Learning is at the heart of AgResults

The AgResults Tanzania Dairy Challenge Project was established to incentivize private sector input suppliers to raise awareness and educate smallholder farmers on the value of adopting productivity-increasing input bundles to enhance production and strengthen dairy-based livelihoods. This Lessons Learned article explores how the project has already made an impactful shift in the dairy input supplier model and market, strengthening SHF’s demand for improved inputs.

From 2014-2018, the AgResults Zambia Biofortified Maize Challenge Project tried to tackle Vitamin A deficiency by increasing the awareness around and consumption of biofortified, pro-Vitamin A (PVA) maize. This Lessons Learned article explores the post-project PVA maize market in Zambia, looking at changes in PVA maize seed production, public and private sector demand, and broader shifts in consumption patterns.

This brief by External Evaluator Abt Associates discusses quantitative methods for conducting impact assessments of smallholder farmer benefits from donor-devised interventions that stimulate private sector engagement in markets for technologies benefiting the farmers. The brief presents three AgResults Pay-for-Results competitions as examples and offers seven lessons for evaluators.

This report from External Evaluator IDinsight documents findings from the baseline Process Tracing evaluation of the AgResults Senegal Crop Storage Finance Challenge Project. The purpose of the baseline Process Tracing evaluation was to assess the state of the storage finance market during early stages of the project and assess if the preconditions are in place for the project to have its intended impact.

This one-pager summarizes results and lessons learned from the Vietnam GHG Emissions Reduction Challenge Project, which used a Pay-for-Results prize competition structure to incentivize private sector competitors to test and scale technology packages among smallholder rice farmers in Thai Binh Province. Over four seasons, four competitors reached 37,596 different smallholder farmers across 507 villages.

This evaluation final report by Abt Associates shows that Pay-for-Results spurred private sector development and dissemination of emissions-reducing, yield-enhancing technology packages among smallholder farmers in Vietnam. A 2100-farmer survey showed that AgResults farmers achieved 14 percent higher yields than comparison farmers and used practices associated with lower emissions. However, project measurements of emissions were uncertain, so evaluators could not determine emissions impact. Future projects should pay attention to reliability of field-based emissions measurements.

This brief summarizes the final evaluation report of the Vietnam GHG Emissions Reduction Challenge Project, showing that PfR can spur the private sector to develop and disseminate emissions-reducing technology packages for smallholder farmers. AgResults farmers achieved 14 percent higher yields than comparison farmers and were more likely to use practices associated with lower GHG emissions. The project’s main challenge was obtaining reliable measurements of emissions.

In Vietnam, rice is a critical crop for income and food security. However, current production practices can lead to high rates of unwanted greenhouse gases (GHG) that contribute heavily to climate change. The AgResults Vietnam GHG Emissions Reduction Challenge Project (2016-2021) used a Pay-for-Results (PfR) prize competition to encourage the private sector in Thai Binh to test, develop, and scale improved technology packages among smallholder rice farmers. Over four growing seasons, four competitors engaged more than 25,000 farmers, increasing yields by 4-14% and incomes by 10-15%.

This brief, the fifth and final in the series, provides an overview of the fifth phase of AgResults’ approach to Pay-for-Results prize competition design. It explains how program designers can develop a thorough verification plan to evaluate competitors’ results and determine prize payments. It also summarizes the activities involved in project management of a prize competition.

This brief, the fourth in a series of five, provides an overview of the fourth phase of AgResults’ approach to Pay-for-Results prize competition design. It explains how program designers can determine the size of the prize purse to effectively drive participation and innovation without overpaying for results.

This brief, the third in a series of five, provides an overview of the third phase of AgResults’ approach to Pay-for-Results prize competition design. It explains how program designers can create the set of parameters and rules that determines who competes, how to win the prize(s), and the implementation timeline.

This brief, the second in a series of five, provides an overview of the second phase of AgResults’ approach to Pay-for-Results prize competition design. It explains how program designers conduct deeper research on relevant market systems to articulate a Theory of Change for the competition and to reasonably estimate the project’s impacts.

The first in a series of five, this brief provides an overview of concept sourcing, the first phase of AgResults’ Pay-for-Results prize competition design process. It shows how program designers begin the process by brainstorming and assessing potential development challenges to see if a prize competition is best suited to address the identified problem.

This sustainability assessment by External Evaluator Abt Associates looking at the Kenya On-Farm Storage Challenge Project affirms that Pay-for-Results projects can catalyze development of a smallholder- and gender-inclusive, sustainable market for beneficial agricultural technologies. Since the project ended, there have been new entrants to the market, ongoing product innovation, and a 250% increase in sales of on-farm storage products attributable to AgResults.

This report by External Evaluator Abt Associates summarizes independent evaluation findings from competitions in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia and offers guidance for future prize sponsors. It provides evidence that Pay-for-Results (PfR) competitions can spur development of markets for technologies benefitting smallholder farmers. It also offers guidance on how to determine whether PfR is an appropriate design option and how to maximize farmer benefits.

The evaluation design for the Tanzania Dairy Productivity Challenge Project by Abt Associates lays out a mixed-methods approach. To assess impact on dairy producers, the evaluator will use a quasi-experimental design to gauge technology adoption and subsequent impacts on income and consumption. The approach will use a structure, conduct, performance framework to assess market impact.

This toolkit is a practical guide for agricultural development practitioners who are interested in using Pay-for-Results prize competitions to stimulate new markets for agricultural technologies and engage the private sector for scale-up. It draws upon the experience of AgResults, which has designed and implemented prize competitions around the world since 2013.

This assessment by External Evaluator Abt Associates, updated in December 2020, found that the AgResults project played a role in creating a niche market for PVA maize, although with limited development impact because the market involved mostly better-off smallholder farmers and urban consumers. Findings suggested that the market would likely be sustained in the short to medium term.

This brief summarizes the close-out assessment of the Zambia Biofortified Maize Challenge Project. External Evaluator Abt Associates found that the competition helped develop a niche market for Pro-Vitamin A maize, although Vitamin A-deficient populations were a small portion of those who consumed the maize. The brief underscores the importance of directly targeting intended beneficiaries in project design.

This brief, updated in November 2020, summarizes evaluation findings for the Nigeria project. External Evaluator Abt Associates found that AgResults helped create a niche market for Aflasafe-treated maize and an increase in farmers’ uptake of Aflasafe and net maize income. Market sustainability is uncertain due to unstable market conditions and delays in implementation of aflatoxin-related policies.