Dissemination of new agricultural technologies in Africa: making

extension work

An RCT based on ICRAF-Makerere University-PSE collaboration

Jane Kugonza, Rick Kamugisha (ICRAF)Monica Karuhanga and Margaret Mangheni (Makerere University)

Luc Behaghel, Jeremie Gignoux, Karen Macours (PSE)

With special thanks to continuous support from Steve Franzel

How did we get to this project? It all started here! ATAI (CEGA-JPAL) training

on impact evaluation in Jan 2012 in Nairobi Identification of common ground and

interests Lot’s of phone and skype calls Proposal development 3ie funding First team meeting in Jan 2013 in Kampala

What is it about?Technology dissemination Role for extension to increase adoption of

agricultural technologies in SSA: address lack of information and training pass-on technologies developed by research

institutes Many challenges and constraints

~ extension “pessimism” But also many innovative models out there

– with little hard evidence on their impacts

Research Project Goal Evaluate the impacts of a Farmer Trainer

(FT) program providing extension services to dairy farmers in Uganda impacts of original program on technology

adoption, productivity and welfare And variations addressing some of the

main(?) constraints: improving incentives access to information/upstream linkages farm(er) heterogeneity and possible returns to

customization

ICRAF’s FT program A component of the East African Dairy Development project FTs are

volunteers selected by dairy farmers business associations based on communication skills and social capital trained in different practices for production and use of improved animal

feeds disseminate this information through demonstration plots, access to

seeds/planting material and teaching To approximately 30 farmers per FT

2nd phase of the program starting in 2013 (?) ~1000 FTs in 35 DFBAs trained in phase 1 (2008-12) ~2000 more in +/- 60 DFBAs in phase 2 (2013-18)

Technologies promoted A set of feeding practices

growing of specific fodder grasses (e.g. elephant grass, caliandra), shrubs, sweet potato vines, and formulation of seeds

hay and silage making Some evidence of potentially large returns to

their use from on-farm trials, small sample household surveys,

focus groups, case studies But also scope for increased adoption among

some groups women in particular

What do we want to show?Overall impact of the FT program Impacts on dairy production yields, dairy

income, and other welfare indicators Analysis:

effects on technology adoption, including selection of adopters

returns in the short and medium runs cost-effectiveness analysis

Assessing impact Examples

How much do extension services increase yields? What are agricultural revenues with program providing

information on good technologies compared to without program?

Compare same individual with & without programs at the same point in time

BUT: Never observe same individual with and without program at same point in time

Solving the evaluation problem Counterfactual: what would have

happened without the program

Need to estimate counterfactual i.e. find a control or comparison group

Counterfactual Criteria Treated & counterfactual groups have identical initial

characteristics on average, Only reason for the difference in outcomes is due to the

intervention

Initial Population

Quintile I (Poor)

Quintile II Quintile III Quintile IV QuintileV (Rich)

Selection bias

Selection

Impact ≠ Y Trait – Y Control

Treatment group

Control group

Initial Population

Selection

Treatment group

(program beneficiaries)

Impact = Y Treat – Y Control

Quintile I (poor)

Quintile II Quintile III Quintile IV QuintileV (rich)

Randomized selection

Control group

(don’t benefit from the program)

But we also want to know (and test)… How to potentially increase the

effectiveness of the FT program by testing variations of the original design=> Design variations that can be implemented within the overall FT program to shed light on underlying mechanisms=> Randomly allocate them across FTs in order to test their relative effectiveness

Variation 1: incentives Some FTs, in addition to a basic set of non-

monetary rewards, are encouraged to work towards specific targets and receive incentives for doing so Specific incentives to be defined: trainings (e.g. study

tours), material (planting material, seeds), social capital, recognition?

Tournament between FT from same DFBA Analysis effects of incentives on

FTs' 'career' (some can drop out), selection of farmers targeted by FTs, and intensity and

effectiveness of dissemination activities?

Variation 2: linkages to professional extension agents Link FTs with extension professionals who

provide tutoring and expert advice monitor their activities

How Specific extension agent in an DFBA for backstopping random

subset of FTs through farm visits extension agents and subset of FTs meet for quarterly

meetings Analysis:

seek ways to improve FTs skills (+ training material) and access to new knowledge (from public services or private providers)

effects on knowledge, career, activities and effectiveness of FTs?

Variation 3: customization How to customize extension services?

Target content of refresher training Module in refresher training farmer-by-farmer needs assessment quarterly consultations of farmer members in their DIG to assess

their needs and target content of refresher trainings

Analysis: effects on participation to FT dissemination activities, notably

among marginalized groups? on returns to FT program? Is cost-effectiveness

modified?

Evaluation approach: RCT with orthogonal randomization DFBAs organized in dairy interest groups

(DIG~3/4 villages) FT program incorporation evaluated at sub-DFBA

level (~9 DIGs) Incentives variation at the DFBA level Linkage variation randomized at the FT level Customization variation randomized at the level

of DIG or pairs of DIGs

Data to be collected Quantitative data

Baseline survey of 2640 sample of farmers prior to randomization, stratified by gender and assets holdings (2013)

Follow-up surveys 1.5 (early 2015) and 3 years (2016) after first FTs trained

Census survey of 660 FTs at midline How much data and on whom?

Power for identifying effects for specific subgroups (by gender and assets holdings)

Complementary qualitative data collection

Challenges How to design variations that are

practically feasible and get as much as possible to mechanism we want to test Start from field observations

Resource constraints ($, staff time, …) Role of field coordinator

Flexible timing E.g. potentially rolling baseline

Evaluation for what? Answers to important questions with wider

relevance Capacity building

Research collaboration – learning-by-doing Policy

Policy inception meeting Stakeholder consultation/involvement Lessons potentially of broad relevance for

extension approaches, beyond FT