’ access to fertilizers, while access to organic manure remained limited, increasing the soil fertility constraint. We conclude that two decades of emphasis on Striga were unsuccessful. Enhanced crop yield through soil fertility management should be the entry point to tackle low yields and further worsening of the Striga situation.
... Furthermore, if the farmer-scientist learning process is not well facilitated or the capacity of organizations to support farmers in adapting technology is lacking, then communities soon lose interest (Anderson et al. 2006; Carter and Currie-Alder 2006). The short term nature of many projects and their lack of impact evaluation often result in poor understanding as to why farmer uptake has been slow or why communities have been resistant (Douthwaite et al. 2007). A project may appear successful if incentives encourage early participation and adoption. ...
... Drawing from a range of case studies found in the literature, the authors concluded that success factors appear to be: 1. clear and tangible benefits for farmers and target groups; 2. strong leadership and facilitation over the long term; 3. peer learning; 4. support from officials and donors; 5. presence of market drivers; 6. availability of credit and security of land tenure; 7. a strong civil society; and 8. a history of relevant experience in the country (IIRR 2000, p. 23). For example, where technologies have addressed genuine or immediate farmer problems and concerns such as livestock feed shortages, declining crop yields or damaging pests (e.g., Stur et al. 2002; Ojiem et al. 2006; Douthwaite et al. 2007), farmer uptake and adaptation of the technology has been greater than where benefits are more diffuse and long term (e.g., Pannell et al. 2006; Kiptot et al. 2007; Mendham et al. 2007). However, if farmers are engaged in a facilitated, interactive learning environment which enables them to play around with the technology within their specific environments (i.e., to innovate), compare results with their peers, and see impacts as they emerge, then their initial judgement of the technology can change (Pannell et al. 2006; Bentley et al. 2007). ...
... So they change their farming practices to take advantage of these opportunities. It is generally known that social acceptance of a technology or set of practices depends on how the technology fits with the goals of farming households (Pannell et al. 2006; Douthwaite et al. 2007). If technologies are easy to use, require low inputs, have low risk and high returns, are compatible with existing resources, and have advantages over traditional practices, then scaling out is more likely to occur. ...
Scaling out and up are terms increasingly being used to describe a desired expansion of beneficial impacts from agricultural
research and rural development. This paper explores strategies for scaling out production and livelihood impacts from proven
technologies. We draw on a case study of forages and livestock production in Laos, a Southeast Asian country undergoing rapid
economic and agricultural change. A facilitated learning environment stimulated farmers to adapt forages, livestock housing,
and animal health practices to their own situations (scaling out). Regular follow-up visits and on-the-job mentoring for extension
staff provided institutional support (scaling up). Within 5years, the number of villages and households using forages and
fattening livestock had increased six fold, with a 50% reduction in the time required for farmers to get significant benefits.
The paper concludes that scaling out positive impacts from systems change requires field tested and proven technologies, evidence
of significant livelihood impacts, fostering of local innovation, competent field staff, effective peer learning, and ongoing
institutional support.
KeywordsScaling out-Agricultural technologies-Forages-Livestock production-Laos
... Therefore, the successful implementation of highlighted research outputs and ISC measures from this review in savanna endemic zones of Nigeria can only be realized where basic crop needs and the socio-economic livelihood of rice farmers have been carefully considered. Douthwaite et al. (2007) assessed the impact of ISC among poor, medium, and rich resource-based farmers in Northern Nigeria. They reported a fast adoption of implementable strategies among poor and medium resource-based farmers. ...
... They further proposed the possibility of a follow-up with complicated strategies once farmers have adopted the easy ones. To further enhance farmers' participation, regular farmer field school training in form of an on-farm demonstration was suggested as a valid research and extension approach to ISC (Ellis-Jones et al. 2004;Douthwaite et al. 2007). In cases where a particular technology is difficult to incorporate or appraise by farmers, a study has shown that explaining the reasons for such practice to farmers has increased their adoption (Ellis-Jones et al. 2004). ...
Striga hermonthica is fast spreading in the Nigerian savanna and is predicted to encroach into the rainforest part of the country soon. S. hermonthica seedbanks in savanna soils have continued to rise due to poor agronomic practices by smallholder farmers. Considering differences in soil, climate, and agronomic practices within the savanna endemic agroecology, the severity of the infestation of S. hermonthica has varied from one location to another. Hence, there is a need to model a site-specific management approach for S. hermonthica in Nigeria. This review aims to understand the state-of-the-art management of S. hermonthica in Nigeria’s upland rice fields and further harmonize potential management approaches. Based on studies conducted in Nigeria, reducing S. hermonthica parasitism over a long-term period in the Savanna ecology of Nigeria implies the rotation of upland rice with trap crops, and enhancement of nitrogen fertility in farmers’ fields, combined with the use of seed-treated resistant or tolerant cultivars. In practical terms, farmer’s-research engagement in the long term is pertinent to reduce the severity of S. hermonthica in threatened areas.
... The interactions between sustainability dimensions have rarely been taken into account. In order to better address this gap, some assessment methodologies use participatory mapping to identify and explore impact pathways of innovations (Douthwaite et al., 2007a;Proietti et al., 2015). URBAL follows this path. ...
... The approach also makes an important contribution at the intersection of impact pathways mapping literature and participatory methods by developing a more precise set of terms to describe the innovation process. This enables a more robust and complex analysis and responds to the needs and questions of the various stakeholders actually or potentially engaged in the innovation (Fawcett et al., 2003;Douthwaite et al., 2007a;Neubert, 2010; see also Chapter 1, this volume). In turn, it is expected that the specific innovations in the UFILs will allow the project to address questions about forces both external to the innovation process, including procedural routines, or the innovation aims, including marketing and funding goals (Dhondt et al., 2016, p. 22), or internal factors such as project management and learning and can provide specific information to foster learning, consensus building, and decision-making (Douthwaite et al., 2007b;Berg et al., 2009;Suárez-Herrera et al., 2009). ...
... Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) can be used to enhance learning during its implementation and not only for accountability issues (Douthwaite et al., 2003;Rossing et al., 2010). M&E is increasingly seen as crucial to the success of rural research and development projects because it supports a real-time feedback (Douthwaite et al., 2007a). Furthermore, stakeholders should periodically reflect on the validity of the impact hypotheses, and the entire process should be facilitated (Moschitz et al., 2015), and documented so as to better understand the mechanisms through which socio-technical changes are fostered Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis (PIPA) draws from program theory evaluation (Rockwell and Bennett, 2004), social network analysis and ongoing research for development to understand and foster innovation and is related to designing strategies, as well as a basis to set out a monitoring and evaluation framework . ...
... The participatory M&E process enhanced stakeholders learning through a regular reflection on the project progress and results, using a different perspective of impact assessment (Douthwaite et al., 2003;Rossing et al., 2010). M&E is traditionally used for accounting project achievements whereas we used it for analysing the process and emphasizing the importance of real time feedback, thus promoting learning (Douthwaite et al., 2003;2007a). By active M&E stakeholders suggested improvements to the outcome model (Table 2) and to the CP (Table 3). ...
Participatory approaches are needed to ensure learning processes and to incorporate lessons learned during the implementation of a project. This is particularly important when the aim is to improve farm sustainability considering changes in knowledge and skills, natural resources management and networking. This paper describes the Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) implemented within the participatory action research project " Co-innovating for the sustainable development of livestock family-farming systems in Rocha, Uruguay " , which involved stakeholders for planning, monitoring and evaluating of the project's progress. Six workshops were implemented during 2012-2015 to enhance the project's actions. Participatory methods were used to adapt PIPA to the Uruguayan culture. During 2013 an interinstitutional network was established, a shared vision of expected project results was defined, as well as impact pathways, goals and activities to achieve them. During the 2014-2015 workshops, reflections and suggestions led in turn to new or modified activities. This process contributed to confidence and commitment building, improving the quality of the established relationships and strengthening networking to enhance the dissemination of the project findings. As a result of the learning process, and inspired in the project's methodological and technological results, one stakeholder organization established a project for another region. The last workshop focused on a participatory evaluation of the whole project, demonstrating that a successful innovation process took place. This Uruguayan case showed that within the co-innovation framework, the PIPA approach nurtured the creation of a common space for social learning and innovation, providing a useful instrument for rural development.
... To harness the impact of variable efficacy of individual control practices, many advocate integrated Striga control (ISC) approaches-combinations of cultural and, where available and applicable, seed-based technologies ( Schulz et al. 2003;Kamara et al. 2007). Nonetheless, just as there is no magic bullet for Striga control, there is no magic shotgun cartridge either ( Douthwite et al. 2007). Technologies need to be packaged in such a way as to suit the abiotic, biotic, and marketaccess constraints the farmers experience. ...
... Integrated Striga management packages have been designed that include: Striga resistant varieties; judicious and appropriate timing and application of phosphate, nitrogen, and composite fertilizers in combination with organic fertilizers; and water conservation measures using tied ridges (or local alternatives). When demonstrating ISC technologies to farmers, including at least one method in all packages that gives rapid Striga control would facilitate sustained interest in ISC, allowing the sustained adoption of longer-impact technologies such as tools to improve soil fertility to continue (Douthwite et al. 2007). Of these approaches, development of resistant crop cultivars has been recognized as the most effective and feasible method. ...
This chapter attempts to assess recent advances in bioassay development that are specific to resistance mechanisms, genomics such as New Generation Sequencing tools, RNA interference (RNAi) technologies in advancing knowledge of resistance and susceptibility to Striga including diversity in Striga populations, and molecular marker technology in accelerating the development of Striga-resistant cultivars of sorghum. The current studies for identification of parasite genes specifically involved in haustorigenesis through transcriptomic and/or proteomic studies and more recently RNAseq studies will help understand susceptibility or resistance genes in Striga. Release of improved version of cultivars resistant to Striga developed by marker-assisted backcrossing of several Striga resistance quantitative trait loci (QTL) in Sudan had shown the power of integrating genomics and molecular breeding tools/techniques into routine breeding for tackling the complex constraint such as Striga.
... Biocontrol agents, such as a strain of f.sp. Oxysporum that is extremely pathogenic to Striga provides a number of advantages when used as part of an integrated Striga management strategy (Ciotola, 2000;Douthwaite, 2007). The use of an integrated Striga management package combining a myco herbicide based on host plant resistance and a Fusarium oxysporum isolate as an effective Striga control strategy has been proved on farmers' fields, according to Schaub et al. (2006) and Marley et al. (2004). ...
The goal of this study was to use DNA extraction and sequencing to characterize Fusarium species isolated from diseased Striga hermonthica leaves. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Gel Electrophoresis were employed to extract DNA from 13 samples. . 12 samples amplified successfully and showed clear bands. The DNA samples were then sent to INCABA Labs in South Africa were they were sequenced. A total of 13 sequence data had been received which were cleaned using Gentle Software and designated with the codes GHA01 to GHA015, Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) was used to identify sequence species in comparison to the NCBI GenBank Database and similar specie type and using these information with the help of Mega X software and sequence alignment done using Clustal Omega, an evolutionary phylogenetic likelihood tree was generated. The Gel bands gave an indication of the presence of Fusarium DNA in the samples. The BLAST was used to identify the various species corresponding to the sequence result data. The Phylogenic tree generated was used in determining the close relationship between the other species identified and Fusarium oxysporum.
... From a cultural, economic and social point of view, millet (Pennisetum glaucum) occupies an important place among the populations of northern Côte d'Ivoire. It is a staple food at all ceremonies, especially funerals (Beninga, 2014;Douthwaite et al., 2007;Rouamba et al., 2021). ...
Objectives: To assess the impact of local product-based control methods against Striga hermonthica infestation. Study Design: A randomized complete block design was set up with four replications and five treatments (T0=control, T1=compost, T2=millet seeds coated with Parkia biglobosa powder, T3=millet seeds coated with Parkia biglobosa powder combined with compost and T4= peanut+millet combination. Location and Duration of Studies: the study was carried out in Tiaplé, in the sub-prefecture of Diawala, during the years 2022 and 2023. Methodology: Observations and measurements focused on the emergence time and morphological development of Striga hermonthica plants, the degree of infestation of millet plants and their yield. Results: In year 1, T2 treatment delayed the emergence of Striga hermonthica plants compared with the control (T0 = 53.00 jas and T2 = 56.75 jas) and reduced the infestation rate of millet plants (T0 = 44.52% and T2 = 28.03%). In year 2, the same results were obtained with treatments T2 and T4 for Striga hermonthica plant emergence (T0 = 51.75 jas; T2 = 56.25 jas and T4 = 57.25 jas) and millet plant infestation rate (T0 = 64.80% ; T2 = 62.30% and T4 = 64.00%). The best yields were obtained in year 1 with treatment T3 (T0 = 378.94 kg/ha and T3 = 683.53 kg/ha) and in year 2 with treatment T4 (T0 = 446.07 kg/ha and T4 = 938.86 kg/ha). Conclusion: Parkia biglobosa powder and legumes, taken together or separately, could provide a solution for controlling Striga hermonthica in millet.
... The manuscript has not received any funding from any source. Brewer et al., 2016;Ćavar et al., 2015;Douthwaite et al., 2007;Dun et al., 2012;Seto et al., 2019;Soto et al., 2010;. Janeeshma et al. ...
Strigolactones (SLs) are an important class of new-generation plant hormones that play a multitude role in various aspects of plant growth, including shoot branching, root architecture, regulation of plant development, signaling, and establishment of mycorrhizal relationships. Recent research has revealed that SLs and their analogs have multifactorial implications, including potential benefits in plant growth, responses, and developmental processes of plants by improving biotic and abiotic stress tolerance. This class of plant hormones having role in human health. Moreover, this bio-compound has a significant influence on the rhizosphere microbial population and regulates colonization and hyphal branching of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. SLs and their analogs have different functions, with benefits in both plant production and human health, and can affect several aspects such as crop yield and quality, disease resistance, and environmental sustainability. The current review provides a comprehensive overview of the biological activity of SLs and discusses the the involvement of strigolactone signaling in plant growth responses and biosynthesis genes in plant architecture, which contribute to traits or serve as key factors for integrated hormonal regulation, developmental control, and environmental factors that affect yield improvement in plants. Additionally, the mechanisms of SL-induced modifications in the microbial community are elaborated, with a specific focus on crosstalk with other signaling systems. This review encompasses the current trends in SL research and extends to the impact of SLs on human health, plant development, and microbial populations.
... For example, sorghum species mutated at the Low Germination Stimulant 1 (LGS1) locus are resistant to Striga hermonthica and Striga asiatica, and this resistance can be attributed to a change in profile from strigol-type to orobanchol-type SLs [69]. In field trials, a yield increase in sorghum [70], and maize [71], has been observed in farms across sub-Saharan Africa, where Striga-resistant crops were combined with other control measures, such as fertilization and the procedure of non-host trap crops. ...
Strigolactones (SLs) are a class of sesquiterpenoid plant hormones that play a role in the response of plants to various biotic and abiotic stresses. When released into the rhizosphere, they are perceived by both beneficial symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi and parasitic plants. Due to their multiple roles, SLs are potentially interesting agricultural targets. Indeed, the use of SLs as agrochemicals can favor sustainable agriculture via multiple mechanisms, including shaping root architecture, promoting ideal branching, stimulating nutrient assimilation, controlling parasitic weeds, mitigating drought and enhancing mycorrhization. Moreover, over the last few years, a number of studies have shed light onto the effects exerted by SLs on human cells and on their possible applications in medicine. For example, SLs have been demonstrated to play a key role in the control of pathways related to apoptosis and inflammation. The elucidation of the molecular mechanisms behind their action has inspired further investigations into their effects on human cells and their possible uses as anti-cancer and antimicrobial agents.
... The interactions between sustainability aspects have rarely been taken into account. To better fill this gap, several assessment approaches use collaborative mapping to identify and explore the impact of innovation -Douthwaite [19], Proietti [20] studies. URBAL is following this path. ...
The study is devoted to the development of approach to comprehensive assessment of the regional agro-food industry development problems. This task was solved using the methods of expert assessment and statistical analysis of their results. We have substantiated a system of agro-food industry development indicators, which covers the level of enterprises and the level of government. Approbation of the proposed approach using the example of the Republic of Crimea revealed the key problems. At the enterprise level: low level of development of advanced technologies, low share of innovative products, ineffective organization of cause-and-effect analysis, insufficient scientific feasibility of technological processes. At the state level: insufficiently effective state regulation in the field of import substitution, insufficient stimulation of demand for domestic products of the processing industry of the agro-industrial complex (AIC), insufficient state stimulation of the production of highquality domestic products, insufficient level of scientific research support. This allows determining the priority directions for the development of recommendations and the implementation of actions to ensure the regional agro-food industry development.
... Methods that allow impact indicators to be chosen in collaboration with the actors (Faure et al. 2016(Faure et al. , 2020 or that focus on capacity to innovate (Douthwaite and Hoffecker 2017) should be further developed. For instance, Douthwaite et al. (2007), conducted an impact pathway analysis on an entire project including FFS over a 3-year period. To our knowledge, no other FFS assessments have been conducted in this way. ...
Purpose: Assessment of agricultural advisory services is crucial to improve their quality and effectiveness. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have been adapted to meet context specific needs in crop or farm management. This article investigates whether the diversity of FFS interventions is reflected in the assessment methods used to
evaluate them.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Through a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature we identified 180 articles and selected 34 that assessed FFS. Implementation was characterised based on farmers’ participation and FFS topics. Assessment methods were
analysed using a causal chain of inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts.
Findings: Our results showed three types of FFS: (1) technology transfer; (2) consultative participation at cropping system level; and, (3) consultative or collaborative participation at farm level. Fifteen studies did not describe FFS implementation at all. Out of the 34 assessments, 23 focused on inputs (knowledge) and outputs (changes in practices, agricultural or economic performance) for farmers. Only six studies assessed long-term
impacts of FFS.
Theoretical implications: We found a paradox between the shift from a technology transfer to a participatory advisory services paradigm, and the implementation and assessment of FFS, which do not mirror this shift. Assessment methods remain based on
assumed technology transfer, which is not suitable for the evaluation of participatory approaches and their results, including in terms of capacity to innovate.
Practical implications: Assessing FFS as a collective and farmer centered experiential learning approach requires appropriate evaluation methods that account for the diversity of contexts, FFS implementation, and the changes they generate.
Originality/Value: The diversity of FFS has rarely been analysed to date. This article proposes a typology to go beyond FFS as a catchall term and to guide their assessment.
... The FGDs were structured using an innovative qualitative approach called participatory impact diagrams (PID), which is inspired by the idea of Mind-Maps and the Participatory Rural Appraisal approach. PID or similar approaches were used, for example, by Douthwaite et al. (2007) to assess the impact pathways of an integrated weed management project in Nigeria and by Kariuki and Njuki (2013) to evaluate a community development project in Kenya. PID allow examining both positive and negative effects related to the introduction of new policies and programs or new technologies as experienced by community members themselves. ...
Agricultural mechanization is on the rise in Africa. A widespread replacement of manual labor and animal traction will change the face of African agriculture. Despite this potentially transformative role, only a few studies have looked at the effects of mechanization empirically, mostly focusing on yields and labor alone. This is the first paper that explores perceived agronomic, environmental, and socioeconomic effects together, thereby revealing linkages and trade-offs, some of which have been hitherto unknown. Data were collected using a novel data collection method called "participatory impact diagrams" in four countries: Benin, Kenya, Nigeria, and Mali. In 129 gendered focus group discussions, 1330 respondents from 87 villages shared their perceptions on the positive and negative effects of agricultural mechanization, and developed causal impact chains. The results suggest that mechanization is likely to have more far-reaching agronomic, environmental, and socioeconomic consequences than commonly assumed. Most perceived effects were positive, suggesting that mechanization can help to reduce poverty and enhance food security but other effects were negative such as deforestation, soil erosion, land-use conflicts, and gender inequalities. Accompanying research and policy efforts, which reflect variations in local agro-ecological and socioeconomic conditions, are needed to ensure that mechanization contributes to an African agricultural transformation that is sustainable from a social, economic, and environmental perspective.
... The FGD were structured using an innovative qualitative approach called Participatory Impact Diagrams (PID), which is inspired by the idea of Mind-Maps and the Participatory Rural Appraisal approach. PID or similar approaches were used, for example, by Douthwaite et al. (2007) to assess the impact pathways of an integrated weed management project in Nigeria and by Kariuki & Njuki (2013) to evaluate a community development project in Kenya. PIDs allow the examination of both positive and negative effects related to the introduction of new policies and programs, or new technologies as experienced by community members themselves. ...
Agricultural mechanization is on the rise in Africa. A widespread replacement of manual labor will change the face of African agriculture. Despite this potentially transformative role, only few studies have looked at the potential effects of mechanization empirically, mostly focusing on yields and labor alone. This is the first paper that explores agronomic, environmental and socioeconomic effects together, thereby revealing linkages and trade-offs, some of which have been hitherto unknown. Data were collected using a novel data collection method called "Participatory Impact Diagrams" in four countries: Benin, Kenya, Nigeria and Mali. In 130 gendered focus group discussions, 1,330 respondents from 87 villages shared positive and negative effects experienced due to agricultural mechanization and were able to develop their own theory of change. This is the first study that gives a voice to the rural population on mechanization and allows them to identify causal impact chains. Regarding agronomic and environmental aspects, respondents perceived mechanization as a way to reduce labor shortages, improve timeliness and enhance land preparation, leading to higher yields. However, it is also associated with the cutting of farm trees as well as farmland expansion, and, subsequently, deforestation and a decline in firewood availability. Respondents also experienced that (plough-based) mechanization can have detrimental effects on soil fertility and cause erosion, which was associated with yield drops and risks in the long-term. Regarding socioeconomic effects, mechanization was reported to increase incomes, reduce drudgery and free up time for other farm and off-farm activities. However, mechanization was also linked with social tensions and conflicts, for example, related to land issues, which can pitch farmers against pastoralists. Tensions and conflicts also play out across gender. Some effects remain ambiguous. For example, depending on local factors, mechanization reportedly increases or decreases employment. Further research and policy efforts are needed to ensure that mechanization contributes to an African agricultural transformation that is sustainable from a social, economic and environmental perspective. Final paper open access: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-020-00651-2
... There are many examples of applying the FFS approach to pest and disease issues in SSA, e.g. Striga problems in Nigeria (Douthwaite et al. 2007), cowpea pests in Uganda (Nabirye et al. 2003), or vegetable crops in Sudan (Aune et al. 2016). Moreover, the development of farmer organizational structures in the Nakasongola district of Uganda has, in part, facilitated the adoption of disease-free cassava planting material and resulted in the transformation of the region from being food deficient to generating and selling surplus production (Roothaert and Magado 2011). ...
Pests, diseases and weeds are major constraints to cropping system intensification in sub-Saharan Africa. Four major intensification systems to achieve sustainable agriculture have been identified: conventional with high input, organic, agroecological and eco-technical ‘sustainable intensive’. Those systems display advanced crop protection. Here we review the performance of those systems in the context of sub-Saharan Africa. The major points are: (1) Unlike economies of Europe and North America following World War 2, and of Asia and Latin America following the Green Revolution, sub-Saharan Africa rural economies were not transformed by conventional intensification involving cultivation of cash crops for export and over-reliance on pesticides. Genetically modified crops were used only to a limited extent at the regional level. (2) Most staple food-based cropping systems are de facto organic due to the unavailability of synthetic inputs. Organic systems are thus developing for some export cash crop sectors, with synthetic pesticides are being substituted by non-chemical pesticides. (3) Agroecological crop protection focuses on biological pest regulations such as the replacement of chemical inputs, thus implying the re-design of cropping systems. (4) For crop protection, the eco-technical pathway, which is based on principles of integrated pest management and ecological intensification, is more flexible and pragmatic than the other systems. In this review we compare the different systems, notably their contribution to six ecosystem services connected with crop protection issues: biomass production, pest and disease regulation, maintenance of water quality, biodiversity conservation, pollination and climate change mitigation. We then identify research needs in the context of food security, urbanization, trade globalization and climate change.
... All these facts demonstrate the need for integrated Striga control as an effective tool in addition, reduce the environmental impact of individual control strategy. It has generally been accepted that, Striga can be controlled if a wide range of individual control methods are brought together as a program of integrated Striga control (ISC), to serve a range of biophysical and socio-economic environments (Ellis-Jones et al., 2004;Douthwaite et al., 2007;Harker & O'Donovan, 2013). According to Atera et al. (2011) the major objective of ISC is to reduce Striga densities in the soil thereby avoiding new Striga plants from emerging in the subsequent seasons. ...
Production of cereal crops such as sorghum, maize, rice and millet is threatened by Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth and Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze in sub-Saharan Africa and India. Varying levels of resistance have been identified and exploited in the breeding programmes of several crops. Considerable efforts have been invested in breeding for Striga resistance in cereals and significant progress has been made in the development of improved selection methods. However, the level of protection achieved to date is incomplete especially for orphan crops such as pearl millet. Resistance is mainly determined by the coexistence of several mechanisms controlled by multigenic and quantitative systems. Efficient control of the parasite requires a better understanding of the interaction and their associated resistance mechanisms at the histological, genetic and molecular levels. Application of postgenomic technologies and the use of model plants should improve the understanding of the plant-parasitic plant interaction and drive not only breeding programmes through either marker-assisted selection (MAS) or transgenesis but also the development of alternative methods to control the parasite. Abstract-Production of cereal crops such as sorghum, maize, rice and millet is threatened by Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth and Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze in sub-Saharan Africa and India. Varying levels of resistance have been identified and exploited in the breeding programmes of several crops. Considerable efforts have been invested in breeding for Striga resistance in cereals and significant progress has been made in the development of improved selection methods. However, the level of protection achieved to date is incomplete especially for orphan crops such as pearl millet. Resistance is mainly determined by the coexistence of several mechanisms controlled by multigenic and quantitative systems. Efficient control of the parasite requires a better understanding of the interaction and their associated resistance mechanisms at the histological, genetic and molecular levels. Application of postgenomic technologies and the use of model plants should improve the understanding of the plant-parasitic plant interaction and drive not only breeding programmes through either marker-assisted selection (MAS) or transgenesis but also the development of alternative methods to control the parasite. However, it is only a beginning that requires to be further exploited. This review presents an overview of recent advances in research on Striga in cereals and potential prospects using genomic tools as mentioned above with a final aim of crop improvement.
... Technologies with clear and tangible benefits for farmers have been found to face less scaling challenges. For instance, several studies have found that, where technologies address immediate farmer problems and concerns such as declining yields, damaging pests and stock feed shortages, farmer uptake and adaptation of the technologies has been greater (Douthwaite et al., 2007;Millar and Connell, 2010;Ojiem et al., 2006;Stur et al., 2002). On the contrary, adaptation and uptake of technologies have been reported to be less where benefits are more diffuse and long term (Kiptot et al., 2007;Mendham et al., 2007;Pannell et al., 2006). ...
Climate variability and change is a major source of risk to smallholder farmers in Africa. Climate related risks are linked to low productivity, food insecurity and poverty. However, the research and development community is widely promoting Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) to transform livelihoods under a changing environment. To date, adoption of CSA practices is low across Africa despite their demonstrated effectiveness. The low adoption
challenge calls for prudent policy and institutional efforts in finding ways to effectively take CSA practices to scale. CSA scaling (upgrading) is the expansion of the adoption of the proven and beneficial CSA practices and/or technologies. This article is guided by the Institutional Analysis and Development framework to review current literature and weigh possible approaches/strategies, policy actions and institutional needs that can promote the upscaling of CSA technologies among smallholder farming communities. Various methodologies, policy actions, institutional strategy focal issues and possible determinants of scaling success are discussed. The article concludes that scaling of CSA practices, and technologies is not autonomous, there is need for facilitation in terms of
conducive policy and institutional actions. Policy strategies are important as they clearly define the rules of the game that will ultimately establish responsibilities in the scaling process by stakeholders. Effective and complementary institutional actions towards scaling can minimize farmer challenges, reduce adoption constraints, and improve sustainability in scaling processes, which can ultimately improve impacts of CSA practices and technologies to society.
... Interestingly, resource-poor and -intermediate farmers were more likely to adopt IWM/EWM solutions for striga control than resource-rich farmers. Introduction of soybean cultivation was particularly liked by women because of the opportunity to sell new food products based on this legume (Douthwaite et al., 2007). These results were confirmed by a participatory project carried out in the same region (Kamara et al., 2008), that also highlighted the importance of farmer-to-farmer extension to turn potential into real innovation. ...
In Sub-Saharan Africa weeds represent a major constraint to food production, and overreliance on herbicides, including toxic ones, is a raising issue. Nonetheless, effective non-chemical weed management practices are adopted by several Sub-Saharan farmers, and may foster ecological intensification and agroecological crop management in the region. Ecological Weed Management (EWM) is a combination of methods aimed to achieve long-term weed suppression through the use of ecological interactions between crop, weeds, soil and/or other taxa fostered by appropriate agroecosystem management, with the least possible use of direct weed control methods, chemical or non chemical. The opportunities offered by EWM in Sub-Saharan Africa are synthesized based on results of a comprehensive literature review. Ecological Weed Management of Striga spp., emblematic parasitic weeds in the area, is treated in details showing that effective methods exist and often work better when combined. These methods include, e.g., the development of cultivars resistant or tolerant of infection, improved crop rotations, cover crops, intercrops and mulches, other soil-based positive interactions, and biocontrol via use of pathogenic fungi. Strategies including functional biodiversity-based methods are expected to foster EWM and overall agroecological crop management in the region. EWM methods can support other agroecosystem services (e.g., soil fertility) and at the same time be improved by methods aiming at other services (e.g., push-pull strategies against maize cob borers). Transdisciplinary collaboration and scientists' engagement in participatory research and action with farmers and other stakeholders would be instrumental to facilitate broader adoption of EWM in Sub-Saharan Africa.
... The amount of cereal a farmer grows depends on access to inorganic fertilizer (Douthwaite, 2006). While improving the crop's yield and quality, fertilization profoundly influences the diversity of the whole weed community and its individual components (Woomer, 2004). ...
... The amount of cereal a farmer grows depends on access to inorganic fertilizer (Douthwaite, 2006). While improving the crop's yield and quality, fertilization profoundly influences the diversity of the whole weed community and its individual components (Woomer, 2004). ...
Parasitism by Striga weed is the major cause of maize yield losses in the Lake Victoria Basin. Severity
of attack is greater in soils with poor fertility. This study evaluated the effects of two different maize
varieties and inorganic nitrogen sources on striga parasitism and maize yield in Kisumu West, Busia
and Teso South districts of western Kenya. A randomized complete block design with a split-split
plot arrangement replicated six times was used. The districts formed blocks. The parameters
measured in the field included germination count, striga population and maize yield. A combination
of a Striga tolerant variety- WS 303- nitrogen at the rate of 60kgN/ha, in high fertility plots was
superior to other treatments. The lowest striga count at 6, 8 and 10 week after planting (WAP) and the
highest maize grain yield were achieved in the WS 303 maize variety in Kisumu West, Busia and Teso
South districts. Teso South district realized the least striga emergence in the plots with WS 303 maize
variety and thus resulted to high yield. To facilitate proper choice of striga control options and their
uptake by most farmers, this calls for the use of integrated Striga control technologies that give high
yield, increase soil fertility and reduce striga seed bank in farmers’ led field experiments.
... An impact pathway is defined as an explicit theory of the changes that have or will happen for a project to realize impact (Douthwaite et al., 2007). It goes beyond the linear direct link between outputs and goal in the logical framework to capture the complex process by which outputs translate in the ultimate benefit sought by the project. ...
This paper addresses the need for more rigorous evaluation of climate service projects and investments given the existence of little evidence on the actual value of climate services and the challenges that hamper current efforts to evaluate the impact of climate services for the agricultural community. Based on our in-depth review of existing literature from Africa and around the world, we find that rigorous methods for evaluating climate services span qualitative context-based and quantitative methodological approaches. The few studies that have been conducted so far to determine the value of climate services for farmers were for initiatives that incorporated in their design an evaluation framework. This highlights the importance of experimentally designing climate service programs for evaluation based on an impact pathway, rather than leaving evaluation as an after-thought. To strengthen the evidence base on the actual value of climate information services, complementary evaluation efforts will need to draw on a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, be sensitive to the heterogeneity of user groups, and go beyond the focus on agricultural production to include other dimensions of the agricultural system.
... Douthwaite et al. (2003) developed Impact Pathways Analysis (IPA) as a version of program theory or ToC (Rogers et al., 2000) that incorporated recent conceptual advances and articulations of the "missing middle" and "attribution gap" in AR4D. They used the terms "ToC" and "IPA" interchangeably, but preferred the latter because of the familiarity and pragmatic nature of the term to practitioners working in agricultural research and development interventions (Douthwaite et al., 2003;Douthwaite et al., 2007;Kuby, 1999;Mackay and Horton, 2003;Secretariat, 2000;Springer-Heinze et al., 2003). More recently, key developers of IPA have made distinctions between IPA and ToC, where the former "maps out causalitynormally using boxes and arrows", and the latter "explains the assumptions behind the arrows" (Douthwaite et al., 2013). ...
Food insecurity persists in many parts of Africa and Asia, despite ongoing agricultural research for development (AR4D) interventions. This is resulting in a growing demand for alternative approaches to designing and evaluating interventions in complex systems. Theory of Change (ToC) is an approach which may be useful because it enables stakeholders to present and test their theories and assumptions about why and how impact may occur, ideally within an environment conducive to iterative reflection and learning. However, ToC is yet to be appropriately mainstreamed into development by donors, researchers and practitioners. We carried out a literature review, triangulated by interviews with 26 experts in African and Asian food security, consisting of researchers, advisors to programs, and donors. Although 17 (65%) of the experts had adopted ToC, their responses and the literature revealed four challenges to mainstreaming: (i) different interpretations of ToC; (ii) incoherence in relationships among the constituent concepts of ToC; (iii) confused relationships between ToC and project “logframes”; and (iv) limitations in necessary skills and commitment for enacting ToC. A case study of the evolution of a ToC in a West African AR4D project over 4 years which exemplified these challenges is presented. Five recommendations arise to assist the mainstreaming of ToC: (i) select a type of ToC suited to the relative complexity of the problem and focal system of interest; (ii) state a theory or hypotheses to be tested as the intervention progresses; (iii) articulate the relationship between the ToC and parallel approaches (e.g. logframe); (iv) accept that a ToC is a process, and (v) allow time and resources for implementers and researchers to develop ToC thinking within projects. Finally, we suggest that communities of practice should be established among AR4D and donor organisations to test, evaluate and improve the contribution that ToCs can make to sustainable food security and agricultural development.
... El método PIPA (Álvarez et al., 2010) ha sido utilizado en diferentes proyectos de acuerdo con lo mencionado por Douthwaite et al. (2007a;2007b). Fue diseñado para que los participantes de un proyecto puedan explicitar sus teorías de cambio y su visión del futuro una vez alcanzados los objetivos, construyendo los senderos de impacto y promoviendo el trabajo en red. ...
... Not known to have been applied to PAs, it is designed for use mainly in the water and food sectors. Douthwaite et al. (2007) used this methodology in an agricultural study in Nigeria. ...
Book reviewing different options for assessing the social impacts of conservation initiatives
... In Nigeria however, studies or reports on the use of PME are few and far between. Douthwaite et al. (2007) carried out a participatory evaluation of a weed control project on farms in Northern Nigeria. The research typifies a fusion of stakeholder participation with the impact pathway evaluation method adopted in the study, as it continually incorporated farmer modifications identified through the M&E components into the project. ...
The need for the appreciation of values and knowledge diversity has contributed to the increasing relevance of stakeholder participation in the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of development projects. Using mixed methods research design and indicators, this paper assesses the outcomes of the participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME) process of the Tada Shonga Irrigation Project, Kwara State, Nigeria. A total of 103 respondents were randomly selected for questionnaire administration, and 5 respondents interviewed for the study. An Outcome Perception Index (OPI) was developed to assess stakeholders’ perception of the extent to which the project had met its objectives. The study found out that the project’s PME process was deficient, and the outcomes of the project and its PME process had been a mixed bag. The study further established a significant relationship between the deficient PME process of the project and project outcomes, although the relationship is indicative, rather than proof of a possible causal relationship. This was corroborated by the qualitative analysis which highlighted other critical factors affecting project outcomes. The study concluded that stringent M&E framework must be imbued in government policies to ensure success and sustainability of projects and programmes.
Keywords: Participation, Monitoring, Evaluation, Programme, Development
... Other 'farming system' criteria reflect the desire to target farmers of particular crops, those with pest/crop disease problems (for example, the Striga Control Program in Nigeria; Douthwaite et al. 2007) or those seen to be over-reliant on chemical pesticides, such as the FAO-EU IPM Program for Cotton in Asia, which targeted high pesticide-usage areas . The single most common targeting criterion was that farmers should be growing a particular crop, most commonly rice, but also often other staples. ...
Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) are an adult education and agricultural extension approach designed to empower farmers, increase productivity and improve livelihoods. We systematically review the literature and undertake content analysis, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis to explore how FFSs are targeted and how the targeting affects participation and performance. Some FFS programs are found to include ‘equity’ criteria targeting the poorest or those judged to be most in need of the benefits FFSs offer. However, many FFS programs include ‘effectiveness’ targeting criteria designed to promote inclusion of farmers with more resources, education and social agency, with the aim of maximizing the impact of the program. While programs typically achieved the effectiveness-related inclusion objectives, some failed to fulfil the equity-related inclusion goals. This was because either conflicting targeting criteria and participant-selection mechanisms favored elite capture, or the need for a minimum level of social and economic capital precluded participation for some. There is also evidence that the FFS program participants' characteristics can significantly impact outcomes. Programs with relatively more educated participants may be more effective in improving the adoption of farming practices, increasing yields and passing on FFS learning to neighboring farmers living in the same communities. However, poorer farmers benefit more when they participate directly in programs than when they receive knowledge indirectly.
... Many researchers fall back on familiar evaluation methodologies, such as assessing the degree of achievement of measurable goals or assessment of impacts (ADE 2009), with economic impact assessment frameworks and methods dominating agricultural research 78 R. Home and N. Rump evaluation (Douthwaite et al. 2007). Impact assessment is often undertaken several years after a project has finished, and involves an independent assessment of wider benefits resulting from the project in which the evaluator seeks to establish plausible links between the project outputs and outcomes (Horton and Mackay 2003). ...
Purpose: Scholars agree that evaluation of participatory action research is inherently valuable; however there have been few attempts at evaluating across methods and across interventions because the perceived success of a method is affected by context, researcher skills and the aims of the participants. This paper describes the systematic evaluation of participatory action research with 17 European networks (LINSA) as part of a research project titled SOLINSA: Support of Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture.
... Generally, it has been accepted that Striga control can be possible and sustainable if a wide range of individual technologies are combined into a program of integrated Striga control (ISC) to serve a range of bio-physical and socio-economic environments (Ellis-Jones et al., 2004;Douthwaite et al., 2007). In fact, Franke et al. (2006) reported that ISC approach reduced Striga seed bank by 46% and improved crop productivity by 88%. ...
Striga spp. is considered to be the greatest biological constraint to food production in sub-Saharan Africa, a more serious problem than insects, birds and plant diseases. They are among the most specialized root-parasitic plants inflicting serious injury to their host depriving them water, minerals and photosynthate. The greatest diversity of Striga spp. occurs in grassland. However, Striga hermonthica mainly occurs in farmland infecting grasses. The parasite devastating effect is accomplished prior to its emergence from the soil. It may cause yield losses in cereals ranging from 15% under favourable conditions to 100% where several stress factors are involved, thereby affecting the livelihood of millions of resource-poor farmers. Piecemeal approach to address one aspect of Striga problem at a time has been a setback in technology transfer to producers. Future Striga control programs should not be conducted separately, but should rather be conducted in an integrated approach that combines research talents of various institutions. This will facilitate collaborative research and achieve qualitative interaction between stakeholders, which can easily produce reliable technologies that are practical and available to farmers. Striga being a pervasive pest, time is of essence in controlling it. There is an urgent need for the establishment of policies to promote, implement, and ensure a long-term sustainable Striga control program.
... Impact pathway analysis methods have frequently been used in agricultural research and international development. For example, Douthwaite et al. (2007) use the method to design and evaluate attempts to introduce cropping practices that control an invasive plant in northern Nigeria. The impact pathways in their research project led to three different surveys that informed changes in the overall project design and implementation. ...
This report presents a conceptual framework for rural wealth creation, drawing upon the U.S. and international development literature. The framework emphasizes the importance of multiple types of assets (physical, fi nancial, human, intellectual, natural, social, political, and cultural capital) and the economic, institutional, and policy context in which rural wealth strategies are devised. The report discusses the role of wealth creation in the rural development process, how wealth can be created in rural communities, and how its accumulation and effects can be measured.
... Generally, it has been accepted that Striga control can be possible and sustainable if a wide range of individual technologies are combined into a program of integrated Striga control (ISC) to serve a range of bio-physical and socio-economic environments (Ellis-Jones et al., 2004;Douthwaite et al., 2007). In fact, Franke et al. (2006) reported that ISC approach reduced Striga seed bank by 46% and improved crop productivity by 88%. ...
... With these tools the contribution story can be built. Theories of change (Weiss, 1997) explain how the programme is expected to bring about the desired results-the outputs, and subsequent chain of outcomes and impacts (impact pathways of Douthwaite et al., 2007). In development aid, a logframe is often used to set out funders' and/or managers' expectations as to what will happen as the programme is implemented. ...
Questions of cause and effect are critical to assessing the performance of programmes and projects. When it is not practical to design an experiment to assess performance, contribution analysis can provide credible assessments of cause and effect. Verifying the theory of change that the programme is based on, and paying attention to other factors that may influence the outcomes, provides reasonable evidence about the contribution being made by the programme.
This article describes the design and evaluation of a participatory video module (PVM) for virtual marketing, developed with women of self-help groups (SHGs) in the Dehradun district of Uttarakhand, India. PV was used as an action research tool to solve women’s emergent problems in the SHGs of Dehradun, India. The PVM was developed with the active participation of SHG women during each phase of program development. The findings revealed that the PV program intervention was an effective medium for stimulating participation in extension efforts. This study provides a participatory analysis framework to measure the outcome of PV at three levels: the product, process, and level of engagement of beneficiaries. This will add to the cost-effective use of scarce resources in field research through better linkages among participants, researchers, and extensionists. Our study contributes to the existing scientific literature on PV, highlighting its potential to empower women with SHG from a socio-constructivist perspective. The study offers original insights by integrating PV modules with SHG women to enhance virtual marketing skills and bridges gaps in understanding how digital tools can be utilized for community-based capacity building and advocacy.
Strategic Guidance for Ex Post Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research
Prepared for the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment CGIAR Science Council
Strigolactones (SLs) control plant development, enhance symbioses, and act as germination stimulants for some of the most destructive species of parasitic weeds, making SLs a potential tool to improve crop productivity and resilience. Field trials demonstrate the potential use of SLs as agrochemicals or genetic targets in breeding programs, with applications in improving drought tolerance, increasing yields, and controlling parasitic weeds. However, for effective translation of SLs into agriculture, understanding and exploiting SL diversity and the development of economically viable sources of SL analogs will be critical. Here we review how manipulation of SL signaling can be used when developing new tools and crop varieties to address some critical challenges, such as nutrient acquisition, resource allocation, stress tolerance, and plant–parasite interactions.
In this paper we focus on the governance, in particular evaluation and monitoring, of the growing number of transdisciplinary collaborations (TDC’s). Researchers and a variety of stakeholders collaborate in such TDC’s, the purpose of which is to address societal challenges, like renewable energy, healthy aging or better language teaching in schools. Commonly used practices for evaluation of scientific research (accountability, rankings and benchmarking, dedicated to scientific excellence) do not fit the goals of TDC’s. A bottom up or stakeholder oriented approach is better suited; one that stimulates mutual learning as well as the development of socially robust knowledge. We introduce the participatory impact pathways analysis (PIPA), as a method that suits the requirements. It has been developed in the context of development research. Two crucial features are the involvement of stakeholders from the start, and the joint development of a theory of change. This narrates what one wants to achieve and how that will be achieved. From this, stakeholders construct a logical frame that serves as a source for indicators. These indicators enable monitoring ex durante, during the TDC. We present evidence of the use of PIPA for a TDC. From this empirical evidence a number of issues with regard to evaluation, monitoring and indicators can be identified that require attention. Most prominent is the change of function of indicators. Instead of looking back and a focus on past performance, indicators look forward, in the short, intermediate and more distant future.
p> This study examines the impact of Farmer Field School (FFS) training program on farmers’ knowledge and farm technology adoption. The FFS program was sponsored by the Ethiopian government and launched in 2010. The study aims to compare the impact of the training on knowledge and agricultural technology adoption of those FFS graduate and non-FFS graduate maize farmers in Oromia, Ethiopia. For this, data was collected in 2013 from 446 randomly selected households of three districts consisting of 218 FFS graduate farmers and 228 non-FFS graduate farmers. The analytical procedure has involved two stages: in the first stage, descriptive analysis was used to detect existence of difference in the household and farm characteristics of the two groups of farmers. In the second stage, a semi-parametric impact evaluation method of propensity score matching with several matching algorithms was employed to estimate the program impacts. The result reveals that although FFS graduate farmers have relatively higher knowledge test score than the non-FFS gradate farmers, farm technology adoption index of the later farmer group exceeds the former groups. This finding suggests that there is no necessarily linear relationship between increased knowledge and increased technology adoption. This further implies that the mental attitude of the smallholder farmers in study area is not actually shaped by misconceptions of technology as claimed by the Ethiopian government, but rather because of their firm understanding of what works and does not work according to their own realities. The policy implication of this finding is that knowledge can be translated into practices if a set of enabling factors and conditions exist. These factors including farmers’ positive perception of the technology benefits, access to complementary inputs, availability of crop insurance scheme, arrangement of credit facilities and favorable output markets as incentive for adopting full technologies. </p
Sustainable agricultural development is fundamental to food security and poverty alleviation, notably in developing countries. Many development initiatives focus on the enhancement of smallholder production and productivity because the majority of poor people in developing countries live in rural areas where agriculture is the main source of livelihood. The consequences of these development initiatives need to be assessed before implementation to reduce the risk of possible negative impacts. This can be done by applying ex ante sustainability impact assessment. Here, we compare methods of assessment of sustainability impact for farming interventions. We review methodological approaches and verify whether the requirements of sustainability impact assessment theory are fulfilled. Our major points are the following: (1) main methodological approaches do not fulfill the requirements defined in the theoretical sustainability impact assessment discourse. (2) The active involvement of different stakeholder groups throughout the assessment process and the possibility of learning and exchange are fundamental to sustainability impact assessment. (3) The institutional dimension of sustainability is not yet sufficiently integrated. We therefore suggest institutional criteria and indicators to be also considered in the sustainability impact assessment framework. We argue that sustainability impact assessment, respecting the interactive involvement of all stakeholder groups throughout the whole process, is a compulsory element in project planning for a sustainable agricultural development in developing countries.
The Challenge Program on Water and Food pursues food security and poverty alleviation through the efforts of some 50 researchfor-development projects. These involve almost 200 organizations working in nine river basins around the world. An approach was developed to enhance the developmental impact of the program through better impact assessment, to provide a framework for monitoring and evaluation, to permit stakeholders to derive strategic and programmatic lessons for future initiatives, and toprovide information that can be used to inform public awareness efforts. The approach makes explicit a project's program theory by describing its impact pathways in terms of a logic model and network maps. A narrative combines the logic model and the network maps into a single explanatory account and adds to overall plausibility by explaining the steps in the logic model and the key risks and assumptions. Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis is based on concepts related to program theory drawn from the fields of evaluation, organizational learning, and social network analysis.
Sustainable agricultural development is fundamental to food security and poverty alleviation, notably in developing countries. Many development initiatives focus on the enhancement of smallholder production and productivity because the majority of poor people in developing countries live in rural areas where agriculture is the main source of livelihood. The consequences of these development initiatives need to be assessed before implementation to reduce the risk of possible negative impacts. This can be done by applying ex ante sustainability impact assessment. Here, we compare methods of assessment of sustainability impact for farming interventions. We review methodological approaches and verify whether the requirements of sustainability impact assessment theory are fulfilled. Our major points are the following: (1) main methodological approaches do not fulfill the requirements defined in the theoretical sustainability impact assessment discourse. (2) The active involvement of different stakeholder groups throughout the assessment process and the possibility of learning and exchange are fundamental to sustainability impact assessment. (3) The institutional dimension of sustainability is not yet sufficiently integrated. We therefore suggest institutional criteria and indicators to be also considered in the sustainability impact assessment framework. We argue that sustainability impact assessment, respecting the interactive involvement of all stakeholder groups throughout the whole process, is a compulsory element in project planning for a sustainable agricultural development in developing countries.
Technical assistance is expected to close the gap between actual and potential agricultural production and increase its inter-annual stability. We here hypothesize that its impact may be greater on complex activities, such as livestock production, than on simpler activities, such as soybean production. To our knowledge, this difference has not been quantified. We gathered livestock and soybean production data from the Argentine Pampas, and contrasted the performance of farmers under high level of technical assistance, in the form of professional advice and feedback from other farmers, against the performance of the rest of the political district, which receive much less technical assistance. The difference in productivity and stability between the two types of farmer was much greater for livestock than for crop production. Livestock production was 96% higher and 70% more stable (lower coefficient of variation of annual output) in farms that received more technical assistance than in the rest of the political district. In contrast, soybean production and stability in farms that received more assistance were similar to the rest of the district. If all farms produced at the level of those under more technical assistance, county-level beef production would increase by 74% and require an increase of employment equivalent to 5.6% of the current working population. These results suggest that extension policies in the region should prioritize animal production because of a greater potential to significantly increase production and lower risk.
This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of farmer field schools in improving intermediate outcomes (such as knowledge and pesticide use) and final outcomes (such as agricultural yields, incomes and empowerment) in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), as well as implementation factors associated with programme success and failure. The review sythesises evidence from 92 impact evaluations, of which 15 were of sufficient quality for policy‐oriented findings, and 20 qualitative studies.
Farmer field schools improve farmers' knowledge and adoption of beneficial practices, and reduce overuse of pesticides. This leads to positive outcomes for farmers: on average, a 13% increase in agricultural yields and a 20% increase in income. Farmer field schools also reduce pesticide use and environmental degradation. However, the evidence for these outcomes comes from short‐term evaluations of pilot programmes, and no studies with a low risk of bias are available.
In programmes that were delivered at a national scale, studies conducted more than two years after implementation did not show any positive outcomes from the programme. For large‐scale programmes, recruiting and training appropriate facilitators was problematic.
Authors' conclusions
Farmer field schools (FFS) are a common approach used to transfer specialist knowledge, promote skills and empower farmers around the world. At least 10 million farmers in 90 countries have attended such schools.
FFS are implemented by facilitators using participatory “discovery‐based” learning based on adult education principles. Many different implementing bodies have been involved. Field schools have a range of objectives, including tackling overuse of pesticides and other harmful practices, improving agricultural and environmental outcomes, and empowering disadvantaged farmers such as women.
We conducted a systematic review of evidence on FFS implementation to investigate whether FFS make a difference, to which farmers, and why or why not. We synthesised quantitative evidence on intervention effects using statistical meta‐analysis, and qualitative evidence on the barriers and enablers of effectiveness using a theory of change framework.
The results of statistical meta‐analysis provide evidence that FFS are beneficial in improving intermediate outcomes relating to knowledge learned and adoption of beneficial practices, as well as final outcomes relating to agricultural production and farmers' incomes. The findings suggest this to be the case for FFS promoting integrated pest management (IPM) technology, as well as other techniques. However, the rigorous impact evaluation evidence base is small and there are no studies that we were able to identify as having a low risk of bias.
There is no evidence that neighbouring non‐participant farmers benefit from diffusion of IPM knowledge from FFS participants. Therefore, they do not experience improvements in IPM adoption and agriculture outcomes.
The evidence of positive effects on agricultural outcomes is largely limited to short‐term evaluations of pilot programmes. In the few examples where FFS have been scaled up, the evidence does not suggest they have been effective in improving agricultural outcomes among participating farmers or neighbouring non‐participants.
Although empowerment is a major objective of many FFS, very few studies have collected information on this outcome in a rigorous manner. A few studies suggest farmers feel greater self‐confidence.
What explains the lack of scalable effects among FFS participants, or diffusion of IPM practices among the community? FFS differ from standard agricultural extension interventions, which tend to focus on disseminating knowledge of more simple practices such as application of fertiliser and pesticides, or adoption of improved seeds. The experiential nature of the training, and the need for the benefits of the FFS technology to be observed, are barriers to spontaneous diffusion. Furthermore, the effectiveness of scaled‐up interventions has been hampered by problems in recruiting and training appropriate facilitators at scale.
The review provides implications for policy, practice and research.
Executive Summary
BACKGROUND
After almost three decades of decline in public support, agriculture is now back on the development agenda. Since the late 1980s, support to agriculture has shifted from top‐down approaches to those identifying technologies and methods of communicating technologies which are suitable to support farmers' livelihoods in a sustainable manner, including participatory approaches based on the notion of creating spaces for farmer self‐learning. One such approach is the farmer field school (FFS), an adult education intervention which uses intensive “discovery‐based” learning methods with the objectives of providing skills in such areas as integrated pest management (IPM) and empowering farmers and communities. FFS have been implemented in 90 countries worldwide, reaching an estimated 10‐15 million farmers. Farmer field schools may appear to be the latest tool, but what does the evidence say regarding their effectiveness?
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review synthesises evidence on interventions identified as “farmer field schools” conducted in low‐ and middle‐income countries. The review aims to provide answers to the following research questions:
Review question (1):
• a) What are the effects of farmer field schools on final outcomes such as yields, net revenues and farmer empowerment?
• b) What are the effects of farmer field schools on intermediate outcomes such as knowledge and adoption of improved practices (e.g. reduced use of pesticides)?
• c) What are the effects on outcomes for non‐participating neighbouring farmers living in the same communities as FFS farmers?
Review question (2): What are the enablers of and barriers to FFS effectiveness, diffusion and sustainability?
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies included in the review satisfied the following criteria.
Eligible participants included farmers growing arable crops, living in low‐ or middle‐income countries at the time of the intervention. The review included those participating directly in the field school and also non‐participant neighbour farmers who may benefit through spillover effects or more formal dissemination methods.
Eligible interventions were those identified as “farmer field schools,” regardless of the design or implementation, including FFS programmes providing training in IPM and other techniques. Studies combining FFS with other intervention components, such as input or marketing support, were also included.
Comparisons eligible for the effectiveness review were farmers who received no intervention, or access to agricultural extension services from another source, including IPM (or equivalent) training.
All outcomes reported were eligible for the review.primary Primary outcomes were agricultural outcomes, including yields and profits (net revenues). Secondary outcomes included other final outcomes such as environmental outcomes, health status and empowerment; and intermediate outcomes, including farmer knowledge and adoption of practices. Qualitative evidence on barriers to and enablers of effectiveness and sustainability were also included, including process and implementation information and measures of beneficiaries' attitudes and experiences with FFS.
Eligible study designs for the effectiveness synthesis (review question 1) were measurable using counterfactual impact evaluations, including experimental or quasi‐experimental study designs and methods of analysis. Studies eligible for the synthesis of barriers and enablers (review question 2) were based on primary data collected from FFS participants, extension agents or experts, analysed using qualitative methods or descriptive statistics. The qualitative studies needed to report at least some information on the research question, procedures for collecting data, sampling and recruitment, and at least two sample characteristics.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The search included electronic academic databases, internet search engines, websites and theses, as well as handsearches of key journals and literature snowballing. Searches included general social science sources as well as agriculture subject‐specific sources of published and unpublished literature. All searches were updated in October 2012.
The farmer field schools evaluation community has generated a large number of evaluations. We screened the titles and abstracts of over 28,000 papers, the majority of which were irrelevant to the topic. Four‐hundred‐sixty (460) relevant papers on FFS were assessed for inclusion based on full text. After the final screen by two authors, 134 quasi‐experimental studies comprising 92 distinct evaluations meeting the inclusion criteria were eligible for the review. The impact evaluations provide quantitative estimates of effects on outcomes for 71 FFS projects. However, only 15 of the impact evaluations meeting the inclusion criteria were judged to be of sufficient internal validity to make predictions for policy. The review also includes 20 qualitative evaluations meeting the inclusion criteria, which discuss the barriers to and enablers of change in 20 FFS projects. A portfolio review of 337 project documents was also conducted.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent reviewers assessed the full text papers against the inclusion criteria; discrepancies were resolved by consensus or by a third author if needed. Two reviewers extracted data from included studies. Quantitative impact evaluation studies were critically appraised according to the likely risk of bias according to threats to internal validity (causal identification), external validity (generalisability) and file‐drawer effects (publication bias). Qualitative evaluations were assessed according to adequacy of reporting, data collection, presentation, analysis and conclusions drawn.
We used a hypothesised programme theory of change (White, 2009) as the framework for integrating the evidence. We collected data on programme design, implementation, targeting and contextual factors, and linked individual studies by programme in order to assess whether heterogeneous programme effects were correlated with study design, implementation and context.
For the quantitative synthesis (review question 1), we extracted effect size estimates from included studies, calculating standard errors and 95 per cent confidence intervals using data provided in the studies, where possible. We used random effects meta‐analysis, estimating average effects of farmer field schools on the different outcomes, and examining heterogeneity. The results of the publication bias analysis suggested under‐reporting of small sample studies with negative or insignificant findings for studies reporting evidence on agricultural yields, which is evidence for possible publication bias.
For the synthesis of qualitative evidence (review question 2), we used a thematic approach (Thomas & Harden, 2008), combining predetermined themes based on the links and assumptions in the theory of change model, as well as any other themes emerging from the detailed coding of the included studies.
In the final stage of analysis, we used an iterated approach in which some effect moderators identified during the qualitative synthesis were tested in meta‐analysis and meta‐regression.
RESULTS
Review question (1)
No studies with a low risk of bias were identified for the review of effects and only 15 (out of 92) quasi‐experimental studies were assessed as being of medium risk of bias and therefore policy‐actionable. The results of these medium‐risk‐of‐bias studies (reported in Summary of Findings Table 1) suggest farmer field schools impact positively on intermediate and final outcomes for participating farmers in the short to medium term.
Findings for intermediate outcomes were as follows:
• There was a significant increase of 0.21 standard deviations on knowledge about beneficial practices among farmer field school participants over comparison farmers (SMD=0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.07, 0.35; Q=5, Tau‐sq=0.008, I‐sq=55%; evidence from 3 studies).
• There was a significant reduction in pesticide use by 23 per cent for IPM and IPPM FFS participants over comparison farmers (RR=0.77, 95% CI=0.61, 0.97; Q=40, Tau‐sq=0.07, I‐sq=83%; 8 studies). Effects on pesticide use were particularly large and consistent for cotton IPM projects in Asia.
• There was a significant increase in indices of adoption of other beneficial practices by 0.22 standard deviations over comparison farmers (SMD=0.22, 95% CI=0.06, 0.38; Q=10, Tau‐sq=0.02, I‐sq=80%; 3 studies).
For final outcomes, the findings were as follows:
• A significant increase in agricultural yields was estimated among FFS participants, by 13 per cent over comparison farmers (RR=1.13, 95% CI=1.04, 1.22; Q=53, Tau‐sq=0.008, I‐sq=81%; 11 studies).
• A significant increase in profits (net revenues) was estimated, by 19 per cent among FFS participants over comparison farmers (RR=1.19, 95% CI=1.11, 1.27; Q=1, Tau‐sq=0, I‐sq=0%; 2 studies). The increase in profits was higher for FFS projects which also included complementary interventions involving input or marketing support (RR=2.51, 95% CI=1.51, 4.16, Q=1, Tau‐sq=0, I‐sq=0%; 2 studies).
• There was a 39 per cent reduction in estimated environmental impact quotient (EIQ) score as a result of reduced pesticide use among FFS farmers over comparison farmers (RR=0.61, 95% CI=0.48, 0.78; Q=3, Tau‐sq=0.01, I‐sq=33%; 3 studies).
• We could not identify any studies which provided valid estimates of impacts on farmer health outcomes.
• Very few studies assessed empowerment using quantitative counterfactual methods, and only one provided estimates of statistical precision.
However, there is no evidence of effects on outcomes over the longer term (follow‐up surveys greater than two years after implementation) in programmes which have been scaled up nationwide.
For IPM farmer field schools, there is no evidence that diffusion from FFS participants to non‐participating neighbour farmers usually happens:
• Overall, studies found no significant change in knowledge among FFS neighbours over comparison farmers. There was also no evidence for improvements among neighbours on pesticide use, yields or environmental impact quotient.
• When relatively better‐educated farmers are targeted to participate in the IPM field schools, diffusion may occur for simple practices (such as reduced pesticide use) and yields. However, even in a few cases where diffusion appeared to occur, the evidence does not suggest diffusion to non‐participants is sustained over time.
Review question (2)
Qualitative evaluations (reported in Summary of Findings Table 2) in the review helped us to understand the different types of farmer field schools implemented around the world, the reasons for heterogeneous impacts among FFS participants, and the limited diffusion to non‐participating neighbour farmers. FFS use discovery‐based learning methods which differ from agricultural extension interventions that tend to focus on disseminating knowledge of more simple practices, for instance application of fertiliser and pesticides, or adoption of improved seeds. However, there are several barriers to spontaneous diffusion of knowledge and practices. The FFS curriculum is complex and the training should be experience‐based, so that farmers are able to observe that FFS practices have a relative advantage over conventional farmer practices. Existing levels of social capital, the reach of social networks, and approaches to targeting FFS participants were found to be potentially important factors in influencing diffusion. More generally, the studies identify some of the more common problems in implementation, notably where a top‐down “transfer of technology” approach has been implemented for an intervention which is intended to be based on a “bottom‐up” participatory approach. All qualitative evaluations presented some evidence of use of triangulation to verify their findings, although most studies had weaknesses in reporting on sampling, analysis, and presentation of data, making quality appraisal of this evidence base challenging.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PROGRAMMES
Farmer field schools can have beneficial effects for participating farmers, in pilot programmes in the short term. The impacts on agricultural outcomes may be of substantial importance to farmers, in the region of a 10 per cent increase in yields and 20 per cent increase in profits (net revenues). The effects are particularly large when FFS are implemented alongside complementary upstream or downstream interventions (access to seeds and other inputs, assistance in marketing produce) for cash crops.
However, the few studies of scaled‐up programmes measuring outcomes over the longer term (more than two years post‐training) do not find any evidence of effects of FFS. Farmers may also feel more confident, but again very few studies have assessed empowerment outcomes rigorously.
There is little evidence of diffusion of improved practices or outcomes from FFS participants to non‐participating neighbour farmers. Field schools targeting more educated farmers may be better able to diffuse simple practices, such as on reduced pesticide use, than field schools that target less educated farmers. However, there is no evidence that any diffusion of practices is sustained over time, nor any evidence for adoption of more complex IPM practices via diffusion.
As a method of rural adult education, FFS appear suited for gradual scale‐up provided there is a clear focus on ensuring local institutionalisation (i.e. favouring intensiveness of coverage in each community over geographical breadth of coverage). On the other hand, FFS seem unsuited to solve the problems of large‐scale extension. The approach may not be cost‐effective compared with agricultural extension in many contexts, except where existing farming practices are particularly damaging, for example due to overuse of pesticides. This is because of the highly intensive (and therefore relatively costly) nature of the training programme, the relative successes in targeting more educated farmers as compared with disadvantaged groups, and failures in promoting diffusion of IPM practices.
Targeting FFS participants: Proponents of FFS have recommended targeting more highly educated farmers, those with greater land endowments, younger farmers and women, favouring those with relatively low opportunity costs of labour or farmers with relatively high pesticide costs. Problems were highlighted in targeting women who lived in household where they were not in a decision‐making position, and youth who were unable to dedicate sufficient time to the FFS plot or their fields.
Where the aim is to include women and disadvantaged members of the community, implementers may need to tailor the intervention to enable their participation in the programme. The curriculum needs to be relevant and consistent with the needs and opportunities of women and the poor. Most obviously, in contexts where women are primarily responsible for growing subsistence crops, a curriculum that covers only commercial crops is unlikely to attract women participants. More generally, the curriculum and crops covered in FFS should also be adapted according to the local agricultural system and the needs of the farmers targeted by the programme. Curricula need to deal with the major challenges facing farmers. In most cases, these challenges will be multifaceted, highlighting the need to balance comprehensiveness with being able to cover all issues in sufficient depth to ensure appropriate learning. A cumulative approach over several seasons, including exchanges between field schools, may be preferable.
FFS facilitators: The evidence also suggests that appropriate targeting and training of FFS facilitators is important. The theory of change suggests FFS should be delivered according to a participatory and discovery‐based approach to learning, including opportunities for farmers to experiment and observe new practices, particularly if farmers are to be empowered with lifelong skills capacity development. Attempts to target facilitators based on education or literacy levels may be less effective than targeting based on ability to communicate, and appropriate training which enables facilitators to use a bottom‐up approach. This is most obviously a barrier in scaled‐up programmes where FFS facilitators are recruited from extension staff who previously used more top‐down agricultural extension methods. Recruitment of facilitators should take into account personal attitude, maturity, literacy, leadership skills, knowledge in local language and experience with farming. In many contexts the gender of the facilitator should be carefully considered. Facilitators should have access to ongoing support and backstopping from supervisors and technical experts connected to local research centres. Regular monitoring of facilitators may help to identify schools where additional support is required.
Complementary policies: Institutional actors involved in FFS should consider farmers' needs and interests in the design and implementation of the FFS programme. In some contexts stronger policies and regulatory measures may be necessary to counteract the activities of the pesticide industry, including the promotion and sale of pesticides by extension workers who are promoting FFS. New policies facilitating participatory agricultural extension approaches, replacing earlier extension policies aimed at promoting off‐the‐shelf technologies and input packages, may also be necessary.
Local institutionalisation: Formal support and encouragement of FFS alumni, including technical assistance and backstopping, may be important for the sustainability of FFS practices and related activities. Given the skills‐based nature of the practices promoted in FFS, formal community‐building activities, support and successful attempts to institutionalise the approach, to encourage FFS graduates to train other farmers, are likely to be needed for any broader diffusion to non‐participating neighbour farmers, although the evidence base does not indicate that such attempts have been successful in the past.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
The majority of FFS impact evaluations (68 out of 92) use designs of questionable internal validity, and are therefore of limited value in determining whether farmer field schools have made a difference to outcomes. We were not able to locate any completed evaluations which used randomised assignment, an approach which is feasible for FFS. In three‐quarters of evaluations, no serious attempts were made to control for confounding through statistical matching or other statistical analysis, and in one‐third of cases statistical significance tests were not reported. The likely consequence, as indicated in the meta‐analysis, was the systematic overestimation of effects for all outcomes. The extent of resources that has been devoted to farmer field schools evaluations might therefore be usefully re‐allocated to conducting fewer but more rigorous impact evaluations, particularly those based on a solid counterfactual, with prospective cluster‐level assignment (randomised or otherwise) to allow measurement of community‐wide diffusion and to assess effects on agriculture and empowerment outcomes in the medium to longer term (three years or more).
Evaluations should report information on both intervention design and implementation processes so that it is possible to assess whether programme causal chains break down because the intervention design is simply not appropriate for the context or because of poor implementation.
Many qualitative evaluations need to report aspects of the research process in greater detail to allow users to assess their credibility and applicability. In particular, clear reporting on objectives, on methods of sampling, data collection and analysis should be provided. Greater use of structured abstracts will facilitate easier access to quantitative and especially qualitative research. Future studies should include data on views and experiences of FFS facilitators and agricultural extension workers.
Summary of Findings Tables
Summary of Findings Table 1: Effectiveness studies (review question 1)
Outcomes Summary of findings
No. of studies (participants) Relative effect size (95% CI) Percentage change compared with control group Quality assessment³ Statement
Final outcomes ‐ all farmer field school participants (review question 1a)
Yields (primary outcome)
11 (3,198)
1.13 RR¹ (1.04, 1.22)
13% increase in yields of FFS participants on average relative to comparison group (4%, 22%)
++oo Low Moderate risk of bias and publication bias strongly suspected
FFS may increase yields of FFS participants by an average of 13% relative to comparison group, though there is notable variation across populations and contexts
Net revenues (primary outcome)
2 (488)
1.19 RR (1.11, 1.27)
19% increase in net revenue of FFS participants on average relative to comparison group (11%, 27%)
++oo Low Moderate risk of bias and small number of studies
FFS may increase net revenues (profits) of FFS participants by an average of 19% relative to comparison group
Empowerment
1 (200)
2.13 RR (1.46, 3.12)
FFS participants 1.13 more likely to report positive empowerment outcomes relative to comparison group (0.46, 2.12)
+ooo Very low Moderate risk of bias, serious indirectness and very serious imprecision
The evidence on the impact of FFS on empowerment for FFS participants is inconclusive
Environmental outcomes (environmental impact quotient)
3 (1,149)
0.61 RR (0.48, 0.77)
39% reduction in environmental impact quotient of FFS participants on average relative to comparison group (52%, 23%)
++oo Low Moderate risk of bias and small number of studies
FFS may reduce the environmental impact quotient by 39% on average relative to comparison group
Intermediate outcomes ‐ farmer field school participants (review question 1b)
Knowledge test scores
3 (426)
0.21 SMD² (0.07, 0.35)
The knowledge test scores achieved by FFS participants are on average 0.21 standard deviations greater than in the comparison group (0.07, 0.35)
++oo Low Moderate risk of bias and small number of studies
FFS may increase knowledge of FFS participants by 0.21 standard deviations on average relative to comparison group
Pesticide use (IPM/IPPM FFS only)
9 (2,335)
0.83 RR(0.66, 1.04)
17% decrease in pesticide use by FFS participants on average relative to comparison group (‐34%, 4%)
++oo Low Moderate risk of bias and serious imprecision
FFS may decrease pesticide use of IPM/IPPM FFS participants by 17% on average relative to comparison group though there is notable variation across populations and contexts
Adoption of beneficial practices
3 (794)
0.22 SMD (0.06, 0.38)
The number of practices adopted by FFS participants is on average 0.22 standard deviations greater than in the comparison group
+ooo Very low Moderate risk of bias, serious inconsistency and small number of studies
Evidence on the effect of FFS on the adoption of beneficial practices is inconclusive
Diffusion to neighbour farmers (review question 1c)
Pesticide demand neighbours (pesticide use, pesticide costs)
5 (1,115)
0.95 RR (0.64, 1.39)
No statistically significant effect on pesticide use of FFS neighbours relative to comparison group
++oo Low Moderate risk of bias and serious imprecision
FFS may not have any diffusion effect on pesticide use
Yields
4 (986)
1.02 RR (0.97, 1.08)
No statistically significant effect on the yields of FFS neighbours relative to comparison group
++oo Low Moderate risk of bias, serious inconsistency
FFS may not have any diffusion effect on yields
• Notes: 1/ RR = response ratio. 2/ SMD = standardised mean difference.
• 3/ The rating guide used for the assessment of the quality of the evidence was adapted from GRADE and is available from
• the authors.
Source: authors based on GRADE.
Summary of Findings Table 2: Barriers to and enablers of effects (review question 2)
Outcomes No. of studies Statement
Barriers to and enablers of knowledge acquisition
17 studies
Barriers: FFS facilitators do not receive sufficient training and ongoing support (6 studies). Facilitators do not have enough farming experience and/or appropriate characteristics (2 studies). Lack of adequate and timely resources for FFS schools (3 studies). Farmers excluded due to restrictive targeting criteria or procedures (4 studies). Farmers unable to participate due to gender, cultural norms or poverty (7 studies). High levels of drop‐out due to incorrect expectations or lack of interest, access or time (7 studies). Training delivered in a top‐down manner, using transfer of technology approach (4 studies). Curriculum not appropriate or relevant to the local context (7 studies). Imbalance in relationship between farmers and facilitators (3 studies). Facilitators use national language, in which farmers are not fluent, or too many foreign and scientific terms (2 studies).
Enablers: FFS facilitators have experience with farming, are literate and mature, and have a positive personal attitude and leadership skills (3 studies). Gender of facilitator acceptable to participants and their families (2 studies). Farmers motivated to learn and improve livelihoods (5 studies). Training delivered in a participatory, bottom‐up manner (9). Curriculum appropriate and relevant to the local context (7 studies). Facilitators use local language and concepts and metaphors common to farmers (2 studies).
Barriers to and enablers of adoption
18 studies
Barriers: Training delivered in a top‐down manner, using transfer of technology approach (4 studies). Curriculum is not appropriate and relevant to the local context (7 studies). Farmers do not observe benefits from FFS practices (2 studies). Practices too complex for farmers to implement (3 studies). Farmers lack access to inputs, capital and/or markets (5 studies). Low levels of social capital among participants (1 study).
Enablers: Training delivered in a participatory, bottom‐up manner (9 studies). Curriculum is appropriate and relevant to the local context (7 studies). Farmers observe benefits of FFS practices (5 studies). High levels of social capital among participants and tradition of collective action (3 studies).
Barriers to and enablers of effectiveness and sustainability
14 studies
Barriers: Diverging institutional incentives and objectives (3 studies). Conflicting agricultural policies (2 studies). Institutional legacy from top‐down extension approaches (4 studies). Power of pesticide industry and continued links with the extension service (2 studies). Lack of technical assistance and backstopping from researchers and extensionists (4 studies).
Enablers: Active follow‐up and continued support from implementing agency (11 studies). FFS groups with consistent membership, good leadership, collective goals and a supportive group environment (4 studies).
Barriers to and enablers of diffusion of knowledge and practices
11 studies
Barriers: Complexity and experiential nature of FFS learning (5 studies). Farmers unable to observe FFS practices (2 studies). Farmers are not convinced of the relative advantage of FFS practices (2 studies). Socioeconomic differences between FFS participants and non‐participants (1 study). Low levels of social capital and cohesion limiting communication (2 studies).
Enablers: Concrete and relatively easy practices (2 studies). Farmers observe FFS practices (5 studies). Farmers perceive FFS practices to have relative advantage over existing practices (2 studies). High levels of social capital and social networks extending beyond FFS group (3 studies). Active promotion of FFS practices post‐graduation (1 study).
Source: authors.
Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) is a practical approach to planning, monitoring and evaluation, developed for use with complex research-for-development projects. PIPA begins with a participatory workshop where stakeholders make explicit their assumptions about how their project will make an impact, and produce an ‘Outcomes logic model’ and an ‘Impact logic model’. These two logic models provide an ex-ante framework of predictions of impact that can also be used in priority setting and ex-post impact assessment. PIPA engages stakeholders in a structured participatory process, promoting learning and providing a framework for ‘action research’ on processes of change.
In the current context of the global financial crisis and its aftermath, development resources are likely to be getting scarcer. Resources for development research are too. The set of circumstances generating the resource scarcity is also putting pressure on development gains. More than ever before, every dollar spent on development research will have to count towards sustainable poverty reduction. However, the understanding of the impacts of development research on policy change and on poverty is weak at best, with agriculture being no different.
The area of research impact is not a new area of enquiry but an emergent one. Our paper seeks to build on the work of others. It surveys the literature and identifies different ways of assessing the impact of ‘policy-oriented’ research. We then take the available literature on agriculture as a specific focus to survey.
Our paper surveys the different types of ‘policy-oriented’ research; the literature on the ‘theories of change’ for policy research in international development; methodologies for analysing the impact of policy-oriented research; the relevant agriculture literature and outlines the types indicators that can be used for impact assessment of research with examples.
The key findings are:
The impact and influence of development research is an agenda that has been gathering momentum over the last few years. This agenda is a coming together of two divergent concerns. The first, from the funders of research, draws on results based management and is concerned with getting value‐for‐money from research spending or with ‘more bang for the buck’. The second, more typical of those in the development studies research community, is concerned with whether research in the area is ‘making a difference’. Among development researchers there is also often a political or normative basis – addressing global poverty and inequality – and catalysing change.
The meanings of the terms' impact and influence are multiple, multi‐layered and complex to track. They may refer to use (i.e. consideration) or actual outcome(s) of social change. They can be visible or invisible; progressive or regressive. Impacts and influence can be intended or unintended and immediate or long‐term. The processes of impact and influence are acknowledged to be non‐linear, iterative and complex.
This paper considers the impact and influence of development research from a plurality of perspectives. Interest in the impact/influence of research projects aggregates upwards to support the overall case for (often public) funding of development research (in areas that are likely to play a major role in the next few years in changing the climate for public expenditure in light of the global financial crisis).
The results are presented of a project to promote integrated Striga control (ISC) technologies to farmers in the Guinea savanna of northern Nigeria. Extension agents used a participatory research and extension approach (PREA) to encourage farmers to test and adopt ISC technologies. Over a 2-year period, the performance of the technologies was compared with the common farmers’ practice with respect to crop yields, Striga seedbank, Striga damage and economics, as well as the adoption and adaptation of ISC technologies among lead farmers and others. ISC improved crop productivity on average by 88%. In the farmers’ practice, Striga seedbank increased by 46% in 2 years, while in plots under ISC it was reduced by a similar percentage. ISC resulted in higher margins than the farmers’ practice, but increased labour requirements were found to be a limitation for the expansion of the recommended technologies. Improved seed varieties, however, were rapidly adopted by farmers, but often used at lower plant populations than recommended and in mixed cropping systems. It was estimated that the participation of each extension agent resulted in the transfer of knowledge and seed to an average of 240 farmers. In addition, the PREA had improved community, group, and farmer–extension agent relationships. Ongoing demand by Government and NGOs for training in PREA, extension material and improved seed suggested that scaling-up has continued beyond the lifespan of the project.
To date in agricultural research, farmer participation in monitoring and
evaluation has been limited to assessing technologies, and to consultations
on adoption and impacts of innovations. However, participatory
monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) may have much more to offer as an
approach for regular self-reflection and learning within projects, and it
could make a significant contribution in the complex field of participatory
research for natural resource management. These were the initial assumptions
which formed the starting point for the study documented in
this book. Based on action research undertaken in two case study projects
in Honduras, this book assesses the potential benefits and limitations
of using PM&E in participatory research, and elucidates key
conditions for success in its implementation. It contributes to the actual
debate on participatory research, the re-orientation of international agricultural
research, and adds new aspects to the age-old topic of monitoring
and evaluation.
Since the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, when the Convention on Safeguarding Biological Diversity (CBD) was developed and signed by deputies from many nations, the imminent loss of the world’s plant and animal diversity has become an increasing issue of concern for a large section of the world’s public. For the case of crop species, the heritage of traditional varieties is literally in the hands of the farmers: They decide whether or not they will maintain the seed of a particular variety and invest time in it’s careful selection and storage.
In this book, the concerns and observations of farmers and their knowledge of pearl
millet seed are documented. To them, the term “biodiversity” probably has no significant
meaning, and yet their statements vividly reveal how the availability and quality
of seed directly affects all aspects of their lives − including their physical and mental
well-being, their social relations and their economic situation.
The main methodological approach used in this book includes semi-structured interviews with individuals and groups, alongside observation and simulation exercises and direct observation of farmers' seed management activities.
The results and discussion section of the book is organized around four main topics: (1) Farmers' concept of "varieties"; (2) their understanding of food and fodder quality; (3) their seed management practices and how they influence diversity and productivity of pearl millet populations; and (4) the importance of traditional seed markets in Rajasthan.
Finally, conclusions are drawn with regard to in situ or on-farm conservation, plant breeding, seed markets and information networks.
This book is part of the Communication and Extension Series, edited by Hermann Boland, Volker Hoffmann and Uwe Jens Nagel and published by Margraf Publishers, Weikersheim (Germany). Authorization for sharing the book at researchgate was kindly provided by the publisher. Hard copies of all books of this series are available at: https://www.margraf-publishers.eu/en/bookshop/kommunikation-beratung/, or at various international internet book stores.
To understand how learning selection is analogous to natural selection, let us take the example of one of the stages in the early adoption of Mucuna pruriens in Benin (Fig. 2). M. pruriens is a herbaceous legume that forms the basis of an NRM cover crop and green manure technology. Participant A is a female farmer who decides to plant an M. pruriens cover crop in her field after seeing a demonstration in her village by researchers that shows the legume's ability to improve soil fertility. As a result of growing M. pruriens, the farmer has an experience of the crop that she tries to interpret on the basis of the information in her existing mental models of reality. Her observations and understanding lead her to the conclusion that M. pruriens is more immediately useful as a way of suppressing Imperata cylindrica, a grass weed that caused her to abandon some of her land. The following year, she uses M. pruriens to try to reclaim this land by cutting the I. cylindrica at the beginning of the rainy season and broadcasting M. pruriens seed in the hope that it will outgrow and smother the I. cylindrica. By carrying out this experiment, she is generating a novelty as well as beginning another learning cycle, the result of which will be a selection decision on her part as to whether to continue to plant M. pruriens in this way.
The analogy between natural selection and learning selection is not perfect. One important difference is that natural selection is blind, whereas learning selection is not: genetic mutations occur at random, but technology and system change can be directed, e.g., by product champions. The "thinking" nature of learning selection implies that, to understand the processes involved, we have to go beyond simply identifying novelties generated or selection decisions made and delve into the reasons why people behave the way they do. Consequently, a cornerstone of the LS approach is the seemingly obvious relationship articulated by Lewin (1951), who maintains that people's behavior (B) is a function of the interaction of the person (P) with his or her environment (E), or B=f(P,E). This is the theoretical justification for the fourth and fifth steps in the guide (Appendix 1) to managing a learning selection approach that involves working with motivated people and choosing pilot sites where there is a real need. MacKeracher (1994) explains the Lewin model in this way. Behavior can include any outcome of the learning process, including adoption, modification, selection, a change in attitude, and communication to others. P stands for the person (the learner) and can include any characteristic that affects learning, such as existing models of reality. E stands for the environment and can include any factor within the context that might affect learning, including the number and quality of interactions with other people, the nature of the technology being tested, and the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic settings.
To meet the challenges of poverty and environmental sustainability, a different kind of research will be needed. This research will need to embrace the complexity of these systems by redirecting the objectives of research toward enhancing adaptive capacity, by incorporating more participatory approaches, by embracing key principles such as multi-scale analysis and intervention, and by the use of a variety of tools (e.g., systems analysis, information management tools, and impact assessment tools). Integration will be the key concept in the new approach; integration across scales, components, stakeholders, and disciplines. Integrated approaches, as described in this Special Feature, will require changes in the culture and organization of research. Copyright © 2001 by the author(s). Published here under license by The Resilience Alliance.
The concept of 'sustainable livelihoods' is increasingly important in the development debate. This paper outlines a framework for analysing sustainable livelihoods, defined here in relation to five key indicators. The framework shows how, in different contexts, sustainable livelihoods are achieved through access to a range of livelihood resources (natural, economic, human and social capitals) which are combined in the pursuit of different livelihood strategies (agricultural intensification or extensification, livelihood diversification and migration). Central to the framework is the analysis of the range of formal and informal organisational and institutional factors that influence sustainable livelihood outcomes. In conclusion, the paper briefly considers some of the practical, methodological and operational implications of a sustainable livelihoods approach.
On-farm trials were conducted in the northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. The objective was to compare integrated Striga hermonthica control measures (soyabean or cowpea trap crop in the first year followed by maize resistant to Striga in the second year) with farmers' traditional practices (cereal-based cropping systems) under farmer-managed conditions.
Integrated control proved to be highly effective in terms of reducing Striga incidence both in terms of reduced seed density in the soil and decreased infection in maize. Resistant maize following the soyabean trap crop yielded 1.58 t ha ⁻¹ of grain and out-yielded local maize following traditional practices by more than 80%. Similarly, the overall productivity over the period of the experiment was highest with the integrated control treatment using soyabean. Conversely, resistant maize after the cowpea trap crop yielded only 0.92 t ha ⁻¹ (possibly due to the poor performance of the cowpea crop in the first year), and maize yields were similar to those obtained with farmer practices. Initial Striga seed density in the soil was negatively correlated ( r = −0.33) with soil nitrogen, but nitrogen-fertilizer application rates did not seem to affect the level of Striga infection in maize.
Two sets of on-farm trials, each covering two years, were conducted in the northern Guinea savannah of Nigeria over the period 1999–2001, the objective being to compare integrated Striga hermonthica control measures (soybean or cowpea trap crops followed by maize resistant to Striga) with farmers' traditional cereal-based cropping systems. In both sets of trials, this proved to be highly effective in increasing productivity over the two year period, especially where soybean was used as a trap crop. Resistant maize after a trap crop increased the net benefit over the two cropping seasons in both trials by over 100 % over farmer practice. However, in the second set of trials there was no significant increase in productivity between a trap crop followed by Striga resistant maize, and a trap crop followed by local maize especially where legume intercropping and fertilizer had been applied in the farmer practice. There was also no increase in productivity between two years' traditional cereal cropping and one year's local maize followed by Striga resistant maize. This indicates the importance of a legume trap crop in the first year in order to ensure high productivity in the second year, regardless of variety. Up to 20 % of farmers obtained higher productivity from their own practices, notably intercropping of cereals with legumes and use of inorganic fertilizers. Leguminous trap crops and Striga resistant maize, together with two key management practices (increased soybean planting density and hand-roguing) were seen to be spreading both within and beyond the research villages, indicating that farmers see the economic benefits of controlling Striga. Survey findings show that explaining the reasons why control practices work can greatly increase the adoption of these practices. Wider adoption of Striga control will therefore require an extension approach that provides this training as well as encouraging farmers to experiment and adapt Striga control options for their local farming systems.
"The types of technology change catalyzed by research interventions in integrated natural resource management (INRM) are likely to require much more social negotiation and adaptation than are changes related to plant breeding, the dominant discipline within the system of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Conceptual models for developing and delivering high-yielding varieties have proven inadequate for delivering natural resource management (NRM) technologies that are adopted in farmers' fields. Successful INRM requires tools and approaches that can blend the technical with the social, so that people from different disciplines and social backgrounds can effectively work and communicate with each other. This paper develops the 'follow-the-technology' (FTT) approach to catalyzing, managing, and evaluating rural technology change as a framework that both 'hard' and 'soft' scientists can work with. To deal with complexity, INRM needs ways of working that are adaptive and flexible. The FTT approach uses technology as the entry point into a complex situation to determine what is important. In this way, it narrows the research arena to achievable boundaries. The methodology can also be used to catalyze technology change, both within and outside agriculture. The FTT approach can make it possible to channel the innovative potential of local people that is necessary in INRM to 'scale up' from the pilot site to the landscape. The FTT approach is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution, specifically between 'learning selection' and natural selection. In learning selection, stakeholders experiment with a new technology and carry out the evolutionary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation. The motivation to participate is a 'plausible promise' made by the R&D team to solve a real farming problem. Case studies are presented from a spectrum of technologies to show that repeated learning selection cycles can result in an improvement in the performance of the plausible promise through adaptation and a sense of ownership by the stakeholders."
Th report contains four parts. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the reent evolution of national research systems. Chapters 2 and 3 are the main body of the report. Chapter 2 synthesizes policy issues and good practices for developing national agricultural research systems within an emerging global agricultural research system. While there is growing participation from diverse partners in research funding and execution, the public sector will continue to be central in undertaking research on the emerging challenges of sustainable agricultural intensification, poverty alleviation, and conservation of natural resources. Chapter 3 focuses on the key policy and institutional reforms needed to strengthen these public sector research institutions. The report provides the underlying rationale for selecting good practices and discusses their applicability in specific situations. Chapter 4 discusses implications for the Bank in its ongoing efforts to strengthen national research systems. Bank support for agricultural research will be central to its objectives of alleviating poverty and conserving natural resources. However, agricultural research policy and best practices will continue to evolve in response to the changing roles of the public and private setors, new institutional mechanisms for funding and executing research in the public sector, and changing demands on research systems.
The potential impact and return to investment from introducing improved dual- purpose cowpea for food and fodder in northern Nigeria was investigated using a combination of farmers' workshops and village and household level surveys. Out of the 462 households surveyed, 41% were adopters, 9% had been adopters at one time but had stopped, while 50% had never tried improved dual-purpose cowpea. Three wealth classes were defi ned by the respondents themselves: the rich (13% of farmers), the middle class (60%), and the poor (27%). In all communities, middle class farmers led in adoption of improved varieties and in using recommended doses of insecticide sprays. Improved dual-purpose varieties contributed more to total value product (12%) than local varieties (11%) in spite of the fact that only 55% of adopters used insecticide sprays and that the area under local varieties was double that of improved varieties—23% compared to 13%. The results show that application of insecticide is a positive function related to the level of agricultural intensifi cation of the system. The implication is that farmers should be encouraged to plant improved dual-purpose cowpea varieties without stressing that insecticides are mandatory. Such inputs can be introduced subsequently in response to the market environment and the status of crop-livestock interactions. This thrust has the potential to boost adoption and diffusion of improved dual-purpose cowpea varieties as well as overall production of cowpea. Estimates from a combination of geographic information systems (GIS) data and household-level surveys show that four million hectares of land are under cowpea in the dry savanna zone of Nigeria alone. When compared to existing fi gures (about four million ha for all Nigeria) it could be concluded that the area under cowpea in Nigeria is being underestimated along with the contributions of cowpea to food security and liveli- hoods. Finally, the results indicate that while improved dual-purpose varieties are preferred in more rural areas with less market access but where livestock seem to make a higher contribution to crop-livestock systems and livelihoods, both
Providing a complete portal to the world of case study research, the Fourth Edition of Robert K. Yin's bestselling text Case Study Research offers comprehensive coverage of the design and use of the case study method as a valid research tool. This thoroughly revised text now covers more than 50 case studies (approximately 25% new), gives fresh attention to quantitative analyses, discusses more fully the use of mixed methods research designs, and includes new methodological insights. The book's coverage of case study research and how it is applied in practice gives readers access to exemplary case studies drawn from a wide variety of academic and applied fields.Key Features of the Fourth Edition Highlights each specific research feature through 44 boxed vignettes that feature previously published case studies Provides methodological insights to show the similarities between case studies and other social science methods Suggests a three-stage approach to help readers define the initial questions they will consider in their own case study research Covers new material on human subjects protection, the role of Institutional Review Boards, and the interplay between obtaining IRB approval and the final development of the case study protocol and conduct of a pilot case Includes an overall graphic of the entire case study research process at the beginning of the book, then highlights the steps in the process through graphics that appear at the outset of all the chapters that follow Offers in-text learning aids including 'tips' that pose key questions and answers at the beginning of each chapter, practical exercises, endnotes, and a new cross-referencing tableCase Study Research, Fourth Edition is ideal for courses in departments of Education, Business and Management, Nursing and Public Health, Public Administration, Anthropology, Sociology, and Political Science.
Agricultural development is fundamentally a social process in which people construct solutions to their problems, often by modifying both new technologies and their own production systems to take advantage of new opportunities offered by the technologies. Hence, agricultural change is an immensely complex process, with a high degree of non-linearity. However, current ‘best practice’ economic evaluation methods commonly used in the CGIAR system ignore complexity. In this paper we develop a two-stage monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment approach called impact pathway evaluation. This approach is based on program-theory evaluation from the field of evaluation, and the experience of the German development organization GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH). In the first stage of this approach, a research project develops an impact pathway for itself, which is an explicit theory or model of how the project sees itself achieving impact. The project then uses the impact pathway to guide project management in complex environments. The impact pathway may evolve, based on learning over time. The second stage is an ex post impact assessment sometime after the project has finished, in which the project's wider benefits are independently assessed. The evaluator seeks to establish plausible links between the project outputs and developmental changes, such as poverty alleviation. We illustrate the usefulness of impact pathway evaluation through examples from Nigeria and Indonesia.
The results are presented of a project to promote integrated Striga control (ISC) technologies to farmers in the Guinea savanna of northern Nigeria. Extension agents used a participatory research and extension approach (PREA) to encourage farmers to test and adopt ISC technologies. Over a 2-year period, the performance of the technologies was compared with the common farmers’ practice with respect to crop yields, Striga seedbank, Striga damage and economics, as well as the adoption and adaptation of ISC technologies among lead farmers and others. ISC improved crop productivity on average by 88%. In the farmers’ practice, Striga seedbank increased by 46% in 2 years, while in plots under ISC it was reduced by a similar percentage. ISC resulted in higher margins than the farmers’ practice, but increased labour requirements were found to be a limitation for the expansion of the recommended technologies. Improved seed varieties, however, were rapidly adopted by farmers, but often used at lower plant populations than recommended and in mixed cropping systems. It was estimated that the participation of each extension agent resulted in the transfer of knowledge and seed to an average of 240 farmers. In addition, the PREA had improved community, group, and farmer–extension agent relationships. Ongoing demand by Government and NGOs for training in PREA, extension material and improved seed suggested that scaling-up has continued beyond the lifespan of the project.
Drawing on results of a survey of Ugandan farmers who previously hosted bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varietal trials, this paper reports on the adoption of three new bush bean cultivars and assesses the usefulness of post-trial surveys as a methodology for obtaining reliable early feedback on varietal adoption potential. While this case study confirms the validity of post-trial surveys for verifying varietal acceptance and predicting broad trends in varietal adoption, the findings from such studies should be assessed within the context of the complexity of choices farmers make about seed use, which are not solely an expression of their varietal preference, especially among the poorest farmers. The negative implications of adverse agro-environmental conditions for the retention of seed of new varieties and hence, adoption, are clearly highlighted. The study also warns against the pitfalls of making wider inferences from the adoption behaviour of trial farmers, since the experimentation process itself may interfere, positively or negatively, with the adoption process.
Food Consumption Tables for the Near East Food and Nutrition Paper No. 20 Scaling-up integrated Striga hermonthica control technologies through a participatory research and extension approach in the savanna of northern Nigeria
- Fao Food
- Agriculture Organization
- Rome B Fao
- Douthwaite
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 1982. Food Consumption Tables for the Near East. Food and Nutrition Paper No. 20. FAO, Rome. B. Douthwaite et al. / Agricultural Systems 92 (2007) 201–222 221 rFranke, A.C., Ellis-Jones, J., Tarawali, G., Schulz, S., Hussaini, M.A., Kureh, I., Chikoye, D. Douthwaite, B.B., Oyewole, D., Olanrewaju, A.S., White, R. in press. Scaling-up integrated Striga hermonthica control technologies through a participatory research and extension approach in the savanna of northern Nigeria. Crop Protection
GPS transect walks – a new methodology for quantifying impact. Poster presented at the Sustainable crop-livestock production for improved livelihoods in West
- Van
- F B W Meer
- N C De Haan
- B Douthwaite
Van der Meer, F.B.W., de Haan, N.C., Douthwaite, B., 2001. GPS transect walks – a new methodology for quantifying impact. Poster presented at the Sustainable crop-livestock production for improved livelihoods in West Africa Conference, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, 19–22 November 2001.
Breeding for integrated management of Striga hermonthica
- K Dashiell
- U De Umba
- J Kling
- A Melake-Berhan
- D K Berner
- B I G Haussmann
- D E Hess
- M L Koyama
- L Grivet
Dashiell, K., de Umba, U., Kling, J., Melake-Berhan, A., Berner, D.K., 2000. Breeding for integrated
management of Striga hermonthica. In: Haussmann, B.I.G., Hess, D.E., Koyama, M.L., Grivet, L.,
Rattunde, H.F.W., Geiger, H.H. (Eds.), Breeding for Striga Resistance in Cereals. Margraf Verlag,
Weikersheim, Germany, pp. 273-281.
Managing impact in rural development: A guide for project M&E. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Office of Evaluation and Studies
- I Guijt
- J Woodhill
Guijt, I., Woodhill, J., 2002. Managing impact in rural development: A guide for project M&E.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Office of Evaluation and Studies. http://
www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/index.htm (accessed 12.08.05).
Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)., 2002. Nigeria: Country Profile
- I Scoones
Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. University of Sussex, Brighton, England. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)., 2002. Nigeria: Country Profile. Report presented at Johannesburg Summit, 2002. http://www.gm-unccd.org/FIELD/Countries/ Nigeria/WSSDNigeria.pdf (accessed 31.07.03).
Learning Together for Change: Facilitating Innovation in Natural Resource Management Through Learning Process Approaches in Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe
- J Hagmann
Hagmann, J., 1999. Learning Together for Change: Facilitating Innovation in Natural Resource
Management Through Learning Process Approaches in Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe. Margraf
Verlag, Weikersheim, Germany.
Farmer participation in Research and Development: The Problem Census and Solving Technique. IITA Research Guide No. 57, Evaluation of integrated Striga hermonthica control technologies under farmer management
- S Schulz
- Iita
- Ibadan
- Nigeria
- S Schulz
- M A Hussaini
- J Kling
- D K Berner
- F O Ikie
Schulz, S., 2000. Farmer participation in Research and Development: The Problem Census and Solving Technique. IITA Research Guide No. 57, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria. Schulz, S., Hussaini, M.A., Kling, J., Berner, D.K., Ikie, F.O., 2003. Evaluation of integrated Striga hermonthica control technologies under farmer management. Experimental Agriculture 39, 99–108.
GPS transect walks – a new methodology for quantifying impact. Poster presented at the Sustainable crop-livestock production for improved livelihoods in West Africa Conference
- F B W Van Der Meer
- N C De Haan
- B Douthwaite
Van der Meer, F.B.W., de Haan, N.C., Douthwaite, B., 2001. GPS transect walks – a new methodology
for quantifying impact. Poster presented at the Sustainable crop-livestock production for improved
livelihoods in West Africa Conference, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, 19–22 November 2001.
Farmer participation in Research and Development: The Problem Census and Solving Technique
- S Schulz
Schulz, S., 2000. Farmer participation in Research and Development: The Problem Census and Solving
Technique. IITA Research Guide No. 57, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.
GPS transect walks - a new methodology for quantifying impact. Poster presented at the Sustainable crop-livestock production for
- F B W Van Der Meer
- N C De Haan
- B Douthwaite
Van der Meer, F.B.W., de Haan, N.C., Douthwaite, B., 2001. GPS transect walks -a new methodology
for quantifying impact. Poster presented at the Sustainable crop-livestock production for improved
livelihoods in West Africa Conference, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, 19-22 November 2001.
Breeding for integrated management of Striga hermonthica
- Dashiell
in press. Scaling-up integrated Striga hermonthica control technologies through a participatory research and extension approach in the savanna of northern Nigeria
- B B Douthwaite
- D Oyewole
- A S Olanrewaju
- R White
Douthwaite, B.B., Oyewole, D., Olanrewaju, A.S., White, R. in press. Scaling-up integrated Striga
hermonthica control technologies through a participatory research and extension approach in the
savanna of northern Nigeria. Crop Protection.