View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIO-RESOURCE, ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES (IJBEAS) Vol. 2(4) :391-404, 2016
www.sbear.in // ISSN 2454-3551
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AN INTERVENTION 'IMPROVED PIG FARMING
TECHNOLOGY' FOR LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT OF RURAL POOR AT DHALAI
DISTRICT, TRIPURA.
Ajit Kumar Roy
Ex. National Consultant (IA), NAIP, Pusa, New Delhi
*Corresponding author: akroy1946@yahoo.co.in
Received: August 2016 Revised accepted: September 2016
ABSTRACT
Impact assessment is the process of identifying the anticipated or actual impacts of a
development intervention, on social, economic and environmental factors. An impact
assessment study was carried out at Ambassa,Balaram and Morachera clusters of Dhalai
district, Tripura during 2013 under NAIP project to evaluate and validate indigenous
'Improved Pig Farming Technology' (intervention) for enhancing production, profitability and
competitiveness in agro ecosystem of disadvantageous areas of NEH region.Ex-post design
covering both qualitative and quantitative data through random sampling and purposive
selection method was taken for collection of Primary data for both treated and control groups
of household farmers respectively. Primary data of fifty samples covering the above
intervention are analysed for components of partial budgeting parameters. Net income from
unit area was Rs.18515 for treated compared to Rs 4162 from control. B/C ratio of Treated:
Control is worked out to be 0.66:0.28. Partial budgeting parameters like estimated costs,
returns, net income and profit are found favourable for the Intervened Technology compared
to the existing farming practices. The impact of Pig rearing Technology can be guessed from
the fact that the productivity, employment generation and income has increased considerably.
Livelihood opportunities have also increased in the area. Beneficiaries and family members
are fully engaged in pig rearing/farming, marketing and associated activities. Assessment
criteria like Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability for the
Intervention are discussed in details. Finally, based on economic performance and feedback
from various stakeholders it is recommended that to continue the programme for long term
social and economic benefits.
Keywords: Impact Assessment, Partial Budgeting, Interventions, Pig Rearing,
Livelihood, Sustainability
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is considered as the mainstay of a majority of people in India. It contributes around 14 per
cent to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country. The livestock sector in India contributes to
nearly 32% of total agricultural output. India with 2.3% share of global geographical area supports
nearly 20% of the livestock population of the World. The present production of meat in India is
estimated at 6.27 million tons in 2010 (FAO, 2012), which is 2.21% of the world's meat production.
The contribution of meat from buffalo is about 23.33%, while cattle contributes about 17.34%, sheep
4.61%, goat 9.36%, pig 5.31%, poultry 36.68% and other species 3.37%. The meat production has
increased from 764,000 tonnes in 1970-71 to 6.27 million tons in 2010. The compounded average
growth rate (CAGR) during the last two decades works out to be 4.5%. State-wise Production of Pork
in India are Arunachal Pradesh 3.3; Assam 13; Manipur 7.4; Meghalaya10 ; Mizoram 5.3;
Nagaland 31 and Tripura 7.6 metric tons. Pork consumption is negligible in India, with the exception
of the north-east while it is a major item elsewhere. The total world consumption of meat is estimated
to be of the order of 240 million tons per annum and India’s share of consumption is only 2.2%.The
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
392
eight states in North East India (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura) are ethnically and culturally akin to South East Asia and are amongst
the poorest in India. For the majority tribal population, livestock keeping especially pig keeping is
integral to their way of life in the NE Region. There is a growing demand for pork due to increasing
per capita income, urbanization and changes in lifestyle and food habits. Much of this demand is met
from imports from other states in India and from Myanmar. North East India has much higher pork
consumption that the rest of the country. Of these states, Nagaland has the highest per capita
consumption. The tribal population in particular appears to consume more pork on average than other
groups. Traders in both Assam and Nagaland reported that the demand for pork was increasing along
with prices. Commercial pig farming in India for meat production is one of the profitable ventures.
Pig breeding takes off in India’s northeast, which produces 25% of the country’s pigs and consumes
50% of the country’s pork.
In the NAIP project farmers were provided with input in the form of piglet and pig shed for rearing of
pigs as part of intervention (Fig.1). The purpose of this Impact Assessment is to assess the impact of
Interventions extended by organizations like ICAR, SAU, NGO, with the financial support of PIU,
NAIP, ICAR, New Delhi. An important intervention 'Scientific Pig rearing' was selected spread over
the states of Tripura. NAIP-PIU intends to evaluate and assess the impact of the sub-project
'Scientific Pig Rearing’ in meeting the objectives for which it was conceptualized based on the basic
parameters of effectiveness, efficiency, results/impact and sustainability. Ghungroo – Pigs of this
breed are found to have local consumer preferences are provided to the farmers. Besides an exotic
high yielding variety 'Hampshire' – re also provided to farmers as an input as part of intervention.
Animals are black with white strip across forelegs to shoulder. Typical characteristics include small
and erect ears, small and compact body. Sows have good mothering ability.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
In its broadest sense, impact assessment is the process of identifying the anticipated or actual impacts
of a development intervention, on those social, economic and environmental factors which the
intervention is designed to affect or may inadvertently affect. It may take place before approval of an
intervention (ex ante), after completion (ex post), or at any stage in between. Ex ante assessment
forecasts potential impacts as part of the planning, design and approval of an intervention. Ex post
assessment identifies actual impacts during and after implementation, to enable corrective action to be
taken if necessary, and to provide information for improving the design of future interventions. In line
with the evaluation criteria outlined in International manuals, the key evaluation criteria applied will
include Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Rural poverty impact, Sustainability, Pro-poor
innovation and scaling up, Gender equality and women’s empowerment.
Partial Budgeting
Partial budgeting is a planning and decision-making framework used to compare the costs and
benefits of alternatives faced by a farm business. It focuses only on the changes in income and
expenses that would result from implementing a specific alternative. In a nutshell, Partial Budgeting
allows one to get a better handle on how a decision will affect the profitability of the enterprise, and
ultimately the profitability of the farm itself. The partial budget framework can be used to analyze a
number of important farm decisions, including adopting a new technology.
There are seven common components to a partial budget: increased income, reduced cost, reduced
income, increased costs, total of positive effects (increased income and reduced cost), total of
negative effects (reduced income and increased costs),and net change (positive minus negative
effects).
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
393
Economic Impact Assessment
i) Benefit-Cost Analysis ii) Cost Effectiveness Analysis iii) Financial Analysis iv) Fiscal Impact
Analysis v) Economic Impact Analysis vi) Social Impact Analysis.
Fig. 1a. Piglet-Yorkshire variety
Fig. 1b. A progressive farmer with pigs
Fig. 1c. Piglet-Ghungro variety
Fig. 1d. Halhuli market, Dhalai,Tripura
Fig. 1. Intervention: Piglet(Ghungro & Yorkshire variety) and pig shed provided by NAIP, ICAR &
Dhalai Zilla Parisad, Ambasa, Dhalai,Tripura
Methodology for the Present Impact Assessment Household Survey
Based on reviewing a number of specific International and National best practice, latest literature on
Impact assessment specifically on livelihood presenting overall information related to development of
survey instrument, analysis tools & techniques and data presentation are taken up.
Experimental Design
In the present impact assessment study Ex Post design was adopted with provision for comparison
between Intervened and control group of households. Both qualitative and quantitative data through
random sampling and purposive selection method is taken for collection of Primary data for both
treated and control groups of household farmers respectively.
Survey Instrument /Assessment Tools for Household Survey
After thorough discussion it was decided that the survey instrument designed by PWC to be taken up
for field data collection that was approved in the meeting at PIU,NAIP on 21st January,2014.PWC
questionnaire is designed mainly for financial impact assessment was administered for primary data
collection from the field.
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
394
Sample Size Selection
Thirty samples of beneficiary farmers and twenty samples of control group farmers are covered for
primary HH data collection for the intervention, from the frame of beneficiary farmer’s household,
sample was be selected at random to avoid bias. In case of non-beneficiary farmers (control)
purposive sample method is resorted to because of non availability of sampling frame.
Primary and secondary sources of data collection
Household survey, Market visits, Field Observations, Key informants Interview and Transect walk
besides Existing literature of best practice of IA survey/study.
Overall Field Observation
Financial data in prescribed questionnaire aiming Partial Budgeting of Interventions collected to
capture change in profit particularly Household assets, sources of income and livelihoods,
diversification of input cost, labour cost, employment generation, production etc were emphasised for
field data collection. Besides few qualitative parameters like income, profit, adoption, sustaiability,
etc., are also covered. Key informant Interview/farmers' meet/transect walk were also organised for
each intervention taken up at each site to take stock of the present scenario and validation. Details of
Primary data collected from the selected interventions covering Dhalai district of Tripura (Pig
Rearing(adopted-30 samples and control-20 samples)
Statistical Analysis, Tabulation and Presentation of Data
Tabulation and presentation of descriptive statistics of the economic indicators/parameters is being
done and presented,. Graphical presentation of salient features is being taken care of for easy
comprehension and analysis is done using software package like SPSS and MS Excel. Descriptive
statistics of partial budgeting parameters for the Interventions is presented.
Area of Operation/Geographical Coverage
Ambassa, Balaram and Morachera clusters of Dhalai district, Tripura
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Financial Analysis and Partial Budgeting
Partial budgeting also known as marginal analysis is a management tool that can compare the costs
and returns that are affected by a potential change in an intervention. It is especially useful in
evaluating budgets that involve small, specific, and limited changes within an intervention by helping
to determine the profitability of that change. The partial budget can be divided into three main
sections: (I) costs, (II) benefits, and (III) analysis. The analysis section includes net change in profits
and a break-even analysis also known as benefit/cost ratio. The possible changes that can occur in an
intervention fall into four categories. These categories are added returns, reduced returns, added costs,
and reduced costs. Added costs and reduced returns compose the cost section of the partial budget.
They represent the negative effects of a proposed change. Added returns and reduced costs fall into
the benefits section of the partial budget and are the positive effects of a proposed change in the
business.
The analysis section of the partial budget contains both net change in profits and benefit/cost
ratio analysis. In this section as part of partial budgeting an attempt has been made to present and
discuss comparative figures of the socio-economic status of farm households (adopted-30 & control
20) in terms of basic production assets, Area under various activities, Employment Generation, Cost
of Cultivation (in Rs. / Acre), Income ( Rs. / Acre) and cost benefit ratio. Financial impact analysis
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
395
based on primary data collected byA.K.Roy, National Consultant (IA), East & N.E.Region, India as
part of TOR with NAIP.
Table 1. Ownership of Basic Production Asset (Intervention: Scientific Pig farming)
Field Treated Control Comparison
Land (owned/leased)
Total (acre) 0.7747 1.61036
Animal/livestock
Type of animal/livestock Pig Pig
No. of animal/livestock 2.53 1.83
Cropping Pattern
It reveals from the survey data of households that there is a distinct difference between the cropping
pattern of adopted /treated households for the intervention Scientific Pig Rearing at the Dhalai
District, Tripura compared to those in the Control farmers selected from the neighbouring areas. As a
result of intervention in the form of Pig sheds and piglets to beneficiaries, farmers are resorting to
integrated farming also involving pig cum fish that is a proven technology. This practice resulted in
high production from unit area accruing higher output. Therefore, it is attempted to depict the input,
output, components of cost of cultivation, components of input cost, output in the form of table and
graphs for easy understanding of the differences between treated and control farmers.
Fig. 2. Bar Charts : Yield Comparison; Intervention: Scientific Pig Rearing, Dhalai, Tripura
Yield Comparison
In the above figure two charts are there one showing piglet production and the other one with
pigmeat.Through NAIP intervention on an average from a treated one piglet and pig meat were 7.82
nos. and 273.27kg/unit as against 11706kg/unit only(Fig.2). It is well that the smallholder livestock
production systems improve livelihood and food security for the poorest people. In addition to
providing protein for human consumption, pigs are often one of the main sources of cash income in
rural areas and provide manure for cropping. Salient features of pig farming is that Pig farming has
7.82
0 0
2
4
6
8
10
Treated Control
Nu
mb
er
Pig Rearing
Yield Comparision
Pigglet
273.27
117.06
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Treated Control
Kg.
Pig Rearing
Yield Comparision
Pigglet meat
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
396
been adopted mostly by small and landless farmers and in tribal areas. It is low-external input activity
relying mainly upon women’s labour for rearing.
Table 2. Employment Generation (Intervention: Scientific Pig farming)
Field Treated Control Comparison
Employment Generation Additional man days
generated
Total man days (for male labour) 40.64 32.18 8.47
Total man days (for female labour) 41.17 25.18 15.99
Total Man days (male+female) 81.81 57.35 24.46
Percentage of women employment 50.32 43.90 6.42
Fig. 3. Comparison on Employment Generation; Intervention: Scientific Pig Rearing, District
Dhalai, Tripura
Employment Generation
Pig rearing is a labour intensive enterprise therefore employment generation was also higher for
male, female and total in the treated plots to the extent of 1.26,1.63 and 1.46 times respectively
compared to those generated in the control group (Table 2).
40.64
32.17
41.16
25.18
81.8
57.35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Treated Control
Man
day
s
Pig Farming
Employment Generation
Male (Mandays) Female (Mandays Total Mandays
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
397
Table 3. Cost of Cultivation (Intervention: Scientific Pig farming)
Field Treated Control Comparison
Average Labour cost (in Rs.) 18571.67 11197.5 7374.17
Average Farm power cost (in Rs.) 0 0 0
Material Inputs cost (in Rs.) 10220.0 3833.4 6386.6
Other associated cost (in Rs.) 0 0 0
Total capital/long term investment
per year (in Rs.) 1291.70 0 1291.67
Other cost if any (in Rs.) 0 0 0
Total cost of cultivation (in Rs./
unit) without support from
NAIP
30083.33 15030.9 15052.43
Average support provided in
Capital cost/long term investment
(in Rs.)
1291.67 N.A.
Total support provided from
project (in Rs.) 1291.67 N.A.
Actual cost of cultivation borne
by farmer (in Rs/Acre) 28791.67 15030.9 13760.77
Fig. 4. Bar chart for Comparative Cost of Cultivation; Intervention: Pig Farming, District
Dhalai, Tripura
18571.67
11197.5 10220
3833.4
1291.67 0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Treated Control
Rs.
Pig Farming
Cost of Cultivation
Labour Cost Material Input Cost Capital Investment
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
398
Cost of Cultivation
Cost of cultivation was observed Rs.30083 in treated plots compared to Rs.15031/unit incurred in the
control plots. Component wise break up of cost of cultivation within treated plots it is seen that on an
average labour cost constituted 62% followed by material input cost (26%), and capital investment
(4%) whereas cost of cultivation for control plots were on an average are found labour (74%), and
material input (26%) (Fig. 4). Further partitioning of input cost for treated group exhibits that the
highest cost of cultivation was borne toward Feed (51%) followed by piglet (31%), maintenance
(18%) but in case of Control group highest was on account of piglet (64%) followed by feed (36%).
(Fig. 4).It is interesting to note that in the intervened one NAIP provided pig shed that requires
maintenance by way of washing where as in the control one pigs are reared in open therefore no
maintenance cost.
Fig. 5. Pie-Chart showing Comparative Cost of Cultivation; Intervention: Scientific Pig Rearing,
District Dhalai, Tripura
Fig. 6. Pie-Chart showing Comparative Cost of Material Input; Intervention: Scientific Pig Rearing,
District Dhalai, Tripura
Average Labour
cost 62%
Material Inputs
cost 34%
Capital/ long term
investment 4%
Treated (Rs.)
Average Labour
cost 74%
Material Inputs cost 26%
Capital/ long term
investment 0%
Control (Rs.)
Pigglet Cost 31%
Feed Cost 51%
Livestock Mainten
ance Cost 18%
Treated (Rs.)
Pigglet Cost 64%
Feed Cost 36%
Livestock Mainten
ance Cost 0%
Control (Rs.)
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
399
Table 4. Income (Intervention: Scientific Pig farming)
Field Treated Control Comparison
Income from crop (in Rs./Acre) 0 0 0
Income from vegetable (in
Rs./Acre) 0 0 0
Income from straw (in Rs./ Acre) 0 0
Income from Fishery (in
Rs./Acre) 0 0 0
Income from piglets 48398.33 19192.65 29205.69
Income from Livestock 200 0 200
Gross Income generated (in
Rs./acre) 48598.33 19192.65 29405.69
Subtract total cost of cultivation
without support from NAIP (in
Rs.)
30083.33 15030.90 15052.43
Net Income (in Rs.) without
support from NAIP 18515.00 4161.75 14353.25
Add support provided from NAIP
(Rs.) 1291.67 N.A.
Net Income (in Rs.) with
support from NAIP 19806.67 4161.75 15644.92
Benefit cost ratio * 0.66 0.28
Profit from competing
crop/agro-enterprise (in Rs.) 20846.30 6154.58
*Net Income / Total cost of cultivation; Source: Primary data collection by National Consultant
(IA) for East & NE Region
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
400
Fig . 7. Comparison of Income; Intervention: Pig Farming, District Dhalai, Tripura
Income
Net income from unit area was Rs.18515 for treated compared to Rs 4162 from control. B/C ratio of
Treated: Control (0.66:0.28).These ratios are far below threshold level proving that Pig rearing is not
a commercially viable option for Dhalai district of Tripura. Cost benefit ratios for both treated and
control groups are below one. That means the venture is not economically viable (Table 4).
CONCLUSIONS
Relevance
The Intervention of Pig Rearing by NAIP is relevant as the activities and outputs of the programme
consistent with the intended impacts and effects as envisaged in objective of the programme.
Effectiveness
The Intervention is found to be effective also as this intervention attained its objectives of creating
employment and livelihood opportunities of marginal farmers of Backward Dhalai dist. of Tripura.
Efficiency
Farmers adopting Pig rearing technology are observed accrued higher output compared to that
achieved in control group. From B/C ratio also it is clear that the technology is cost- efficient.
Sustainability
Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue
after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially
sustainable. In search of the fact that to what extent did the benefits of the intervention likely to
continue after donor funding ceased, it is evident that this capital intensive intervention /technology
(Pig hutment) if once constructed it will remain so and can be used for at least 5-7 years without
much maintenance. Interviewing cross section of adopted/non-adopted/control farmers under the
Intervention got an impression that the farmers are going to continue with the technology even after
the funding is discontinued with the end of the project. It is also observed that a lot of non
16545
0
42332
19192.65
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Treated Control
Rs.
Pig Farming
Income
Pigglet Pigglet meat
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
401
beneficiaries are also interested to adopt the technology but unable to do so because of paucity of fund
by the poor and marginal farmers. Some well to do farmers of the area are reported to have invested
money and adopted the technology for higher productivity and return in Moracherra and Balaram
areas of Dhalai dist. Tripura.
Impact
Impact is known as the positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention,
directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting
from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators. The
examination should be concerned with both intended and unintended results and must also include the
positive and negative impact of external factors, such as changes in terms of trade and financial
conditions. The impact of Pig rearing Technology can be guessed from the fact that the productivity,
emplyment generation, income has increased considerably. Livelihood opportunities have also
increased in the area. Beneficiaries and family members are fully engaged in pig rearing/farming,
marketing and associated activities. Pigs are potential source of animal proteins and avenues for
additional income and employment that can improve the livelihood in a sustainable manner in the
study areas.
.
RECCOMENDATIONS
Partial budgeting parameters like estimated costs, returns and net income are found higher for
Scientific Pig Rearing compared to the existing pig farming practices. Therefore based on financial
performance as well as interaction with stakeholders it is recommended that i) Further support in
terms of pig shed construction and quality piglet ii) Regular supply of balanced pig feed iii) Provision
for small pumps for daily washing of pig shed iv) Further adoption of neighbouring farmers v)
Regular interaction with the beneficiaries.
Given its prospects, scientific pig farming has proved of its potential to have a positive impact on the
livelihood of millions of resource poor, under-privileged, landless and marginal tribal farmers of
Dhalai district of Tripura.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is grateful to NAIP for offering opportunity to carry out the Impact Assessment study.
Thanks are due to PI, Co-PI, RA's, enumerators and central/state govt. officials for rendering help during
primary field data collection at different locations of the State of Tripur, India.
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
402
SELECTED REFERENCES
ACF Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment Guideline . April 2010. Editing: ACF International,
Printed: Joseph Ferruzzi Associates, Inc.
ADB. 2006. Impact Evaluation—Methodological and Operational Issues, Economics and Research
Department, Asian Development Bank, Manila.
Annual report. 2012-13. NAIP, ICAR, krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 012.
Ashley, C. and Hussein, K. 2000. Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment:
Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa, Overseas Development
Institute, Portland House, Stag Place, London, SW1E 5DP, UK.
Attanasio, O. P., Meghir, C. and Szekely, M. 2004. ‘Using Randomised Experiments and Structural
Models for Scaling up: Evidence from PROGRESA Evaluation’, in F. Bourguignon and B.
Pleskovic (Eds) Accelerating Development. Annual World Bank Conference on
Development Economics. Washington, DC: World Bank and OUP.
Baker, J. 2000. Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for
Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Baker, J. L. 2000. Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty, The World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
Balthasar, A. and Rieder, S. 2000. Learning from Evaluations. Evaluation, 6(3): 245-260.
Bamberger, M. 2000. Opportunities and challenges for integrating quantitative and Qualitative
research. In: M. Bamberger (ed.) Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research in
Development Projects, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Bamberger, M. 2006. Conducting Quality Impact Evaluations under Budget, Time and Data
Constraints. Washington. DC: World Bank.
Bamberger, M. 2006. Conducting Quality Impact Evaluations under Budget, Time and Data
Constraints, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Bamberger, M., and White, H. 2007. Using strong evaluation designs in developing Countries:
Experience and challenges. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 4(8): 58–73.
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J and Mabry, L. 2006. Real-World Evaluation Working Under Budget, Time,
Data, and Political Constraints, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bird, K. 2002. Impact Assessment: An Overview. London, UK: ODI.
Duflo, E. and Kremer, M. 2003. Use of Randomization in the Evaluation of Development
Effectiveness'. Paper presented at the World Bank OED Conference on Evaluation and
Development Effectiveness, Washington, DC, 15-16 July.
Earl, S., Carden, F. and Smutylo, T. 2001. Outcome Mapping: Building learning and reflection into
development programs. Ottowa: IDRC.
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
403
Elbers, C., Gunning, J. and Hoop, K. 2008. Assessing Sector-wide Programs with Statistical Impact
Evaluation: A Methodological Proposal’ World Development, 20(10).
European Evaluation Society (EES). 2007. The Importance of a Methodologically Diverse Approach
to Impact Evaluation – Specifically with Respect to Development Aid and Development
Interventions. EES Statement. Nijkerk, Netherlands: EES secretariat.
Ezemenari, K., Rudqvist, A. and Subbarao, K. 1999. Impact Evaluation: A Note on Concepts and
Methods. World Bank Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network.
Fiszbein, A. 2006. Development Impact Evaluation: New Trends and Challenges. Evidence and
Policy, 2(3): 385-393.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/ or the CD-ROM may be made available upon request from the
UN Statistics Division statistics@un.org.
Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank (IEG) .2006. Impact Evaluation: An overview and
some issues for discussion. OECD DAC.
Jones, N., Jones, H., Steer, L. and Datta, A. 2009. Improving impact evaluation production and use.
Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road London SE7 1JD.
National Household Survey Capability Programme: Sampling Frames and Sample Designs for
Integrated Household Survey Programmes, Preliminary Version (DP/UN/INT-84-014/5E),
New York, 1986.
Prowse, M. 2008. Impact Evaluations and Interventions to address Climate Change. Scoping Study
commissioned by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation.
Raitzer, D. and Winkel, K. 2005. Donor Demands and Uses for Evidence of Research Impact: The
Case of CGIAR. Washington, DC: CGIAR Science Council.
Ravallion, M. 2008. Evaluation in the Practice of Development. Policy Research Working Paper
4547.Washington, DC: World Bank.
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Mexican Progresa Anti-Poverty and Human Resource
Investment Conditional Cash Transfer Program. Impact Assessment Discussion Paper 27.
Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Riddell, R. 2008. Measuring Impact: The Global and Irish Aid Programme. Final report to the Irish
Aid Advisory Board.
Roy, A. K. 2010. Evaluation and Impact Assessment of Technologies and Developmental Activities
in Agriculture, Fisheries and Allied Fields. New India Publishing Agency.101 Vikas Surya
Plaza, Pitampura, New Delhi.xiv+510p (ISBN: 978-93-8023540-0)
Roy, A. K. 2010. Quantitative methods for Social Science Research. Issues and Tools for Social
Sciences Research. (Kathia et al. eds.), CIFRI, Barrackpore. pp: 391-408.
Roy, A. K. 2010. A Study On Statistical Methods for Impact Assessment of Freshwater Aquaculture
with Particular Reference to Kolleru Lake, Summer School Proc.,WBUF&AS,Kolkata.
Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016
404
Roy, A. K. 2010. Methods, Tools and Techniques for Evaluation, Monitoring and Impact Assessment
of Development Programme. In : Evaluation and Impact Assessment of Technologies and
Developmental Activities in Agriculture, Fisheries and Allied Fields, NIPA, New Delhi
(Roy, A. K eds.), pp:1-76.
Subrahmanyam, S., Hanumantha Rao, K. and Aparna, P. 2010. Planning and Implementation of
National Rural employment Guarantee Scheme in Orissa: A Process Study. National
Institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500 030.
Science Council. 2006c. Impact Assessment of Policy-Oriented Research in the CGIAR: A Scoping
Study Report. CGIAR Science Council. Science Council (2006d) ‘Spillover Increases
Returns to Sorghum Genetic Enhancement’. CGIAR, Science Council Brief 4.
Sherman, L. W. and Strang, H. 2004a. Experimental Ethnography: The Marriage of Qualitative and
Quantitative Research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
595(1):170-189.
Singer, U. 2013. Livelihoods and Resource Management Survey on the Mekong between
LouangPhabang and Vientiane Cities, Lao PDR. Vientiane, Lao PDR: IUCN. 122pp.
Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. FID, UK.
Standing Panel on Impact Assessment. Science Council. 2006e. Policy-Oriented Research in the
CGIAR. CGIAR Science Council Brief 18.
The World Economic and Social Survey. 2013. Sustainable Development Challenges Department of
Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (UN/DESA),
E/2013/50/Rev1 ST/ESA/344.
United Nations. 2011a. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. Sales No. E.11.I.10.
WORLD BANK (Editor) (n.y.): Methodology for transect walk. Washington, DC: World Bank.
www.worldbank.org/ieg/nonie
Recommended