home

Article in the academic journal Food Policy:
Ton, G., Klerkx, L., de Grip, K. and Rau, M.-L. (2015) 'Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways', //Food Policy,// 51(0), 9-23. Get free access till 1 February 2015 - []

== ==

Free download of the final report -
[]

Ton G, de Grip K, Klerkx L, Rau M-L, Douma, M, Friis-Hansen E, Triomphe B, Waters-Bayer A, Wongtschowski M (2013) Effectiveness of innovation grants to smallholder agricultural producers: an explorative systematic review. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

==Free download of the Policy Brief == Ton G, de Grip K, Klerkx L, Rau, M-L, Douma M (2013) "Are innovation grants to smallholders effctive in facilitating agricultural innovation?'" Systematic Review Policy Brief: kowing what works and why. Austarlian Government - Australian Aid

= = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = =Systematic review question - Is the provision of agricultural innovation grants to smallholder agricultural producers effective in facilitating agricultural innovation, particularly in ways that benefit the poor and women in developing countries? =

Abstract
Grants for agricultural innovation are common but grant funds specifically targeted to smallholder farmers remain relatively rare. Nevertheless, they are receiving increasing recognition as a promising venue for agricultural innovation. They stimulate smallholders to experiment with improved practices, to become pro-active and to engage with research and extension providers. The systematic review covered three modalities of disbursing these grants to smallholder farmers and their organisations: vouchers, competitive grants and farmer-led innovation support funds. The synthesis covers, among others, innovation grant systems in Malawi (Agricultural Input Subsidy Programme), Latin America (several Challenge Funds for Farmer Groups), Uganda (National Agricultural Advisory Services ), and Colombia (Local Agricultural Research Committees - CIAL). The review team used a systematic search in electronic data-bases to capture studies from different disciplines and geographical areas, published until January 2012. The synthesis was based on 20 impact studies and makes reference to another 42 largely qualitative studies. These additional studies provide information about the functioning and effectiveness of the innovation grant system but do not contain a structured assessment of impact. All studies present evidence of the positive changes due to these investments in agricultural innovation. Some of the impact studies show mixed impacts on natural resources, especially due to land clearing of tree species or increased cultivation without soil conservation. The negative outcomes reported in these studies are however always accompanied by a positive outcome in another area, such as an increase in yields or income. Unfortunately none of the studies had a research design that generated comparative information about the impact of alternative policies. Most studies focus on field-level impacts and use household survey data to support their inferences. However, in most cases, the grant is often only one of the many contributing factors to smallholder innovation along with access to markets, supporting infrastructure, access to credit, and/or starting levels of social and human capital. This complexity is especially relevant for business development grants and innovation support funds, where the grants feed into existing innovation processes. Their impact on household wellbeing often lies beyond the project period. The review points to an important and transversal outcome area of innovation grant systems: the creation of human and social capital to sustain creative thinking and innovative practices. Indicators used to measure this are knowledge on agricultural practices, changes in agricultural practices and capabilities of farmer groups. Measurement of human and social capital with common indicators would help to establish longitudinal data-sets, to be used for benchmarking and comparing different support policies or development interventions to facilitate innovation in smallholder agriculture.

Background
Grants for agricultural innovation are common but grant funds specifically targeted to smallholder farmers remain relatively rare. Nevertheless, they are receiving increasing recognition as a promising venue for agricultural innovation. They stimulate smallholders to experiment with improved practices, to become pro-active and to engage with research and extension providers. The systematic review covered three modalities of disbursing these grants to smallholder farmers and their organisations: vouchers, competitive grants and farmer-led innovation support funds. The synthesis covers, among others, innovation grant systems in Malawi (Agricultural Input Subsidy Programme), Latin America (several Challenge Funds for Farmer Groups), Uganda (National Agricultural Advisory Services ), and Colombia (Local Agricultural Research Committees - CIAL).

Objectives
The systematic review aimed to synthesize the available literature in order to elaborate under what conditions innovation funds tend to be effective in facilitating innovation and benefiting the poor and women in developing countries. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In this review, we have considered both quantitative and qualitative information relating to the impact of agricultural innovation grants to smallholders. Our approach to synthesis is essentially explorative with many emergent concepts and very limited possibilities to analyse data-sets with comparable outcome indicators.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Methods
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The review team used a systematic search in electronic data-bases to capture studies from different disciplines and geographical areas.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The relevant electronic search results (186 out of 4,322 hits) were complemented by hand-searching additional references through snowballing and reviewing project web-sites. This resulted in a total of 227 studies.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Most of these studies were excluded in a later stage because they did not contain any information on the way in which the grant was disbursed and/or the role of the farmers in governing the innovation grant system.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Finally, the synthesis was based on 20 impact studies and makes reference to another 42 largely qualitative studies. These additional studies provide information about the functioning and effectiveness of the innovation grant system butdo not contain a structured assessment of impact.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">On Voucher Schemes
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hypothesis A1: The quantity and quality of inputs and services provided to smallholder famers are enhanced as a result of the voucher system and can be sustained in the future.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The studies on voucher systems show ample evidence that the vouchers indeed lead to the uptake of practices that enhance innovation in the smallholder farming system. Effective targeting mechanisms to reach non-users are key.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conclusion: strong support in studies.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hypothesis A2: Farmers’ livelihoods, and in particular those of the poor and women, start to change as a result of the improved agricultural practices enabled by these inputs and services.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The studies show positive impact on key elements of the farmer livelihoods, except when prices fall in response to an increase in production in a context of limited markets outside the production area. The content of a ‘one size fits all’ technology package supplied through a voucher system could constrain agricultural innovation, while offering a menu of options to choose from would enhance innovation.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conclusion: moderate support in studies.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> On Business Development Grant Systems
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hypothesis B1: Competitive grants trigger value-adding business activities by (groups of) farmers as a way to facilitate innovation processes with smallholder farmers in markets.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The studies on business support grants show that the grants indeed translate into investments in technology or support services to business proposals from farmer groups. Initial organisational social capital of the groups is a necessary precondition for developing these proposals and handling the grants. Grants tend to be a minor factor in a wider constellation of factors that make the business proposal successful. Therefore, outcomes of the grant system on organisational social capital and institutions that provide the context for further development of these business are important. The necessary transparent and sustained procedures needed for business support grants place high demands on the governance system. Participation of farmer organisations in the governing body is valued positively by most authors.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conclusion: strong supporting evidence in studies.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hypothesis B2: Farmers’ livelihoods improve as a result of social activities and economic returns derived from the new value-adding business activities.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The three studies that analyse the impact of the business proposals supported by these grant systems document positive impacts on producers, though their methodologies suffer from the absence in their research design of comparison groups or other methods of counterfactual reasoning. The changes in income through the grant-supported business proposals is not necessarily attributable to the grant, and definitely not to the grant alone.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conclusion: weak supporting evidence in studies.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">On Farmer-led Agricultural Innovation Support Funds
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hypothesis C1: Grants to facilitate farmer-driven experimentation and learning open up neglected research areas in agricultural production and enhance the applicability of research results. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hypothesis C2: Participation of local farmer organisations in decision-making about research funds is effective in (re-)directing the research to critical constraints in on-farm agricultural innovation, and particularly to the needs of the poor and women. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hypothesis C3: Participation of higher-level farmer organisations in decision making about research grant funds is effective in scaling-up and scaling-out on-farm agricultural innovation processes.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The studies on farmer-led innovation support funds all make reference to the difference that doing research made, and to the benefits of an interactive relationship between the farmers and the technical supporters or researchers. No study has a design that permits counterfactual reasoning about which other research areas would or would not have been opened up without the grant. Impact studies provide weak support but the hypothesis is considered to be valid by most authors.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conclusion: moderate supporting evidence in studies.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This review only examines studies where farmers participated in the governance structure. These studies show that this participation indeed defines the activities supported by the grant (e.g. NAADS, Prolinnova) in ways that make them more in line with their priorities.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conclusion: strong supporting evidence in studies.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The studies all mention the progressive involvement of higher-level farmer organisations in the scaling-up and scaling-out of the innovation grant activities. The organisations studied, however, are more a result of the scaling process not the drivers of it. Supporting institutions (NGOs, governments) are more important in this respect.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conclusion: weak supporting evidence in studies.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">On the overarching question related to Innovation Grants to Smallholders
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Overarching hypothesis O1: Innovation grant systems that combine the grants to smallholders with enabling and brokering access to additional services to address imperfections in the innovation system are more effective in achieving improved livelihoods than the systems that work only on financing farm–level innovations (e.g. knowledge, technologies).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Most studies mention the need for wider support, beyond the grant, to enable positive impacts of innovation processes. There are no studies that compare different packages of support. Impact studies provide weak support but the hypothesis is considered to be valid by most authors.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conclusion: strong supporting evidence in studies.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Overarching hypothesis O2: Grant systems that combine different modalities of grant allocations (e.g. combining demand-driven research funds with service voucher schemes) are more effective in achieving outcomes at scale than single modality grant systems solely directed at farm households.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The studies that treat the innovation grant systems within more comprehensive support policies (especially Chile’s experience with business support grants (Berdegué 2001) and extension vouchers (Bebbington and Sotomayor 1998) and the studies on NAADS (Ekwamu and Brown 2005; Benin, Nkonya et al. 2008; Friis-Hansen 2008) are all positive about this broader environment of support. The comparative literature, e.g. World Bank (2010), also supports the assumption.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conclusion: moderate supporting evidence in studies.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Innovation grant systems have a small evidence base on impacts but a plausible rationale …
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Innovation grant funds are ‘hot’ and implemented widely. However, our review shows that studies on their functioning and impacts are scarce. We found 20 studies that use a wide range of impact indicators to explore impact. All studies document improvements in most of these indicators. With the notable exceptions of the studies on the Malawi input voucher programme and the studies on the NAADS system in Uganda, the impact studies that we included in the review were conducted by scholars that are or were involved in the implementation of the grant system that they study. We may assume that authors of these studies on innovation grant systems are likely to be more positive about them than truly independent evaluators. However, this is not likely to change the overall picture that smallholders are able to invest grants in changed and innovative agricultural practices. We found no study that challenged the relevance or effectiveness of innovation grant systems for smallholder farmers, as compared to conventional research and extension approaches. Though the evidence base is rather thin, the assumptions in the rationale, on which the decision to implement innovation grant systems is based, remain largely unchallenged. All studies present evidence of the positive changes as a result of these investments in agricultural innovation. Some of the impact studies show mixed impacts on natural resources, especially due to land clearing of tree species or increased cultivation without soil conservation. The negative outcomes reported in these studies are, however, always accompanied by a positive outcome in another area, such as an increase in yields or income. As a result of the wide diversity in contexts and implementation modalities of such funds, it is very difficult to compare their cost-effectiveness. The critical remarks in some of these studies, e.g. in the studies on input vouchers, question the political priority of fund innovation grant systems compared to other interventions such as infrastructural investments or cash transfers. Unfortunately, none of the studies has a research design that generates comparative information about the impact of these alternative policies (the counterfactual); e.g. there is debate on the use of vouchers as a means to spur innovation in East African countries, especially in relation to the amounts of government budgets used to fund it, compared with infrastructural investments or market enabling policies. However, evidence from these impact studies does not challenge the assumption that input vouchers as such indeed can cause impact on yields and, in doing so, trigger innovation in agriculture.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">… for facilitating innovation as a complex process …
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Most of the impact studies focus on field-level impacts and use household survey data to support their inferences. This partly explains the lack of impact studies on business development grants and innovation support funds. In these grant systems, the grant is often only one of the many factors contributing to smallholder innovation along with access to markets, improved infrastructure, access to credit, and/or starting levels of social and human capital. Often, these grant modalities explicitly target ongoing innovation processes that are shaped in cooperation with other support entities. Control groups are useful for the assessment of short-term impact in outcomes that directly result from the grant, e.g. of technology packages. However, they are not appropriate for measuring outcomes that need more time to mature, and that result from more complex and diverse innovation processes. For the latter, probably the most common situation for innovation grant systems, the major gains in the quality and usefulness of evaluations, will lie in the accuracy and comparability of the measurement of key changes in the group of beneficiaries.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">… where human and social capital drive sustained learning and experimentation
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The studies point to an important and transversal outcome of innovation grant systems in addition to their field-level impacts: the creation of human and social capital to sustain creative thinking and innovative practices. The operationalisation of these indicators differs a lot between the studies. Common indicators and common measurement tools could facilitate benchmarking between grant systems and even enable analysis of cost-efficiency. Friis-Hansen (2008) points to the fact that FFS provided the social capital needed for success with other innovation grant systems like NAADS. Gustafson (2002) suggests using these outcomes on human and social capital to judge the relevance of FFS. He proposes considering small grants as ‘learning grants’ and emphasises the impact on innovative behaviour and innovation capabilities of farmer groups, more than on yields and farmer income. This reconceptualisation could change the position of innovation grants in government policy. Instead of an agricultural development investment, innovation grant funds would be treated more as a vocational training instrument for sustained learning and experimentation. When considered as such, the innovation grant systems contribute beyond the specific project and add to human and social capital. If common proxy-indicators to measure changes in human and social capital for innovation could be developed, this would enable comparison between alternative policies and projects. Potential transversal indicators to measure these outcomes are knowledge on agricultural practices, changes in agricultural practices, capacities of farmers to learn and adapt, and capabilities of farmer groups to generate synergy through collective action. Policy-makers and grant system designers could specify these areas as a major objective of innovation grants, along with outcomes in yield and household income, to create an incentive for projects to measure this human and social capital regularly.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Included studies

 * 1) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Anderson JR, Feder G (2004) Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Research Observer 19(1): 41–60.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ashby JA, Braun AR, Gracia T, Guerrero, MP, Hernández LA, Quirós CA, Roa JI (2000) Investing in farmers as researchers: experience with local agricultural research committees in Latin America. CIAT Publication No. 318. Cali: International Center for Tropical Agriculture.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Avornyo FK, Kombiok JM (2010) Farmer Access to Innovation Resources (FAIR) project – Ghana: impact assessment report. Leusden: PROLINNOVA
 * 4) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Azuba-Musoke R, Waiswa C (2004) New approaches to extension service delivery in Uganda: beneficiaries assessment and challenges. Paper presented at: Animal Health: a Breakpoint in Economic Development? The 11th International Conference of the Association of Institutions for Tropical Veterinary Medicine and 16th Veterinary Association Malaysia Congress, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, 23–27 August 2004.
 * 5) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Banful AB (2011) Old problems in the new solutions? Politically motivated allocation of program benefits and the ‘new’ Fertilizer subsidies. World Development 39(7): 1166-1176
 * 6) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bebbington A, Sotomayor O (1998) Case study: agricultural extension in Chile. Chapter 7 in: Beynon J, Ackroyd S, Duncan A, Jones S (eds) Financing the future. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management.
 * 7) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Becker Reifschneider FJ; Byerlee DR, Basilio de Souza F (2000) Competitive Grants in the New Millennium: a Global Workshop for Designers and Practitioners. Brasilia: Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation.
 * 8) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Benin S, Nkonya E, Okecho G, Randramamonjy J, Kato E, Lubade G, Kyotalimye M, Byekwaso F (2008) Impact evaluation and returns to investment of the national agricultural advisory services (NAADS) program of Uganda. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
 * 9) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Benin S, Nkonya E, Okecho G, Pender J, Nahdy S, Mugarura S, Kato E, Kayobyo G (2007) Assessing the impact of the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) in the Uganda rural livelihoods. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
 * 10) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Berdegué JA (2001) Cooperating to compete: associative peasant business firms in Chile. Wageningen: Wageningen University.
 * 11) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Braun AR, Hocdé H (2000) Farmer participatory research in Latin America: four cases. Working with farmers: the key to adoption of forage technologies. Proceedings of an international workshop, Cagayan de Oro City, Mindanao, Philippines, 12–15 October 1999. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
 * 12) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Braun A, Thiele G, Fernandez M (2000) Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: complementary platforms for integrated decision-making in sustainable agricultural. AgREN Paper No. 105. London: Overseas Development Institute.
 * 13) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bukenya C (2010) Meeting farmer demand? An assessment of extension reform in Uganda. Unpublished thesis, Wageningen University.
 * 14) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">CEDAC (2011) Impact assessment report PROLINNOVAand FAIR/LISF Cambodia.
 * 15) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cobo F (2004) ‘Un sueño hecho realidad’. Comité de investigación agrícola local – CIAL ‘El Diviso’: estudio de caso. Municipio de Rosas, Cauca, Colombia. Cali: International Center for Tropical Agriculture.
 * 16) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cromwell E, Kambewa P, Mwanza R, Chirwa R (2001) Impact assessment using participatory approaches: ‘starter pack’ and sustainable agriculture in Malawi. AgREN Paper No. 112. London: Overseas Development Institute.
 * 17) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Denning G, Kabambe P, Sanchez P, Malik A, Flor R, Harawa R, Nkhoma P, Zamba C, Magombo C, Keating M, Wangila J, Sachs J (2009) Input subsidies to improve smallholder maize productivity in Malawi: toward an African green revolution. PLOS Biology 7(1): 9.
 * 18) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Dorward A, Chirwa E, Kelly VA, Jayne TS, Slater R, Boughton D (2008) Evaluation of the 2006/7 agricultural input subsidy programme, Malawi. Future Agricultures Consortium.
 * 19) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Echeverría R (1998) Will competitive funding improve the performance of agricultural research? ISNAR Discussion Paper No. 98-16. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.
 * 20) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ekboir JM, Dutrénit G, Martínez G, Torres Vargas A, Vera-Cruz AO (2009) Successful organizational learning in the management of agricultural research and innovation. The Mexican produce foundations. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
 * 21) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ekwamu A, Brown M (2005) Four years of NAADS implementation program outcomes and impact. In: Proceedings of the Mid Term Review of National Agricultural Advisory Services. Kampala: Ministry of Agriculture; Animal Industry and Fisheries, pages 25–46.
 * 22) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Friis-Hansen E (2008) Impact assessment of farmer institutional development and agricultural change: Soroti District, Uganda. Development in Practice 18(4–5): 506–523.
 * 23) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Friis-Hansen E, Egelyng H (2006) Supporting local innovation for rural development: analysis and review of five innovation support funds. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.
 * 24) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Fundación Chile (2009) Impactos de los instrumentos de transferencia technologica en Chile. Santiago: Consejo Nacional de Innovacíon para la Competitividad.
 * 25) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gebremichael Y, Araya H, Fenta T (2011) Impact assessment of the Farmer Access to Innovation Resources (FAIR) piloting in Ethiopia. Leusden: PROLINNOVA
 * 26) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gill GJ, Carney D (1999) Competitive agricultural technology funds in developing countries. ODI Natural Resource Perspectives. London: Overseas Development Institute.
 * 27) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Govere I, Foti R, Mutandwa E, Mashingaidze AB, Bhebhe E (2009) Policy perspectives on the role of government in the distribution of agricultural inputs to farmers: lessons from Zimbabwe. International NGO Journal 4(11): 470–479.
 * 28) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gustafson DJ (2002) Supporting the demand for change: recent experiences with farmer learning grants in Kenya. Case study presented at the workshop Extension and Rural Development: Convergence of Views on International Approaches?
 * 29) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Harnett P (2008) Cash transfers – do they work? A study of flexivouchers in Malawi. Medicine, Conflict, and Survival 24(suppl. 1): S36–S47.
 * 30) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hartwich F, Alexaki A, Baptista R (2007) Innovation systems governance in Bolivia – lessons for agricultural innovation policies. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
 * 31) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Holden S, Lunduka R (2010) Too poor to be efficient? Impacts of the targeted fertilizer subsidy programme in Malawi on farmplot level input use, crop choice and land productivity. Noragric Report No. 55. Aas: Department of International and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
 * 32) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Holden S, Lunduka R (2010) Impacts of the fertilizer subsidy programme in Malawi: targeting, household perceptions and preferences. Noragric Report No. 54. Aas: Department of International and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
 * 33) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Humphries S, Gallardo O, Jimenez J, Sierra F (2005) Linking small farmers to the formal research sector: lessons from a participatory bean breeding programme in Honduras. AgREN Paper No. 142. London: Overseas Development Institute.
 * 34) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Humphries S, Gonzales J, Jimenez J, Sierra F (2000) Searching for sustainable land use practices in Honduras: lessons from a programme of participatory research with hillside farmers. AgREN Paper No. 104.London: Overseas Development Institute.
 * 35) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">ITAD (2008) Performance evaluation of National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS). Final report. Kampala: Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries.
 * 36) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Kaaria SK, LiljaN, Sandoval V, García JA, Hincapié F, Sanchez F (2006) Assessing impacts of farmer participatory research approaches: a case study of local agricultural research committees in Colombia (CIALs). Cali: CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture.
 * 37) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">KENFAP (2010) An assessment of the effects of government intervention in input and output market in Kenya: a case of maize seed, fertilizer and maize grain. Nairobi: Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers.
 * 38) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Losira NS, Mpunga RD (2011) LISF impact assessment study in Uganda. Leusden: PROLINNOVA
 * 39) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Malley ZJU (2011) Impact assessment of PROLINNOVAand LISF/FAIR activities in Tanzania. Leusden: PROLINNOVA
 * 40) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Nathaniels NQR (2005) Cowpea, farmer field schools and farmer-to-farmer extension: a Benin case study. AgREN Paper No. 148. London: Overseas Development Institute.
 * 41) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Opondo C, German L, Stroud A, Engorok O (2006) Lessons from using participatory action research to enhance farmer-led research and extension in southwestern Uganda. AHI Working Paper No. 3. Kampala: African Highlands Initiative.
 * 42) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Perrett H (2004) Community development funds: emerging lessons for a project design. Main report. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development.
 * 43) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">ProlinnovaInternational Secretariat (2008) FAIR – Farmer Access to Innovation Resources: synthesis of lessons learnt. Leusden:Prolinnova.
 * 44) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ramirez AF, De Nys E, Dasso ME (2011) Fostering inclusive rural innovation: the case of INCAGRO in Peru. Washington, DC: World Bank.
 * 45) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Remington T, Maroko J, Walsh S, Omanga P, Charles E (2002) Getting off the seeds-and-tools treadmill with CRS seed vouchers and fairs. Disasters 26(4): 316–328.
 * 46) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Richards P (2007) How does participation work? Deliberation and performance in African food security. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
 * 47) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ricker-Gilbert J, Jayne TS (2009) Do fertilizer subsidies affect the demand for commercial fertilizer? An example from Malawi. Paper presented at: International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, 16–22 August.
 * 48) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Roy P (1989) Enhancing the diversified strategies of the rural poor in Lesotho. Rural Development in Practice 1(3): 5–6, 11.
 * 49) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Sandoval V, Kaaria S, Lilja N, Quirós C (2009) Impactos en términos del capital humano y social de los métodos de investigación participativa en agricultura: el caso de los Comités de Investigación Agrícola Local – CIAL, en el Cauca, Colombia.Calí: International Center for Tropical Agriculture
 * 50) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Shroff R, Martin J, Jersild A (2012) Accelerating innovation for development: case studies: ETCProlinnova. In: Accelerating innovation for development: case studies. New York: Rockefeller Foundation, pages 115–136.
 * 51) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Sotomayor C, Palma L, Díaz M, Linares G, Jordán J (2008) Proyecto de desarrollo rural corredor Puno – Cusco. Informe final. Lima: Proyecto de Desarrollo Corredor Puno Cuco.
 * 52) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ton G (2007) Farmers' organisations in agricultural research and development: governance issues in two competitive funding programs in Bolivia. In: Ton G, Bijman J, Oorthuizen J (eds) Producer organisations and market chains: facilitating trajectories of change in developing countries. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pages 271–283.
 * 53) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Toro G, Espinosa N (2003) Los fondos competitivos para la agricultura y el desarrollo rural: fundamentos, aplicaciones y lecciones aprendidas.San José: Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
 * 54) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Triomphe B, Wongtschowski M, Krone A, Waters-Bayer A, Lugg D, van Veldhuizen L (2012) Module 5 – IAP4: providing farmers with direct access to innovation funds. In: World Bank agricultural innovation systems: an investment sourcebook. Washington, DC, World Bank, pages 435–444.
 * 55) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">van der Meer K, Noordam M (2004) The use of grants to address market failures – a review of World Bank rural development projects. Washington, DC: World Bank.
 * 56) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">van Veldhuizen L, Wongtschowski M, Waters-Bayer A (2005) Farmer Access to Innovation Resources (FAIR): findings from an international review of experiences. Working Paper No. 9. Leusden: PROLINNOVA.
 * 57) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Vera-Cruz AO; Dutrénit G, Ekboir J, Martínez G, Torres-Vargas A (2008) Virtues and limits of competitive funds to finance research and innovation: the case of Mexican agriculture. Science and Public Policy 35(7): 501–513.
 * 58) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Waters Bayer, A, van Veldhuizen L, Wongtschowski M, Killough S (2005) Innovation support funds for farmer-led research and development. Leusden: PROLINNOVA.
 * 59) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Witcombe JR, Devkota KP, Joshi KD (2010) Linking community-based seed producers to markets for a sustainable seed supply system. Experimental Agriculture 46(4): 425–437.
 * 60) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Wongtschowski M, Triomphe B, Krone A, Waters-Bayer A, van Veldhuizen L (2010) Towards a farmer-governed approach to agricultural research for development: lessons from international experiences with local innovation support funds.Leusden: PROLINNOVA
 * 61) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">IEG-World Bank (2009) Agricultural research and competitive grant schemes: an IEG performance assessment of four projects in Latin America. Washington, DC: World Bank.
 * 62) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">World Bank (2010) Designing and implementing agricultural innovation funds: lessons from competitive research and matching grants. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Bank.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Review team and advisory group
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Review team: Giel Ton (lead), Laurens Klerkx, Karin de Grip, Marie Luise Rau and Marieke Douma

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Advisory group: Esbern Friis-Hansen (DIIS), Bernard Tromphe (CIRAD), Ann Waters-Bayer (ETC) and Mariana Wongtschowski (KIT)