Learning is at the heart of AgResults

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 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 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.

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 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.

The Nigeria Aflasafe Challenge Project evaluation (published in February 2019, end-of-project update added November 2020) found that the project succeeded in creating a niche market for Aflasafe-treated maize. Aflasafe adoption increased by 56 percentage points, and average net income from maize increased by 16 percent. The sustainability of the market is uncertain.

Evaluator Abt Associates revisited the Nigeria Aflasafe Challenge Project at its conclusion, two years after the comprehensive mixed-methods assessment. They found that private sector involvement in the Aflasafe-treated maize market had increased despite reduction in the AgResults incentive, but that the Aflasafe-treated maize market’s sustainability was uncertain given general maize market instability and delayed implementation of aflatoxin-related policies.

Since 2013, AgResults has been designing and implementing agricultural prize competitions to encourage the private sector to "solve" a market failure and work toward a defined goal to receive a monetary award. In this cross-cutting learning document, AgResults presents 12 key takeaways based on its experience with prize concept design and sourcing; launch and marketing; and running a prize competition.

More than 4.5 billion people in developing countries are exposed to aflatoxins, one of the world’s most carcinogenic substances, through their diets. Yet a biocontrol solution exists: Aflasafe^TM. The AgResults Nigeria Aflasafe^TM Challenge Project (2013-2019) used a Pay-for-Results (PfR) prize competition to motivate the private sector to overcome critical barriers preventing widespread adoption of Aflasafe^TM among Nigerian smallholder farmers working in the maize sector. Over six years, the competition engaged 41 competitors to reach 75,788 farmers, producing more than 315,000MT of Aflasafe^TM-treated maize.

This DFID Chief Economist Seminar Series presentation from February 2020 summarizes External Evaluator Abt Associates' findings about the use of “pull mechanisms” or “prize competitions” to develop markets that provide innovative agricultural technologies to smallholder farmers. Findings suggest that pull mechanisms can create markets as long as the binding constraints inhibiting market development are within the manageable interest of the companies competing for the prize.

The AgResults Prize Concept Review Framework assesses concepts for validity as a prize competition. The framework comprises four key questions on the (a) market failure, (b) missions impact, (c) prize design, and (d) enabling environment. 

What were some of the challenges and opportunities that arose among the private sector companies that participated in the Nigeria Aflasafe Challenge Project? This Lessons Learned article shares insights that emerged from discussing competitors' experiences and perspectives.

The Nigeria Aflasafe Challenge Project was the first AgResults Pay-for-Results prize contest. This Lessons Learned article outlines the project's development objectives and reflects on the role and value of the PfR structure.

The evaluation design for the Nigeria Aflasafe Challenge Project lays out the approach to assess the project’s influence in stimulating a smallholder-inclusive market for Aflasafe-treated maize. Evaluators assess market impact using a structure-conduct-performance framework. To evaluate smallholder benefits, the design proposes a randomized control trial (later adapted to a quasi-experimental design).