Files
Abstract
The current ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) guidelines for
impact assessment of agricultural development projects see impact assessment as being useful
for both accountability to stakeholders and as a learning tool to find out what works, what
doesn’t work and why. The methodology involves the use of conventional economic
evaluation and the estimation of a money metric based on measuring outcomes in terms of
economic surplus changes attributable to directed actions and activities. On the question of
accountability to stakeholders, this paper suggests that the money metric may not be the best
outcomes-based measure of performance against development goals and that other performance
indicators ought to be considered. The paper also suggests exploring other approaches to assess
accountability including qualitative (narrative) methods as well as process-based
accountability. On the question of using impact assessment as a learning tool, the paper
suggests this might be quite useful for more traditional non-adaptive research, but is less useful
for adaptive research projects involving participatory action research (PAR). With PAR
projects, learning about what works, what doesn’t work and why already occurs as an integral
part of the research process. The paper concludes with some thoughts about project evaluation
of an ACIAR-funded project with which the authors are involved in northwest Cambodia
focusing on upland crop production and marketing.