This is Huu-Nhuan Nguyen again. In my previous discussion (Message 5), I already mentioned that current impact assessment practices tend to focus more on economic impact and ignore non-economic impacts (e.g., human, social, physical and natural impacts) which are also vital for measuring the contribution of agricultural research for development (AR4D) to local livelihood. Mario R. Pareja (Message 48 & 58), also discussed that "the change must be reflected in the quality of people's livelihoods" (Message 58). Because AR4D is considered an innovation process in which knowledge is generated and adapted to local contexts, there is a consensus that impact assessment of AR4D should not only look at short-term economic gains but also human, social and environmental impact. There have been various discussions on using the sustainable livelihoods framework, developed by the British Department for International Development (DFID, 1999) as a lens for assessing impacts of AR4D. In sustainable livelihood perspectives, the non-economic impact of agricultural research includes: i) human capital (e.g., knowledge and skill, health); ii) social capital (e.g., trust, membership, informal safety net, communication); iii) natural capital (e.g., soil, forest, biodiversity) and iv) physical capital (e.g., capitals road, transportation, sanitation, healthcare system). These capital groups are interconnected. Any change of more than two capital groups could lead to a large variation of the rest. According to Meinzen-Dick et al. (2003), the sustainable livelihood framework is a good tool for analysing the causal relationship between poverty and people's access to livelihood resources and their diverse livelihood strategies. By using a sustainable livelihoods framework, both direct changes (e.g. improved income, health, food etc.) and indirect changes (assets, activities, ability to cope with and to recover from vulnerability context) are assessed. Being guided by sustainable livelihood framework, livelihood impact (including non-economic impact) could be assessed at the individual to household and household group, community, regional, national and international level. However, by reviewing existing literature in this field, I also learned that there are some limitations and challenges in adopting the sustainable livelihood framework for impact assessment. First, the notion of power and politics and empowerment is often missing in the sustainable livelihood framework. Second, farmers with the same livelihood assets may pursue different livelihood strategies because they are affected by different perceptions, geographic settings or access to market. Third, defining and quantifying indicators for assessing impacts on livelihood is challenging and research results are likely incomparable due to heavy reliance on participatory techniques and qualitative data. Moreover, initial assets endowment (e.g., agricultural inputs, livestock) for technology adoption could also help to accumulate livelihood assets, measuring rural livelihood impacts of AR4D should pay attention to separate these investment. In addition, the sustainable livelihoods framework does not present historical factors like problems of previous development interventions that could influence a reception of target groups to new interventions. Finally, within the sustainable livelihood framework, a focus is made on households and local complexity leading to less attention to larger scale and external policy or institutions. To conclude: In the beginning of my first message (nr. 5), I referred to some findings from a review of existing impact assessment practices in the Northwest Highlands of Vietnam. For those interested in more about this, please see: Nguyen, H-N, Nicetic, O., Hinthorne, L. and E. Van de Fliert. 2013. Assessing the contribution of participatory approaches to sustainable impacts of agricultural research for development in the Northwest Highlands of Vietnam. Development Bulletin 75, pp. 89-91. https://crawford.anu.edu.au/rmap/devnet/dev-bulletin.php Nguyen Huu Nhuan PhD Candidate University of Queensland, Australia Mobile:+61 450 268 689 Email: huunhuan.nguyen (at) uqconnect.edu.au ; nguyennhuan1977 (at) gmail.com References: - DFID. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheet. London: Department for International Development (DFID), UK. http://www.ennonline.net/resources/667 - Meinzen-Dick, R., Adato, M., Haddad, L., & Hazell, P. (2003). Impacts of agricultural research on poverty: Findings of an integrated economic and social analysis. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.ifpri.org/publication/impacts-agricultural-research-poverty-0 [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