Assessment of impact in agriculture ict4d

701 views

Published on

Presented by Stijn van der Krogt, Director Country Programmes, IICD in e-Agriculture Perspectives session at ICTD2010 conference. 16 December 2010.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
701
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Assessment of impact in agriculture ict4d

  1. 1. <ul><li>Does it all make sense (also in conservative times)? </li></ul>London 16 December, 2010 Dr. Stijn van der Krogt Director Country Programs [email_address]
  2. 2. Can ICT end Poverty? <ul><li>Kentaro Toyama: “Well, no. Technology is only a magnifier of </li></ul><ul><li>human intent and capacity.” </li></ul><ul><li>Technology widens the gap through three mechanisms: </li></ul><ul><li>Differential access - technology is consistently more accessible to the rich and the powerful. </li></ul><ul><li>Differential capacity - with limited capacity, technology’s value is minimal. </li></ul><ul><li>Differential motivation - what do people want to do with the technology they have access to? </li></ul><ul><li>“… disseminating technology is easy; nurturing human capacity and human institutions that put it to good use is the crux.” </li></ul>
  3. 3. IICD programs 1998-2010 <ul><li>Where? </li></ul><ul><li>8 countries </li></ul><ul><li>68 programs </li></ul><ul><li>40% independent </li></ul><ul><li>What? </li></ul><ul><li>Local information </li></ul><ul><li>Internet, radio/tv, mobile </li></ul><ul><li>Competency development </li></ul><ul><li>Who? </li></ul><ul><li>300 info access points </li></ul><ul><li>600,000 small scale farmers and traders, 40% women </li></ul><ul><li>4,000,000 beneficiaries – small scale farmers and traders </li></ul>
  4. 4. IICD programs 2011-2015
  5. 5. Challenges livelihoods <ul><li>Key challenges livelihoods </li></ul><ul><li>Low profitability small farmers </li></ul><ul><li>Lacking market access </li></ul><ul><li>Low productivity and lacking knowledge production methods </li></ul><ul><li>Need to certification of ecological/equitable products </li></ul><ul><li>Problems with land use </li></ul>SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso
  6. 6. How do we work? Social Innovation 1. Local Ownership (OW) 2. Competency Development in ICT (CD) 3. Institutional Integration of ICT at organisation and sector levels (II) Facilitation of participatory identification & formulation 4. Joint learning, monitoring & evaluation of outputs, outcomes, impact & processes Support in knowledge sharing, lobby & policy formulation Advice on change management & alignment Coaching & training in social, technical & financial knowledge, skills and attitudes Adjusted strategies local partners & C4C partners
  7. 7. Outcome & Impact: Why to measure? <ul><li>Focus on Input and Output </li></ul><ul><li>Demand verifiable evidence development programs </li></ul><ul><li>Political emphasis on aid effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Lacking data and capacity in </li></ul><ul><li>“ less-than-ideal conditions” </li></ul><ul><li>N. Keita, FAO </li></ul>SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso Impact Indicators (Ultimate goal) Outcome Indicators (behavioral change) Output Indicators (Goods and Services ) Input Indicators (Material, financial, human)
  8. 8. What to measure? <ul><li>Impact compared over time </li></ul><ul><li>Impact compared places </li></ul><ul><li>Impact compared with other or no interventions </li></ul><ul><li>Project level: Service delivery </li></ul><ul><li>National level: Development Objectives, PRS </li></ul><ul><li>International level: MDGs </li></ul>SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso
  9. 9. How to measure? SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso  =not suitable  =adequate  =good    0.01   0 2-3 weeks 10-20 Windscreen survey    0.05-0.1 - 1-3 2-3 months 40-50 Focus group interviews    0.2-0.4 8 1 2-3 months 10 000-15 000 Service delivery survey (CWIQ)    0.2-0.4 4-6 1 4-6 months 100-500 Community survey    1-2 15-20 15-25 1-1.5 years 4 000-10 000 Household budget survey    1-2 40+ 2 1-1.5 years 5 000-10 000 LSMS/integrated survey    5-10 5-12 2-4 1-1.5 years 20 000-50 000 Agricultural census    15-25 4-8 1 3-6 months Full coverage Population census Counter- factual Sub- nat'l Time series Cost ($m) Question-naire size Visits to household Duration Sample size   Best used for : 5 4 3 2 1 Comparison of key features of different surveys
  10. 10. What do we measure? <ul><li>Satisfaction and usage services </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness </li></ul><ul><li>Empowerment </li></ul><ul><li>Economic development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Productivity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Markets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Revenues </li></ul></ul>SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso
  11. 11. How do we measure? <ul><li>On-line questionnaires </li></ul><ul><li>Representative sample of users </li></ul><ul><li>35,000 questionnaires in 2003-2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Automatic report generation </li></ul><ul><li>Focus group meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Project partners & end users </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion possible solutions </li></ul>SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso
  12. 12. SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso
  13. 13. Connectivity solutions, Ghana
  14. 14. Connectivity solutions, Ghana
  15. 15. What do we want to measure? <ul><li>Measure change in production and revenues </li></ul>SongTaaba Women, Burkina Faso
  16. 16. Million f.cfa Million f.cfa Example Coprokazan, Burkina Faso Emplois aux membres 32 (30 F et 2 H) 42 (38 F et 4 H) 55 (50 F et 5 H) Nombre de membres 259 (4 H) 369 (4 H) 616 (8 H)
  17. 17. What did we learn? Connectivity solutions, Ghana <ul><li>Satisfaction depends on </li></ul><ul><li>Access and price connectivity </li></ul><ul><li>Relevant content </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity development </li></ul><ul><li>Increased awareness and empowerment </li></ul><ul><li>Is a precondition for impact </li></ul><ul><li>ICT enables fast score </li></ul><ul><li>Economic impact </li></ul><ul><li>Takes time (3-4 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Requires combined ICT </li></ul><ul><li>Case studies indicate higher than expected impact </li></ul>
  18. 18. What did we learn? Connectivity solutions, Ghana <ul><li>Measuring requires combined methodologies </li></ul><ul><li>Simple surveys </li></ul><ul><li>Focus group meetings </li></ul><ul><li>End users provide relevant insights </li></ul><ul><li>Missing methodology to compare with other interventions </li></ul><ul><li>Control groups? </li></ul><ul><li>With – Without? </li></ul><ul><li>What are relevant other interventions? </li></ul><ul><li>Community focus groups? </li></ul><ul><li>Community surveys? </li></ul><ul><li>Household surveys? </li></ul>

×