2. AADAPT Workshop South Asia Goa, December 17-21, 2009 Florence Kondylis

3. There are very few rigorous impact evaluations of agricultural interventions. Why?  Mostly, a few, scattered evaluations  do not respond to a larger learning agenda and needs on the ground  Not effective in affecting policy making!  Methods often improvised ex-post  Harder to isolate causal links

4.  It’s all getting better!  Increasing interest and innovative work: many of the papers in the talk are recent  We are doing it (cf. Mushfiq’s talk)  2/4 years from now, we will be in a different place

5. 1. Technology adoption/diversification 2. Information Technology & Rural Markets  Price Information Kiosks/Quality Hubs for Soybeans in MP  Cellphones and market performance in Niger and Kerala 3. Fertilizers in Kenya 1. How much? 2. How to?

6. What is the impact of agricultural extension and export facilitation services provision (in various combinations) on:  Crop choice  Technology adoption, and  Market access?  What is the additional effect on all the above of providing in- kind credit for inputs (seeds, fertilizers)? Used experimental design (2 treatment arms; farmers assoc) and found:  Farmers in program 19.2% more likely to grow export crops, have 4.3% more land devoted to cash crops  No overall impact on Input usage, HH income, Harvest value  No significant additional impact of credit

7.  What is the effect of price information provision, quality testing and direct private marketing facilitation on:  Sale prices received by farmers in the mandis?  Fraction of production sold through the mandis?  Farmers’ subsequent planting decision?  Exploited the gradual phase-in of the intervention to find:  Increase in the sale price by 1.6% for HHs in close proximity to the mandis + decline in price dispersion across mandis  Steep decline in volume sold through the mandis (14-20%, increases with distance to the closest mandis)  3 percentage point increase area under soy cultivation

8.  What is the effect of an increase in cellphone coverage on  Market performance (price dispersion)  Traders’ behavior  Consumer, producer and trader welfare?  Exploit regional variations in the timing of cellphones introduction and find:  Large reductions in price dispersion (20-38 %), ▪ increase with transportation costs/distance to markets  Not attributable to collusive behavior  Increase in farmer/fisherman’s and trader’s welfare despite decrease in price (lower waste)

9. Fertilizer Intervention 1 teaspoon per plant ½ teaspoon per plant

10. Fertilizer Intervention 1 teaspoon per plant ½ teaspoon per plant

11. Fertilizer Intervention 1 teaspoon per plant ½ teaspoon per plant Before / After harvest Free delivery No Subsidy At “dressing” Free delivery No subsidy At “dressing” Heavy Subsidy Free delivery

12. Fertilizer Intervention 1 teaspoon per plant ½ teaspoon per plant Before / After harvest Free delivery No Subsidy At “dressing” Free delivery No subsidy At “dressing” Heavy Subsidy Free delivery

13.  Free delivery after harvest  Impact did not persist past the 2 seasons the intervention lasted  Now need to learn how to achieve sustainable results??

14.  Some interesting things about a few programs in some areas in a few countries  Evaluations to date are often (but not always) opportunistic:  no overall strategy  (Showed you the “best identified” ones but…) Often methodologically challenged because they weren’t set up beforehand  Shift the focus on getting clear answers for key projects and areas  Start evaluations early on!