5.1 Introduction
5.2 Markets and Policy
5.3 Impact Assessment
5.4 Gender
5.5 On-Farm Research Sector Review
5.6 General Concluding Remarks
Economics has a long and distinguished history in ICRISAT with the current DG having played a critically important role in the development of the Economic Programme in its formative stage. Much of that earlier work, including a definitive book arising out of the village studies, still has much relevance to the socioeconomic environment in the Indian SAT of the 1990s. In fact the CCER on Soil, Water, and Nutrient Management Research suggested that the potential use of such information is under-exploited.
The economics work is now implemented under the auspices of the Socio-Economics and Policy Division (SEPD) which includes a core team of 9 internationally recruited scientists (i.e., 4 at the IAC, and 1 each at the ISC, Kenya, Mali, Malawi, and Zimbabwe (SEA)) and 3 Research Fellows. The current size of the SEPD represents a positive response on the part of ICRISAT to a statement in the last EPMR (page 49) about a relatively low percentage of its research resources being devoted to socioeconomics work compared with other CGIAR institutions, and the need identified in the 1994-98 MTP for a greater economics input. All SEPD scientists are economists and are involved in 19 of the 22 multidisciplinary globally oriented projects. Consequently, each SEPD scientist works on a number of projects, with time per activity per scientist in projects ranging from a minimum of 5% (i.e., about 12 days per year)1 to 50% (i.e., about 125 days per year). Three SEPD scientists work as PTLs. In the current MTP (1994-98) the SEPD has defined 4 general areas of disciplinary interest. In total it is estimated that the SEPD staff time allocation (i.e., IRS and NRS scientists) between the different areas is approximately 40% to resource management (i.e., the integrated system projects), 25% to germplasm improvement and IPM (i.e., commodity based projects), 15% to product and input market oriented research, and 20% to impact analysis. The last two constitute the projects that are specifically associated with the SEPD. Within each of the four general areas the SEPD has defined a number of topics on which they focus their attention. These are summarized in Table 5.1.
1 Assuming 250 work days per year.
No CCER has been commissioned in the socioeconomics area, although fragmentary references are made to some aspects of the SEPD work in three of the CCERs2. Consequently, the two research projects associated with the SEPD are covered in somewhat more detail in this Chapter. In addition sections are included on matters relating to gender and on-farm research activities which have recently been reviewed. Suggestions about what should be done in the SEPD as a result of the Panel's proposed strategy for the future of ICRISAT (see Section 9.1.3) are given in a concluding section.
2 It is interesting to note, in fact, that there was also no explicit and comprehensive review of the Economics Programme in the last EPMR of ICRISAT in 1990. At that time the economics component was part of the Resource Management Programme.
Table 5.1 Areas and Topics of Research in the SEPD
|
Area of Research |
Topics |
|
Markets and Policya |
Commodity Situation and Outlooks; Changing Crop Patterns and Comparative Advantage; Public and Private Seed Multiplication; Indigenous Seed Markets; Fertiliser and Agrochemical Markets |
|
Impact Assessment |
Documentation of Successful Technologies; Assessment of Research Programmes; Documenting Research Spillovers; Research Priority Setting |
|
Resource Management and Sustainabilityb |
Soil and Fertility Management Options; Moisture Conservation Options; Crop/Livestock/Agroforestry Options; Changing Land Use Systems; Integrated Pest and Disease Management |
|
Germplasm Developmentc |
Targeting of Breeding Strategies; Adoption Studies |
a. This project is also sub-divided into three sub-projects: Commodity Situation and Outlook (topic 1); Product Markets and Policy (topic 2); and, Input Markets and Policy (last 3 topics).b. This work is referred to in Chapter 4.
c. This work is referred to in Chapter 3.
5.2.1 Objectives, Activities, and Achievements
5.2.2 Future Plans
5.2.3 Assessment
The objectives of this project are to assess supply and demand for the ICRISAT mandated crops, and to identify and analyse policy and market constraints limiting the adoption of improved technologies relating to these crops. In addition to representation from a number of disciplines within ICRISAT, there is collaboration with a number of NARS and NGOs in Asia and Africa, as well as with IFPRI, FAO, ODI, NRI, and Stanford and Rutgers Universities. Funding also comes from a number of sources including ICRISAT, Ford Foundation, ODA, World Bank, USAID, BMZ/GTZ, and IDRC. The project is divided into three subprojects as shown in the footnote to Table 5.1. In 1995 the total scientist years (SYs) budgeted for the project was 1.85 (81% by economists).
The Commodity Situation and Outlook subproject consists of two activities. The two major products from this work are ecoregional papers for the IFPRI 2020 Vision initiatives, and a major publication to be produced in conjunction with FAO on The World Sorghum and Millet Economies: Facts, Trends and Outlook. The IFPRI document is in a third draft and the FAO publication has just gone to press.
In terms of the Product Markets and Policy subproject, activities have been concentrated in three areas, all at IAC. One study has involved the changes in cropping patterns through construction of a rainfed agriculture typology, analysis of changes in dryland agriculture in SAT India from 1970-90, identification of major competing crops, experimentation with different models and variables for estimating acreage and output response functions, and state-wise estimates of expenditure and price elasticities of demand for rice, wheat, sorghum, millet, chickpea, and other pulses. Another study has involved the use of results from household surveys, also in India, to identify the major factors responsible for changes in sorghum's competitiveness over time. The third initiative involves a new two-year collaborative study between NRI and ICRISAT relating to sorghum in India focused on examining technical, policy, economic and social factors affecting its utilisation.
Four activities make up the third subproject relating to Input Markets and Policy. The first one, seed policy and the evolving seed market, has been receiving some well-deserved attention. In SEA, a SMIP working paper will be available shortly on a regional study of the constraints on seed release, seed production and distribution for sorghum and millet. In addition as a result of a comparative review of the structure and performance of the seed sectors in a number of countries, some recommendations have been made to improve the efficiency of the seed sectors in the SADC countries. At IAC a collaborative study with Rutgers is assessing the impact of recent seed policy reforms in India with the help of a survey of nearly 160 seed companies. The second activity focuses on informal seed multiplication and distribution flows. Three initiatives are underway/planned at SEA. The development of formal, commercial, and informal seed supply channels have been compared in Zimbabwe, and an assessment of opportunities for improving the efficiency of seed supply through three major channels (i.e., drought relief programmes, commercial sale, and farmer-to-farmer barter) has been undertaken. Finally, a regional conference on local seed supply systems, in collaboration with ICARDA and IITA, is planned for Zimbabwe in March 1997. At ISC investigations of seed supply options through both formal and informal channels in WCA are being initiated where, according to the PTL and RDD, better targeting of the research, has solved constraints initially perceived with respect to support staff and funding. With reference to the third activity, the fertilizer and agrochemical area, current initiatives are confined to the SEA area. A workshop held in conjunction with KARI in March 1996 has resulted in a revised KARI/ICRISAT/APSRU project proposal on fertility management modelling, which is just in the process of being implemented. The final activity involves groundwater use and irrigation management in the Indian SAT. In spite of limitations relating to the availability of information, a consultant has produced a draft report covering various topics including the nature and extent of irrigation and aquifers, analysis of irrigation's impact on cropping patterns, the degree to which groundwater is exploited, and water markets and strategies for managing groundwater irrigation. Future work is planned on institutional alternatives for managing groundwater and scope for enhancing groundwater utilisation through watershed management.
According to the draft MTP (1998-2000), currently under preparation, efforts will continue in determining trends in the production and use of the ICRISAT mandate crops with particular emphasis on the legumes. Factors influencing those trends in national, regional, and world economies will also be reviewed. Examination will also take place of the effect of specific market policies on the price and trade of the ICRISAT crops. Because lack of external inputs often inhibits impact at the farm level, attention will also be focused on issues inhibiting the performance of the input markets (e.g., especially improved seed). Factors constraining the demand for, and use of, fertilizers, insecticides, and other agrochemicals by limited resource farmers in the drier, and hence drought prone, areas of the African SAT will also be examined.
The Panel agrees with bringing together all the work in the policy area with the rationale of enabling a more systematic and consistent approach to critical policy issues relating to ICRISAT mandate crops.
Specific comments about the three subprojects are as follows:
· Commodity Situation and Outlook. There is currently no published reference on the current outlook for ICRISAT mandate crops in different regions. Given issues raised in two of the CCERs (e.g., WCA and SEA) about demand for sorghum and millet in particular, this subproject is potentially important in justifying, identifying and assessing technological, policy and institutional interventions required to ensure continued supply and demand for these crops particularly in the drier parts of the SAT. Undoubtedly such information is important and potentially very useful. However, apparently the time spent on this activity to date has been greater than originally envisioned. Also, given the current financial crisis of ICRISAT and the cuts that will be necessary it is difficult for the Panel to justify a continued commitment in this area, bearing in mind the opportunity cost of the limited research resources. The Panel believes IFPRI has the potential comparative advantage in assembling such information and therefore suggests that ICRISAT continues to try to arrange collaboration with IFPRI, initially perhaps on a cost sharing basis. Ideally it would be desirable for IFPRI to be responsible for such analysis of all the CGIAR mandated commodities. The Panel believes the potential exists for improved efficiency in assembling and analysis of, and development of more comparable data sets across commodities, if these types of initiatives were ultimately the full responsibility of IFPRI.· Product Markets and Policy. The objectives behind these studies are sound. Unfortunately, these studies have primarily been concentrated on India, although there are plans to extend the work to Africa and to other ICRISAT mandated crops in the future. Issues relating to market liberalisation and the potential for expansion of demand (e.g., through international markets, use of sorghum in breweries, new processing methods, etc.) are likely to have a profound impact on the attractiveness and competitive nature of ICRISAT mandated crops. One issue the Panel wishes to raise is, given the strength of the NARS, whether ICRISAT has a comparative advantage in doing such studies in the India.3 If staff resources continue to be available for such studies, the Panel believes they would be better used in Africa where the NARS are much weaker. Since there is undoubtedly expertise within the ICAR system for undertaking such work, the Panel suggests that in India seeking funding for contract research and visiting scientists would be, given the existing financial situation, the most rewarding way forward. In any case the Panel agrees with the prioritisation given in the draft MTP (1998-2000) that within the subproject the competitive position and the consumer demand for the ICRISAT crops should receive priority.
· Input Markets and Policy. The Panel believes these types of studies relating to seed production and distribution are very important and deserve high priority especially since their availability constitutes a major constraint in many countries and improved cultivars represent one of the major products of ICRISAT/NARS cooperation. Obviously, whenever possible, such studies should be implemented in close collaboration with NARS.
3 The Panel appreciates that there is currently some collaboration with domestic Indian institutions in these studies.
Overall the Panel is impressed with the quality of the work in the Markets and Policy Project and with the productivity and quality in terms of publications. Undoubtedly the results of the work, if made generally available, will have many potential users. The major issue is of course whether, in an era of increasing funding constraints, equal priority should be given to all three subprojects. If forced to make hard choices, the Panel would suggest the first priority should be given the input markets and policy component with specific emphasis on the seed component.
5.3.1 Objectives, Activities, and Achievements
5.3.2 Future Plans
5.3.3 Assessment
In recent years there has been a decline in the CGIAR system for support to agricultural research. ICRISAT has been hit particularly hard with respect to this, a situation that is unlikely to change in the near future. Although a possible factor in this cut in funding to ICRISAT has been due to its relative size in the CGIAR system, the fact that there has been little documented impact of its work in improving the welfare of producers and consumers as a result of its efforts in providing 'products' to NARS, the private sector, and farmers, has also undoubtedly been a factor contributing to the recent lack of support. Therefore the 1994 initiative on the part of ICRISAT to launch an adoption and impact assessment project in partnership with NARS was a logical strategy and, indeed was a response to a recommendation on the last EPMR. The results of such studies were also viewed as potentially being able to help in rationalising research priority setting, and where necessary, redirecting specific research programmes. The Research Evaluation and Impact Assessment (REIA) project has thus been developed with the aim of integrating ex post impact assessment with ex ante research priority setting, primarily for ICRISAT but also potentially for collaborating NARS. In order to ensure consistency and objectivity in methodology and empirical estimation, REIA has deliberately been established as an independent project with the aim eventually of establishing REIA modules in all the global ICRISAT projects (i.e., soon to be 12). To date, linkages have been established with five global projects - SG2 (sorghum), GN3 (groundnut), PP1 (pigeon pea), ISP1 (integrated systems), and CP1 (chickpea).
The current ICRISAT project team comprises of 35 scientists (3.765 scientist years (SY) consisting of both international and national research scientists) with 23 (2.52 SY) from IAC, 8 (0.875 SY) from WCA, and 4 (0.38 SY) from SEA. In addition REIA collaborates with 39 scientists from 24 different NARS in Africa and Asia. A number of disciplines are represented in the REIA team. For example, the percent disciplinary breakdown in SY terms in the ICRISAT team is 61% economics, 24% breeding and 15% others (e.g., agronomy and plant protection), while the disciplinary breakdown of those in national programmes for those whose discipline is recorded is 58% economics, 23% breeding and 19% agronomy.
Given the involvement of such a large number of ICRISAT staff and NARS collaborators, a total of 8 workshops and study/training programmes have been held to develop the methodological skills required for implementing adoption and impact studies and to provide the necessary transparency and interaction amongst the collaborators. Written training modules used in training programmes are also available in draft form.
Both primary and secondary data have been used in estimating adoption and impacts of ICRISAT/NARS 'research products', but given the paucity of reliable quantitative secondary data a great deal of reliance has had to be placed on field surveys, especially formal. Estimates of adoption (i.e., degree, level, and rate) are obviously an intermediate step in the process of estimating impact. Therefore techniques for estimating adoption have been developed concurrently with those for measuring impact. Relevant impact indicators have proved to be particularly challenging since they can be viewed at a number of levels (i.e., farm, national/regional and global) and can/should encompass a number of dimensions (e.g., efficiency, poverty alleviation, food security/human nutrition, equity/gender, sustainability, employment, spillover effects).
Given the relatively large size of the project team at IAC and the likely greater adoption of SAT related technologies in the sub-continent, it is understandable that most of the REIA studies to date have been concentrated in India. An impressive number of studies have been implemented during the short duration of the project. Not surprisingly, these have tended to concentrate on improved cultivars of ICRISAT mandated crops (i.e., final products), particularly sorghum and millet, but to some extent also on pigeonpea and chickpea, while resource management impact studies have been confined to groundnut production and Vertisol technological packages. Also one network, CLAN, is currently being evaluated for impact.
A very important activity being implemented in conjunction with the ex post adoption and impact studies is the development of three databases that can provide useful information for planning purposes. These are a varietal and plant material database, a compendium of technology options in Asia and Africa, and an MTP database.
Some of the results have been impressive (Table 5.2). In many cases the adoption rates estimated as a result of the field surveys were greater than the adoption rates assumed in the 1994-98 MTP plan, indicating scientists were often conservative in their estimates of the potential spread of improved cultivars.4 On the other hand, adoption studies of the Vertisol technology package, indicated rejection of the broad bed and furrow (BBF) component, but widespread or moderate adoption of other components of the package.5 Where there has been extensive adoption of improved cultivars, yield increments, unit cost reductions and/or IRRs have been impressive. Certainly for WCA some of these findings appear to negate assertions in the McIntire Report6 that there had been no impact and that there was unlikely to be any impact relating to millet and sorghum work in the region. In places where adoption has not occurred efforts, have been made to ascertain reasons. Certainly, in one case in Maharashtra State in India, survey results indicating a strong farmer demand for wilt resistant pigeonpea cultivar ICP 8863 stimulated the State Seed Corporation to multiply seed and the government to release the cultivar in the areas where the wilt problem was most severe.
4 In a similar vein it is interesting to note that, with the notable exception of chickpea, according to information presented to the Panel, the lag period (i.e., the time between initiation of research on a particular topic and initial adoption of the resulting product by farmers) as used in the 1994-98 MTP and found in the adoption studies showed a reasonable degree of congruence.5 This is disappointing given the emphasis paid to this system in the earlier days of ICRISAT. In fact, however, the BBF was originally targeted to the wetter Vertisol areas of the Central Indian Deccan plateau.
6 McIntire, J., B. Ouayogode, and P. Kio, 1995, Report of the Panel on CGIAR Commitments in West Africa, Rome: TAC, CGIAR, FAO.
Table 5.2 Illustrative Sample of Results from Joint ICRISAT/NARS Adoption/Impact Studiesa
|
Country |
Crop |
Variety |
Region |
Adoption (% Area) |
Impact |
|
|
Botswana |
Sorghum |
SDS 3220 (Phofu) |
National |
14 |
Survey results indicate broad acceptability of variety for early maturity, large head and large white grain and strong stem resistant to lodging. |
|
|
Cameroon |
Sorghum |
S3 5 |
Mayo Sava |
49 |
Yield gain (600 kg) maximum during drought years when landraces yields are almost nil. |
|
|
Diamare |
14 |
|
||||
|
Mayo Danay |
12 |
Widely adopted for early maturity. |
||||
|
Chad |
Sorghum |
S35 |
Guera |
38 |
51% yield gain; widely accepted for early maturity and food/fodder quality. |
|
|
Mayo-Kebbi |
27 |
|
||||
|
Chari-Baguermi |
24 |
Income generated through marketable surplus provides farmers means to invest in land conservation and improvement techniques. |
||||
|
India
|
Pearl Millet
|
Improved cultivars |
Maharashtra |
92 |
|
|
|
ICTP 8203 |
|
34 |
50% yield gain; seeds widely available via public seed sector; widely accepted for its downy mildew resistance. |
|||
|
MLBH 104 |
|
23 |
61% yield gain; Rs. 1416 per t unit cost reduction over local cultivars. |
|||
|
|
|
|
Rs 2670 per ha net returns. |
|||
|
|
Gujarat |
99 |
|
|||
|
MH 169 |
|
33 |
Widely adopted due to disease resistance, short duration and high grain and fodder yield. |
|||
|
MH 179 |
|
25 |
|
|||
|
Nandi 18 |
|
14 |
|
|||
|
|
Tamil Nadu |
77 |
Wide adoption due to high yield, drought resistance and seed availability. |
|||
|
ICMS 7703 |
|
6 |
|
|||
|
ICMV 221 |
|
5 |
|
|||
|
WC-C75 |
|
12 |
|
|||
|
Pioneer |
|
29 |
|
|||
|
Pigeonpea
|
ICP 8863 |
Karnataka |
59 |
IRR: 65%. |
||
|
AP Border |
52 |
US$ 62 m net present value of research benefits. |
||||
|
Maharashtra Border |
59 |
43% yield gains. |
||||
|
E. Maharashtra |
18 |
42% unit cost reduction. |
||||
|
ICPL 87 |
W. Maharashtra |
57 |
Two main reasons for widespread adoption is (a) short duration allows double cropping; and (b) crop rotation with pigeonpea helps maintain soil fertility. |
|||
|
Chickpea
|
ICCV2 |
Andhra Pradesh |
17 |
IRR: 17.5-21.2%. |
||
|
Maharashtra |
10 |
|
||||
|
Madhya Pradesh |
13 |
Gender: 11% higher employment. |
||||
|
|
|
Sustainability: occupied rabi fallow land; |
||||
|
|
|
(a) double cropping, (b) controls soil erosion, (c) improves soil fertility. |
||||
|
ICCC37 |
Andhra Pradesh |
9 |
Yield increase: 111%. |
|||
|
Maharashtra |
18 |
Gender: 8% Higher employment. |
||||
|
ICCV4 |
Gujarat (Jamnagar) |
25 |
Yield increase: 67%. |
|||
|
|
|
Cost saving: 32%. |
||||
|
Groundnut Production Technology
|
Raised-bed and furrow |
Maharashtra |
31 |
IRR: 25.3%. |
||
|
Improved varieties |
|
84 |
Gender: higher labour productivity; and easy weeding and harvesting. |
|||
|
Single super phosphate |
|
69 |
Sustainability: moisture conservation and improve drainage. |
|||
|
Zinc sulphate |
|
14 |
|
|||
|
FeSO4 |
|
6 |
|
|||
|
Gypsum |
|
42 |
|
|||
|
Seed dressing |
|
46 |
|
|||
|
Sprinkler |
|
4 |
|
|||
|
|
Vidharbha, Maharashtra |
|
|
|||
|
Vertisol Technology
|
Summer cultivation |
|
75 |
Dry seeding: |
||
|
|
|
|
Cotton: |
|||
|
Dry seeding |
|
40 |
|
Yield increase: 27% |
||
|
|
|
|
Income increase: 55.7% |
|||
|
|
|
|
Cost saving: 17% |
|||
|
Double cropping |
|
56 |
Sorghum: |
|||
|
Improved varieties |
|
43 |
|
Yield increase: 38.4% |
||
|
|
|
Income increase: 98.5% |
||||
|
|
|
Employment increase: 13.6% |
||||
|
|
|
Cost saving: 17.1% |
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Fertilizer application (% farmers) |
|
97 |
|
|||
|
Seed & fertilizer placement (% farmers) |
|
95 |
|
|||
|
Plant protection (% farmers) |
|
77 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Malawi |
Sorghum |
SPV 351 |
National |
10 |
Widely accepted for early maturity |
|
|
Mali
|
Pearl Millet |
Improved Cultivars |
Segou |
29 |
Stable yield improved food security. |
|
|
Koulikoro |
20 |
65% yield gain. |
||||
|
Mopti |
17 |
52% yield gain. |
||||
|
Sorghum |
Improved cultivars |
Segou |
29 |
|
||
|
Koulikoro |
30 |
|
||||
|
Mopti |
23 |
|
||||
|
Mozambique |
Sorghum |
ICSV 88060 |
National |
5 |
Drought relief programme distribution. |
|
|
Namibia |
Pearl Millet |
ICTP 88908 |
National |
31 |
Broadly accepted for early maturity, bold grain; basis for start of national seed industry. |
|
|
Zambia |
Sorghum |
IS 23520 MR4/4606T11 |
National |
35 |
IRR 11-15%, broadly accepted for early maturity and bold grain. |
|
|
Zimbabwe |
Sorghum |
ICSV 88060 |
National |
36 |
IRR 22%; widely accepted for early maturity, late senescence, processing ease. |
|
|
|
Pearl Millet |
SDMV 89004 |
National |
16 |
IRR 44%; widely accepted for early maturity and bold grain. |
|
a. A more detailed summary is in Bantilan, C., 1996, Research Evaluation and Impact Assessment: Status and its Feedback to Research Process at ICRISAT, paper presented at The CGIAR Workshop on Impact Assessment and Evaluation, April 15-17. The Hague, Netherlands. See also Bantilan, C. and J. Ryan, 1996, Using Impact Assessment in Research Priority Setting: Developments at ICRISAT, proceedings of the International Conference on Global Agricultural Science Policy for the Twenty-First Century, August 26-28, Melbourne. Australia, pp. 427-443; additional information provided by C. Bantilan and D. Rohrbach, SEPD.
Activities planned for the near future include: evaluation of adoption and impact of improved groundnut cultivars and intermediate products (e.g., use of ICRISAT parent material by NARS and the seed sector, use and value of ICRISAT screening techniques on efficiency of breeding programmes); assessment of genetic resources conservation, management and distribution; estimate of welfare gains from watershed technology; and spillover impacts of ICRISAT research projects.
The Panel is impressed with the momentum and progress achieved in the REIA project. It is also pleased to see that there have been major efforts to adopt an interdisciplinary approach, and that NARS collaborators are considered essential partners in the studies. The Panel thus commends ICRISAT for mounting this initiative and is convinced that it currently has one of the most active programmes of its kind in the CGIAR system. The Panel is also pleased to see the emphasis on estimating joint ICRISAT/NARS impact rather than focussing on partitioning impact. The Panel's suggestions for consideration by management are as follows:
· Evaluating the impact of intermediate products will become increasingly important as far as ICRISAT activities are concerned. Therefore current initiatives to develop and refine methodologies with respect to these products should continue to be supported.· Within NARS assessing adoption and impact of final research products will become increasingly important in not only hopefully helping to justify continued funding, but also to help in influencing adjustments in research and policy/support programmes. Increasing responsibility for doing such studies is likely to be shouldered by the NARS themselves, but it is suggested ICRISAT facilitate such studies by refining and finalising the training materials for such studies, and helping to continue ensuring peer review and networking functions.
· ICRISAT should work on developing and operationalizing methodologies for incorporating impact dimensions such as gender, sustainability, etc. At the moment their importance is recognized but impact measurements are largely confined to those with an economic flavour. It may well be that some of them will have to be assessed in ordinal (relative) rather than cardinal (absolute) terms. Farmers' assessments and opinions are likely to be important in evaluating results. Therefore it is suggested that the potential for PRA techniques (e.g., matrix ranking and scoring, nutrient resource flow mapping), perhaps implemented with a few groups of farmers, to address some of these issues, be examined. It may well be that such techniques could provide extra insights that could complement more formal measurements, if available. Such techniques (e.g., pairwise ranking) could also have utility in identifying, in a much less structured and possibly less misleading manner, the relative influence of different constraints inhibiting adoption. Such techniques may be more effective in highlighting the issues that need to be addressed by research or policy/support institutions.
· In WCA it is suggested that priority be given to adoption and impact studies in Nigeria, which contributes very significant proportions of the total production of millet, sorghum and groundnuts in the region. This could be particularly important in the case of fertilizer responsive cultivars, given the greater availability of it in Nigeria compared with surrounding countries.
· In the last EPMR (page 174) it was suggested ICRISAT should implement adoption and impact studies in a sample of its activities. This EPMR Panel is somewhat concerned that the current REIA project may be over extended. The Panel therefore suggests careful prioritisation of activities is done while at the same time ensuring that the rate of implementation of studies does not inhibit the timely and orderly evolution of the methodologies required to assess effectively all the dimensions that are important in a comprehensive assessment of impact.
Given the prominent position ICRISAT appears to have attained in the CGIAR system with respect to adoption and impact studies, it is suggested that the CGIAR Evaluation and Impact Assessment Group does a comprehensive review on what ICRISAT has done, particularly on the methodological front with a view to assessing progress, suggesting modifications, and perhaps advocating their use in other institutions within and outside the CGIAR System.
Therefore in conclusion, the Panel's overall impression of the impact assessment work is very positive and believes that addressing the points raised above will further help improve its effectiveness. Finally, while the Panel recognizes that adoption and impact studies are potentially be very important in helping influence research priorities and policy/support systems, it has reservations that demonstrating favourable impact of research products will alone be sufficient in convincing donor agencies about continued funding. Such demonstrated impact is potentially an important contributory factor in convincing funding agencies but the Panel feels that a deliberate additional explicit promotional effort will be necessary. These challenges will become even greater as ICRISAT moves to a research programme whose research products become increasingly intermediate in nature. The Panel believes that ICRISAT currently undersells its achievements and suggests that it makes greater efforts to present its achievements in a more accessible and popularized form7 and is more assertive in publicising them.
7 The Food from Thought series is a good example.
5.4.1 Objectives, Activities, and Achievements
5.4.2 Future Strategy
5.4.3 Assessment
ICRISAT, in its strategy document, was one of the first IARCs to recognize the important role women play in agricultural production and use of its products in the SAT's; to attempt to incorporate a gender perspective; and to develop a positive attitude towards women in the research programme. Strategies used in raising gender awareness and in incorporating a gender perspective in its programme have been: using female illiteracy in calculating the equity index which was one measure used in prioritizing research themes in the current MTP; setting up a multidisciplinary Gender Analysis Committee; hiring a gender economist (a national scientist); requiring a gender implications statement in planning proforma; organising Women Farmers' Days in India and three locations in Africa; and, requesting a consultancy from the CGIAR Gender Programme to assess projects for their gender implications and to discuss the future direction of the gender programme at ICRISAT. Finally in May 1996 a workshop organised by the SEPD was held to discuss methodologies for gender research and to develop a gender research strategy for ICRISAT. The proceedings of this meeting are in press.
The tone of the consultancy report, initially produced in March 1995 and revised in April 1996,8 is reasonably complimentary and gives a number of constructive recommendations and suggestions. After observing that some of the gender implications in the research proforma were unsatisfactory, it was recommended that rewording of most of them, with the help of SEPD scientists, could result in hypotheses that could be evaluated during commodity adoption studies. One of the problems of incorporating a gender perspective is the locational specificity relating to gender issues in similar (technical) production environments as defined by ICRISAT (i.e., compare Asia and Africa, and West and Southern Africa). Thus the recommendation is made that gender must be firmly incorporated in adoption and impact studies to help provide a series of case studies, which amongst other things, can be used in discussion with biological and physical scientists who still need sensitising on gender related issues. Also they will help indicate gender related differences within different parts of the same production environment as defined by ICRISAT, and will aid in focusing future diagnostic work on gender related issues. Such studies should be conducted jointly by technical and social scientists. One issue that still has to be completely resolved is how to decide on the appropriate balance between efficiency (i.e., using gender analysis to better know the farmers' situation and develop acceptable technologies) and equity (targeting women farmers). Another issue still to be resolved is the dilemma between the location specificity of gender-related work and the need for an institution such as ICRISAT for information and indicators which can provide the basis for extrapolation of the results to wider areas. Obviously, there is a need in gender-related work for ICRISAT to develop collaborative working relationships with NARS which have mandates covering more limited geographical areas.
8 Sims Feldstein, H., 1996, Report of a Portfolio Review, ICRISAT, Washington: CGIAR Gender Program, Gender Analysis, CGIAR.
There is no indication in the draft MTP (1998-2000) that there will be any major change in the Centre's approach to dealing with gender issues. It does state (page 3) that there will be focused targeting of gender issues across the research agenda.
On balance, the Panel believes some progress has been made by ICRISAT in deciding where gender analysis would be most useful in its programme and in trying to improve the capacity of scientists to use this information. However, this is not meant to imply that there have been no problems. The Gender Analysis Committee was largely moribund for three years and has only recently been resurrected. This potentially provides an important vehicle for ensuring that gender related issues continue to receive the needed attention at ICRISAT. Also, unfortunately the gender economist position has not been as effective as originally hoped (i.e., possibly because of unrealistic expectations, other responsibilities, miscommunication, etc.) and in fact the incumbent has recently left ICRISAT and the position frozen. She was involved in a case study involving assessing gender-related impacts of a package of groundnut production technology introduced in Maharashtra in the late 1980s. According to management the gender research programme will be determined in early 1997. Pending this, the responsibility for overseeing gender issues has been transferred to one of the international scientists in the SEPD on a part-time basis. While the Panel has no problem with this arrangement it suggests that this is monitored closely to make sure gender-related issues continue to receive the attention they deserve. With respect to this it is strongly suggested the consultant from the CGIAR Gender Programme continues to visit at least once a year to provide advice and monitor progress.
Finally it is very important that the ex post findings relating to gender-related issues from the adoption studies are used not only to help in designing future diagnostic work but also in ex ante technology design activities. Systematic incorporation of gender related issues into the adoption and impact studies still needs to be done and this must receive priority (see Section 5.3).
5.5.1 Objectives, Activities, and Achievements
5.5.2 Assessment
Because of the recent proliferation of on-farm research (OFR) activities, the sensitivity of some NARS to IARC involvement in it, and the rapidly expanding interest in participatory research, ICRISAT recently conducted an OFR Sector Review to diagnose areas where their efficiency and effectiveness could be enhanced. The review consisted of compiling an inventory of ICRISAT's OFR activities, followed by preparation of an issues paper dealing with the objectives, strategies and implementation procedures relating to such work. OFR programmes were then reviewed by two consultants and the resulting report provided the foundation for an internal ICRISAT workshop to discuss how ICRISAT should respond to the findings. As a result a tentative action plan has been drawn up although the consultants' report will not be considered until the next meeting of the RPCC.
OFR has been implemented under the auspices of ICRISAT since the 1970s. It is estimated that there have been more than 100 different OFR activities in process at ICRISAT during the last two years encompassing 26 countries in Africa and Asia. During the same period OFR activities (i.e., defined to include both trials and surveys) were recorded in 19 of ICRISAT's 21 active projects. About a quarter each of the different OFR activities were devoted to varietal trials and diagnostic surveys, with most of the remainder being devoted to socioeconomic studies and trials relating to pest management and soil/water management. The major disciplines involved in OFR activities in descending order of frequency were found to be plant protection, breeding, agronomy, and economics. Most OFR activities were repeated for 2 to 4 years. More than 60% of the trials were found to be farmer managed (i.e., considered to be where the researcher sets a subset of the treatments while the farmer sets the others and manages the trials). Farmer experimental trials (i.e., where the farmer chooses all experimental treatments) were uncommon (i.e., less than 2%). More than 83% of the trials were considered to consist of average or better than average farmers, with most emphasis on small-scale (i.e., resource poor/low income) farmers. About 45% of the farm surveys involved formal surveys although informal reconnaissance surveys or participatory rural appraisals often appeared to precede such surveys. Besides farmers, other collaborators in OFR activities have involved mainly NARS, extension services, and NGOs.
The consultants' report, whose findings were largely accepted at the workshop referred to above, made a number of constructive suggestions which appear reasonable to the Panel. While recognising the recent OFR activities have been distorted by the emphasis on having to prove impact (hence partly accounting for the dominance of variety verification trials), the consultants concluded that ICRISAT should become more strategic in focus with greater attention to methodological development and training. They recognized, however, that certain current deficiencies first need to be rectified in the OFR skills of ICRISAT staff (e.g., using a wider range of alternative experimental designs, and data analysis including both quantitative9 and qualitative data, increasing farmer participation in trials, more detailed site characterisation data to improve the potential scaling up of results, and improved data recording strategies). The report advocated ICRISAT should have a more balanced and integrated application of six types of OFR including diagnosis, technology development on-farm, technology evaluation, technology verification, and adoption impact studies. They also expressed the need for greater collaboration in OFR activities between projects, urged improvements in the interdisciplinarity of OFR activities, and argued for greater integration of social science and biological science activities, as well as greater integration of variety and management technology testing. They also indicated continued efforts need to be made in strengthening links with NARS in on-farm work, and that more care should be taken to include a range of farmers representative of all those in the recommendation domain to permit better generalisation of the results. Finally, with reference to the ISPs, they advised against developing component technologies for integration into technology packages without prior involvement of farmers.
9 A technique that is proving valuable in analyzing on-farm trials is modified stability (adaptability) analysis.
The Panel commends ICRISAT for its initiative in implementing an OFR Sector Review. The Panel also agrees with the OFR Sector Review Organising Committee, that in addressing the above issues, a formal plan should be drawn up to be presented at the first RPCC meeting in 1997 that will include: strengthening biometrics training relating to OFR design and analysis; improving coordination of OFR activities; and, clarifying the objectives and orientation of ICRISAT's longer term commitments to OFR. Given the obvious attention currently being paid to OFR by ICRISAT and other IARCs, and by many SAT NARS, the Panel agrees that drawing up and implementing such a plan should receive urgent attention. The Panel certainly believes OFR has a significant role to play in the future activities of ICRISAT when operating in partnership with NARS, providing the issues that are raised by the consultants are addressed. In this respect the Panel disagrees with the opinion of the CCER of the ICRISAT WCA Region (page 38) which implies OFR-type activities should be the sole responsibility of the NARS. Obviously the NARS should take primary responsibility for OFR at the applied/adaptive end of the research continuum, but the Panel believes that OFR is often essential in strategic type research, and certainly ICRISAT has a role in developing and disseminating methodologies relating to OFR (e.g., farmer participatory breeding techniques). Given the strategy proposed by the Panel for the future of ICRISAT (Section 9.1), OFR activities in which ICRISAT is directly involved (i.e., in conjunction with NARS) would be primarily in the natural resource management benchmark sites in Africa where a range of activities spanning the strategic/applied/adaptive research continuum are anticipated (Section 4.4.3). Such sites could also potentially provide suitable locations for farmer level testing of improved cultivars given the need to link productivity-enhancing and resource-conserving research.
The Panel suggests that, once ICRISAT has agreed on the methodological details of the ICRISAT approach to OFR, a committee of experts on OFR (i.e., 4 or 5) from within ICRISAT screen and comment on specific proposals in the ICRISAT projects that involve OFR activities. If partnerships are strengthened with the NARS, as is envisioned in the Panel's strategy for the future of ICRISAT (see Section 9.1.3), then it is very likely that networks or other types of collaboration with NARS will result in ICRISAT being called on to give advice on or evaluate OFR activities. The OFR committee would be able to provide such expertise. If no such committee is formed there is a very real danger that the OFR programme will remain fragmented and the return on OFR activities will be sub-optimal.
The Panel is glad to see the increase in socioeconomics related work during the review period, and suggests that its current identity, momentum and relevance is maintained under the 'new' ICRISAT proposed by the Panel (see Section 9.1.3).
The Panel believes that the four general areas of research in which the activities of the SEPD are focused (Table 5.1) have been the appropriate ones for the ICRISAT economists during the review period. Indeed it is difficult not to argue that they should all have a place in the strategy proposed by the Panel for the future of ICRISAT. This is because they either include potentially important areas of interaction with the proposed major thrusts of the 'new' ICRISAT or potentially help in ensuring that the 'products' of ICRISAT and joint ICRISAT/NARS activities are used by, and impact favourably on, the SAT. However, given the proposed size of the 'new' ICRISAT, it is obviously unrealistic that all the activities of the economists can remain at their present level. Hard choices have to be made. Some of those choices would be much easier to make if the NARS, particularly in Africa, were stronger.
Before looking at this in more detail, the Panel wishes to make one general point about the current review period, which may hold implications for the future. The above discussion has shown that members of the SEPD are involved in most of the research activities of ICRISAT. The decision made in mid-1994 by the RDD and PTLs to allocate 65% of the economists' total time to commodity and ISP projects was made for laudable motives (i.e., to promote interdisciplinary work and assure economics support for the total research programme of ICRISAT). However, the Panel suggests a review of this broad dispersion of activities is desirable since it is likely that the lack of a critical mass in some areas may detract from economists having a meaningful role. This is particularly a problem for economists in isolated locations. For example, the RDD SEPD stationed in Zimbabwe is involved with 5 different projects. Such a review is even more justifiable when projects are multidisciplinary (i.e., each discipline working somewhat independently) rather than interdisciplinary (i.e., disciplines working closely together) in nature. The Panel senses that the former situation prevails in some of the projects thus inhibiting synergism between disciplines. The Panel suggests in interacting with other disciplines priority should be given to interdisciplinary types of activities.
The SEPD will have to face particularly difficult challenges in providing all the services required in the 'new' ICRISAT, especially for those which will require increased reliance on partnership activities with NARS. This is even more complex given that the proposed number of IRS scientists in the 'new' ICRISAT will be reduced. Criteria for deciding on the size and composition of the IRS economics team need to include the potential contribution of economics to the main activities of the 'new' ICRISAT (mainly strategic research); the strength/comparative advantage of other institutions in taking responsibility for certain activities (i.e., including the possibility of out-sourcing activities); the significance of socioeconomic issues in facilitating the successful payoff from ICRISAT activities in the SAT; and the potential for attracting funds to engage in specific activities.
The Panel has not had the time needed to consider the above points in detail and therefore has decided to suggest, rather than definitively recommend, the future composition of the SEPD team. However, the Panel believes it is unrealistic to expect the SEPD to be as big in the 'new' ICRISAT for undertaking the tasks listed below. In order to provide the necessary services in the light of possible regrettable downsizing, the economists would be expected to seek ways of increasing their multiplier effect. One of the major ways of achieving this would be to be proactive, with the help of management, in seeking funds to develop networks, partnerships, contracting out research, and using the services of research fellows and visiting scientists. The Panel recognizes there are risks in such a strategy (e.g., some loss of control) but, given the realities of the current situation and the potential benefits resulting from developing true partnerships with NARS (i.e., through both using and developing their skills/capacities) and other collaborators, it is the best, and in fact, the only practical way forward. Therefore the IRS economists are perceived by the Panel as potentially providing catalytic and peer roles in ensuring socioeconomic expertise resident in the SAT NARS is improved and is increasingly focussed on resolving issues that inhibit adoption of technologies (particularly those associated with ICRISAT's mandate), and hence prevent, improvement of the welfare of SAT people on a sustainable basis.
Taking the above issues into consideration the Panel therefore suggests that in the 'new' ICRISAT the economics group should have expertise in the following areas:
· Resource economics should be represented to interact especially with integrated natural resources management activities, on the strategic/applied/adaptive research continuum in Africa. This expertise would be resident in Africa. Economic skills in terms of the associated proposed modelling activities would primarily be centred in Hyderabad and possibly accessed via visiting scientists.· Given the continued role foreseen for ICRISAT crop improvement work in Africa, the critical nature of the link between improving productivity and sustainability simultaneously, and the plan to combine enhanced germplasm (and related crop productivity) and integrated natural resource management work at a few benchmark sites, there is need for production economics expertise combined with skills and expertise in designing, implementing and analysing on-farm trials.10 This expertise would be stationed in Africa.
· Given the importance of the input, and potentially the product, markets in determining the 'successful' use of ICRISAT/NARS products, expertise should also be allocated to marketing/policy economics. Major emphasis, at least initially, should be placed on issues relating to seed multiplication and distribution. Important complementary skills would be required in the agricultural policy area. The expertise would probably be stationed in Africa. The optimal arrangement would be for the provision of such expertise to be the joint responsibility of ICRISAT and IFPRI.
· Given the importance of impact assessment not only in helping to (hopefully!) secure funding but also in helping to prioritise and target research, and influencing policy/support changes, there is obviously continuing need for continuing expertise in this area. This expertise should be stationed in Hyderabad.
10 Given the importance of farmer participatory approaches and on-farm trials at the farmer/NARS/ICRISAT interface, it is questionable whether production economics expertise would, by itself, suffice. Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter the Panel suggests that technical expertise (preferably agronomy) with special skills in this area is also accessed to complement production economics and help ensure a realistic/practical interface between productivity and sustainability.
One possible implication of the above suggestion is that there is the potential danger of a lack of a critical mass in any one area. However, judicious use of visiting scientists and research fellows could help in avoiding this problem. Another important implication is that because of the likely geographical dispersion of the economists, the individual(s) in each area of expertise would be expected to provide some help in other areas, when deemed necessary.
One final point relates to the massive amounts of research data accumulated by ICRISAT over the years. Such data should be viewed as being in the public domain and available for general use (i.e., of course with proper acknowledgement), after a suitable period being given to the scientist responsible for its generation, to analyse it. This applies not only to data collected by economists but also by other disciplines. Unfortunately it appears currently much such data is simply not available or is incomplete, and when available is not well catalogued therefore making it difficult for others to use. Given the sunk costs going into its collection and the need to maximize the payoff from it activities, the Panel suggests that efforts are made by ICRISAT, when relevant, to document the data collected by its scientists and to make it accessible to others, after a suitable grace period.
