Impact of the Integrated Agricultural Research for Development Guidelines on Smallholders’ Livelihoods in SSA CP Innovation Platforms Revised Edition

The proof of IAR4D efficacy was carried out in 2010, using the household income as the principal measure of impact on poverty reduction. This assessment did not take into consideration other variables that could affect livelihood outcomes. Such variables included the level of household dietary diversity, poverty intensity, income and revenues from other sources like livestock and livestock products, asset accumulation (including household and agricultural assets), Therefore, the present study was commissioned with a view to evaluate the impact of other outcomes’ variables on the smallholder crop and livestock farming households. The present study also validates the hypotheses that the IAR4D: 1. Works; 2. It delivers more benefits than the conventional R&D method and 3. It can be scaled out and up for wider impact on the continent Methods: All the outcomes considered were subjected to basic statistical test such as frequency counts, percentages, means etc. This was done to compare the levels of the outcomes for the midline and update periods. It was also done to compare the changes and percentages of changes that have accrued to the outcomes in the intervention (IAR4D/IP) sites in relation to the conventional and clean sites. The study used rigorous impact evaluation methods to determine the impact of IAR4D principles. Matching method, including propensity score matching involving control groups and matched samples and the difference-in-difference estimator were used. Key findings: A minimum of 117.39 percent change (household assets) and up to a maximum of 1,414.04 percent increases (general assets) were recorded as improvement in asset accumulation. On income and revenue generation, results show that generally, positive increases have accrued to the three types of incomes and revenues for the program, treatments and treatments within the PLSs. Furthermore, relative reduction in low dietary diversity under the treatment (IAR4D) was 37.33% while improvement to high dietary diversity recorded about 45.06% increment. The program results show that poverty intensity for the Innovation Platform (IP) participants were 70.9% and 61.5% for midline and end line periods respectively. Poverty intensity for IAR4D participants in the end line was less than that of the midline. On asset accumulation, the IAR4D has a strong, positive and statistically significant impact at the program level. The results show that average asset index of the treated (IAR4D farmers) sample due to participation in the IP activities based on the PSM (ATT) was 0.116 (p<1%). A considerable change of up to 165.71% was recorded in the asset accumulation after the program ended in 2010 till this present update. On income and revenues, positive and statistically significant income and revenue impacts from the IAR4D are present at the program level. ATTs of $766.12, $1,015.06 and $18.53 with corresponding percentage changes of 50.38%, 133.92% and 296.23% respectively for income, livestock revenue and revenues from animal products were recorded. Conclusion and policy recommendations: All the positive and statistically significant changes that are observed in the outcomes considered are for the IAR4D/IP participants after the 2012 documentation. In as much as the IAR4D has brought about considerable positive changes in the key outcomes and that these changes far outweigh those of the conventional R&D methods, we can conveniently infer that the IAR4D works as a concept, delivers more benefits than the conventional R&D methods and that it can be scaled up and out beyond the current area of operation. The policy implications emanating from the SSA CP update/impact evaluation are important for the scaling up and out. The external validity of the SSA CP should be associated with its scalability. Therefore, policies around the established scaling up and out protocols need to be developed. and these should centers around: (i) developing a scaling up plan (ii) establishing preconditions and implementing a scaling up plan process and (iii) implementing the scaling up process. Formalizing these protocols with implementing institutions, stakeholders and partners as well as stakeholders in the policy arena will help maintain a consistent and formidable scaling up and out procedure.