Investing in Agricultural Training:

Effects of the Water-to-Market

Farmer Training in Armenia

January 2013

Ken Fortson, Anu Rangarajan, Randall Blair, Joanne Lee, Val Gilbert

Many donors fund agricultural training programs

– As standalone programs or as part of broader programs

– World Bank alone has spent $400 million to fund agriculture

education and training over past 20 years

Yet, meager evidence these programs are effective

– A 2011 World Bank study considered 271 agriculture

evaluations (training and otherwise); only 3 used randomized

controlled trials (RCTs)

– Many “evaluations” simply present select success stories

– Nonexperimental / quasi-experimental studies also less

compelling in this setting

• Selection mechanism is unclear

• Weak correlation of key variables over time

Background

2

Water-to-Market Program and Evaluation

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) funded a

“Compact with Armenia” that included infrastructure

investments in irrigation, roads, and agricultural training

– MCC is a relatively new US development agency; among its

goals, MCC aims to rigorously evaluate its investments

whenever feasible

Today: Findings from evaluation of the “Water-to-Market”

(WtM) training program

– Funded by MCC

– Strongest completed evaluation of this type of program (as far as

we are aware!)

• Features a cluster-randomized controlled trial

• Three-year follow-up period

Two types of training: On-farm Water Management

and High-Value Agriculture

Activities: Classroom and practical training, and the

establishment of demonstration plots to display

technologies in practice

WtM Farmer Training

4

4

Objectives: Teach farmers to adopt… – New and more efficient irrigation techniques (OFWM)

– New cropping techniques and high-value crops (HVA)

Expected results: increased and more cost-effective

agricultural production, higher sales, improved

household well-being

Training targets – OFWM: 45,000 farmers; HVA: 36,000 farmers

– Estimate that about 47,800 unique households participated

Program costs: $14.3 million from 2007 to 2011 – About $310 per trained household

Program model is not universal but is fairly common

for agricultural training

WtM Farmer Training (continued)

5

5

Communities were randomly assigned into a treatment

group or a control group (geographically stratified)

Treatment group communities (112) were offered training;

control group communities (77) were not offered training

during the evaluation period of 3 years – Examine outcomes as of 2010 agricultural season, 2-3 years after

the treatment group communities were offered training

Evaluation Approach

6

6

Communities in the WtM Study

7

Farming Practices Survey developed to provide

longitudinal data for the evaluation – All treatment and control communities included

– 3,547 households included in analysis, 75% of baseline

respondents

• 2,133 treatment group households, 59% of whom completed

training in evaluation timeframe

• 1,414 control group households, 10% of whom completed

training in evaluation timeframe

– Estimates presented are regression-adjusted estimated effects

of the intention to treat (ITT)

Qualitative interviews and reports used to document

implementation (not presented here)

Data Used for the Farmer Training Evaluation

8

Training Did Not Affect Irrigation Practices

Treatment Effects of WtM Training on Irrigation Practices Used by Respondent Households

(Percentages)

Sources: 2007–2008 and 2010–2011 Farming Practices Surveys.

*Denotes statistically significant treatment-control differences at the 10 percent level.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Simple Medium Advanced Irrigation Scheduling

Organizational

OFWM Practices

Treatment Group

Control Group

0

-3

0.2 0.3* 0.0

45 45

76 79

Percentage

9

Small Differences in HVA Practices

Treatment Effects of WtM Training on HVA Practices Used by Respondent Households

(Percentages)

Sources: 2007–2008 and 2010–2011 Farming Practices Surveys.

Notes: Estimates may not appear to equal difference in means due to rounding.

10

Training Did Not Affect Crop Cultivation

Treatment Effects of WtM Training on Crops Cultivated by Respondent Households

Sources: 2007–2008 and 2010–2011 Farming Practices Surveys.

Notes: High outliers censored at the 98th percentile for each variable. Estimates may not appear to

equal difference in means due to rounding.

11

Training Did Not Affect Household Income

Treatment Effects of WtM Training on Annual Household Income (USD)

Sources: 2007–2008 and 2010–2011 Farming Practices Surveys.

Notes: High outliers censored at the 98th percentile for each variable. Estimates may

not appear to equal difference in means due to rounding.

12

No effect on types of crops cultivated or on

agricultural expenses

Some statistically significant estimated effects on

production of specific crops, but mixed signs

– Positive effect on tomato and potato market value

– Negative effect on grape market value

No effects on consumption or poverty reduction

Snapshot of Other Findings

13

No evidence that training substantially improved

farmers’ well-being measured by income, avoidance

of poverty, or consumption

Limited evidence of HVA practice adoption, and no

evidence of irrigation practice adoption

Why might treatment effects have been limited? – Too soon? Only 2-3 years after training

– Light touch intervention (one time training, 4-5 days each)

– Large numbers to train, no “targeting” of farmers

– Practices may have been too advanced or expensive

– Some practices not aligned with incentives, e.g., water savings

– Reliable irrigation not available until late in Compact

– Farmer knowledge may not be the constraint it’s thought to be

– Farmer behavior may be harder to change than was thought

Conclusions

14

Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research.

Ken Fortson:

– kfortson@mathematica-mpr.com

For More Information

15