[Thanks to S.K.T. Nasar from India for sending in the first message of this FAO e-mail conference on the "Approaches and methodologies in ex post impact assessment of agricultural research: Experiences, lessons learned and perspectives". All messages will be numbered chronologically. If during the conference you notice that you are missing any messages, just contact me at [log in to unmask] ...Moderator].
This is S.K.T. Nasar from Kolkata, India. Post-retirement as Director of Research of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, an Agricultural University, I am a freelance farmers’ participatory researcher and writer on current and future issues concerning agriculture. Here, I wish to consider selected issues fundamental to ex post impact assessment (epIA) of agricultural research.
First, agricultural research is largely funded by public exchequer, private investment or a combination of both. Private investors pour in funds mostly aiming at profits and to quickly reach the breakeven point in terms of money spent and money gained. The outcome indeed includes public good but more as a by-product. Public funding, alternatively, is purported for socio-economic and political gain. Either scenario insists on directed research rather than free research independent of bindings or ex ante commitments to the funding agencies. EpIA is easier with money as a major parameter providing quantitative data while assessment of quantified socio-politico-economic gain is complicated. Most epIAs adopt the easier option.
Second, research strategies and interventions in agriculture revolve around variety, seed, agro-chemicals and factor productivity of soil, water and agronomic techniques. Transfer and adoption of technology alongside marketability and marketing of farm produce are considered equally important research areas. Agriculture research is moving in irreversible ways to global demand-driven market economy and epIA needs to cater to ex ante goals set by investors.
Third, investors rather than local community determines the research intervention. Sustainability of natural resources and health of the local community is losing importance. Weather inconsistency and location-specific seasonality are less relevant in agriculture as a function of the global economy. These factors are not in the reckoning of most epIAs. Ex-ante impact projections are majorly for short terms. Long-term epIA with additional assumptions and parameters leaves a large number of factors unconsidered.
Fourth, the Background Document to the conference mentions non-economic impacts which by implication put lesser emphasis on poverty alleviation and food-nutrition security, environmental impacts, biodiversity, genetic contamination, soil-water productivity, pollution and health hazards. Restoration costs of damages created or initiated by interventions are as much ‘economic’ as the factors included under ‘economic impacts’.
Fifth, agriculture is a multi-variate multi-level system impacted by external factors. Parameters for which research intervention was initially launched may lose relevance by the time post-research epIA is initiated. EpIAs need to be based on the most probable future scenario. The opportunity cost, restoration costs and fluctuations in the intervened parameters must be included in epIAs.
S.K.T. Nasar
Former Director of Research,
Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya
Kalyani
West Bengal,
India
E-mail: skt.nasar (at) gmail.com
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [log in to unmask] For further information, http://www.fao.org/nr/research-extension-systems/res-home/news/detail/en/c/217706/
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the Impact-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Impact-L&A=1
|