I am Huu-Nhuan Nguyen, PhD candidate at University of Queensland, Australia. I am interested in participatory communication approaches for social change and developing innovative impact assessment frameworks for agricultural research for development (AR4D) projects.
I am currently working on developing a holistic framework for assessing impact of AR4D projects underpinned by participatory communication strategies in culturally diverse environments in the Northwest Highlands of Vietnam. By reviewing existing impact assessment practices in the regions I also found out that the assessment of impact of AR4D projects remains problematic in terms of both objectives and methods.
Firstly, most agricultural research initiatives only involve short-term impact assessment while research for development often takes a long time to achieve impacts. Secondly, current impact assessment practices tend to focus more on economic impact and ignore human, social, physical and natural impacts, which are also vital capitals of a sustainable livelihood. Thirdly, although various participatory tools have been employed in impact assessment processes, in many cases because of ethnic diversity local people have not been empowered due to the remaining gaps in understanding social culture, languages and people's perceptions. Fourthly, the results and findings of current impact assessment approaches have been sometimes misleading, attributing larger impact to a single project and ignoring overlapped impacts from the synergistic effects as a result of simultaneous initiatives in the same area. Finally, the impact indicators and feedback mechanisms currently used for impact assessment often aim to establish the returns on investment or cost-effectiveness for donor organizations rather than the sustainability of these impacts for key stakeholders. These weaknesses have led to unconvincing evidence showing how and why specific AR4D have contributed or rather failed to deliver sustainable impacts.
So what should be a holistic impact assessment framework for AR4D?
I agree with Amadou Issaka and Ekanath Khatiwada in Messages 2 and 3 that agriculture is characterized by the complexity and we often have weak evidence about impacts. The framework I developed for impact assessment of AR4D projects is blended from the sustainable livelihood frameworks developed by Scoones (1998) and DFID (1999) and the participatory impact assessment (PIA) approach. The key questions, that are raised for developing an impact assessment framework are: WHY impact assessment of AR4D is being done? WHO benefits from impact assessment results? WHAT information and impact indicators should be achieved? HOW to get information of impacts and HOW impact results are sharing among stakeholders?
The sustainable livelihoods frameworks provide a comprehensive conceptual analysis on ways in which AR4D could have positive or negative impacts on livelihood through changes in choices of livelihood strategies. Adato and Meinzen-Dick (2002) indicated that agricultural technology development is suitable with the complexity of livelihoods strategies if full livelihoods picture is understood. They explained three ways in which agricultural research can fit in a sustainable livelihood framework: 1) by increasing or decreasing vulnerability contexts; 2) by direct or indirect change of livelihood assets and 3) by interactions with policies, institutions and processes.
PIA aims at measuring real impacts created by a development project or program rather than accounting for aspects of its implementation such as input and service delivery, structure construction and trainings. Participatory impact assessment will empower local beneficiaries. By empowering them, we make a shift from short-term, donor oriented and economic focus to local sustainable livelihood development and social change. It should be aware that no standard sets of participatory communication techniques could be developed to fit with different communities and locations.
However, social, human, economic and environmental impact may not be achieved if AR4D projects are not designed in ways that could deliver measurable impacts. Theory of change with causal links between outcomes and impact should be therefore well integrated for impact assessment.
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:
- Adato, M., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2002). Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihood framework. FCND Discussion Paper 128, EPTD Discussion Paper 89. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/eptdp89.pdf (130 KB)
- DFID. (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheet. London: Department for International Development (DFID), UK.
- Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable livelihood: A framework for analysis (Vol. IDS Working Paper 72). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. http://mobile.opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/3390
[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