IMPACT-L Archives

Moderated conference on impact assessment of agricultural research: May 2014

Impact-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 21 May 2014 10:03:31 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
This is Mario R Pareja, again.



I congratulate John Ruane for having done an excellent summary on the conference background paper: “Approaches and methodologies in ex post impact assessment of agricultural research: Experiences, lessons learned and perspectives”. I am only sorry that I joined the conference a bit late so I have just completed its reading. I would like to point  to one of the phrases in such a paper included in the following paragraph because I think it is relevant and I often see terms being confused. The paragraph is: 



"A key component of RBM [results-based management] practices, among others, is the sequential ‘results chain’ or impact pathway, in which INPUTS lead to ACTIVITIES which produce OUTPUTS leading to OUTCOMES which then lead to IMPACTS. Inputs include funds, technical assistance and human and other resources; activities include actions taken or work done; outputs include new products, services and capacities; and outcomes represent the likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of the outputs (UNDG, 2011). Impact, instead, refers to the long-term effects. Following the commonly-used OECD-DAC (2010) definition, impact refers to the “Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended”. These effects can be economic, socio-cultural, institutional, environmental, technological or of other types".



I am in agreement with the general definition of "impact" - multidimensional and long-term change - but, in my modest opinion, it needs two caveats. First, the change has to be, not only long-term, but also sustainable. This means that the farmer could afford to maintain the change without sacrificing his/her own financial, natural resources or social status. This may be implied in the definition but I think it should be explicit. The second caveat is that the change must be reflected in the quality of people's livelihoods. Economic impacts should mean more income for the farmer (economic security), higher GDP for the rural sector, a higher rate for Total Productivity Factors, etc. Social impacts should mean better quality of life (social security): technology that bring learning, training and development of new skills, such as management, access to services (health, school, sports, etc.) and environmental impacts should mean lower soil erosion rates, better water quality, lower rates of use of toxic pesticides, etc. These latter indicators are, for me, the real ones to measure IMPACT!

   

Mario R. Pareja

Ingeniero Agrónomo, M.S., Ph.D.

independent consultant 

Paraje El Colorado, Canelones,

Uruguay 

Telephone: 598-2-3654394 or 598-98372634

e-mail: parejamr (at) gmail.com



 [To contribute to this conference, send your message to [log in to unmask] For further information, see 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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2