Zambia Biofortified Maize Challenge Project

In Zambia, approximately 31% of children and 21% of women are affected by Vitamin A deficiency. The Zambia Biofortified Maize Challenge Project (2014-2018) used a Pay-for-Results (PfR) prize structure to incentivize commercial millers to source, produce, and market Pro-Vitamin A (PVA) maize meal and boost consumer demand to increase PVA maize consumption. Although the project closed early due to the lack of market response and ongoing enabling environment challenges, it still resulted in rich learning around what works and does not work when designign and implementing PfR prize competitions.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.