bananalogo
flagFrançais (French)flagEspañol (Spanish)
flagEnglish
  • Home
  • About
  • Knowledge Toolkit
  • Survey
  • Contacts

6. Results

Home Knowledge toolkit 6. Results

Photo Credit: S. Landersz/Bioversity International

After going through the key steps of the priority assessment, namely the identification of key constraints, description of research options, introduction of methodology used (Cost-Benefit Analysis and Economic Surplus Modelling), and account of data sources and elicitation process for parameter estimates, we can now look at the results of the Strategic Assessment of Banana Research Priorities.

Before having a look at the results, we invite you to briefly take a look at the section on how to interpret and use the results in which we recap the explanatory power of the main outcome variables.  As a next step, you can browse through the results from the Cost-Benefit Analysis using Economic Surplus Modelling and examine the number of beneficiaries, poverty reduction and regional distribution of impacts. Last but not least, results of the Sensitivity Analysis that was performed will be outlined.

6.1. How to interpret results
6.2. Results from cost-benefit analysis using economic surplus model
6.3. Number of beneficiaries, poverty reduction and regional distribution of impacts
6.4. Sensitivity analysis
6.1. How to interpret results

Before presenting the results of the banana research priority assessment, we would like to recap the main outcome variables and briefly explain how to interpret and use the results for each of them.

Outcome variable Brief recap Interpretation and use of results
Adoption ceiling The adoption ceiling determines the maximum crop area on which the new technology will be adopted.

Two scenarios were considered in the priority assessment exercise: the high adoption scenario (‘higher adoption’) comprises the adoption ceiling estimated by the resource persons; for the more conservative adoption scenario (‘lower adoption’) the expert estimate was reduced by 50% while all other parameters were held constant.

The estimated maximum adoption area translates into the maximum number of farmers adopting the technology and thus into the likely number of beneficiaries of the new technology. This indicator is therefore important when making funding decisions as it shows how many people could potentially be reached by each banana research investment. Also, the adoption is the factor with which all yield/cost effects are multiplied. This means that it largely determines the total benefits.

Including the second – more conservative – adoption scenario helps to correct for potential overestimation of benefits. We can probe if a research investment would still be sound if adoption was much lower than anticipated (as notoriously happens).

Net Present Value (NPV) The Net Present Value gives us today’s value of net benefits generated by each research option. It is computed by deducting the discounted future costs from the discounted future benefits. The minimum requirement for a sound banana research investment is that the expected Net Present Value is positive meaning that the discounted benefits exceed the discounted costs. If several research options that we assessed yield a positive Net Present Value, the option with the highest Net Present Value is usually chosen. Yet, since the Research and Development costs vary substantially across research options ($2.8 million–$47.7 million) and only a limited amount of money might be available for investment, the Net Present Value should not be used alone to rank the research options.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) The Internal Rate of Return is the discount rate at which the research investment breaks even. Technically, it is the discount rate at which the NPV equals zero meaning that the present value of costs of our research would exactly equal the present value of the research benefits. Basically, the Internal Rate of Return is the interest rate earned on the research investment and can be compared to other interest rates earned by alternative use of the funds. Hence, the research project is considered a good investment if the Internal Rate of Return exceeds these other rates. In our case, the research investment is a sound investment if the Internal Rate of Return exceeds 10% (which is the discount rate applied in our Cost-Benefit Analysis model). In general, the higher the Internal Rate of Return of a banana research investment, the more desirable it is to undertake this project.
Number of beneficiaries The number of beneficiaries represents the estimated number of households and persons who will benefit from the research option. The numbers are based on the adoption ceiling in each of the countries, the production area within those countries as well as the assumption of average banana production area of a farmer and the average family size. Similar to the Net Present Value results, this information should be interpreted with respect to the different magnitude of the investments required/assumed across research options.
Poverty reduction The poverty reduction results show how many people can be lifted out of poverty due to adopting a new technology resulting from the respective banana research investment. Since the ultimate impact and goal of public agricultural research investments is to benefit the poor by eradicating poverty and hunger, the results of the poverty reduction model are an important additional indicator complementing the results from the Cost-Benefit Analysis. In this more equity focused consideration, we adjust for the specific region where benefits occur by including national poverty indicators and so-called region-specific ‘poverty elasticities’. As a consequence, the ranking of research options can be different from that resulting from the other indicators and generally research options with a larger share of expected adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty rates are much higher than in Latin America & Caribbean and Asia, will rank higher based on the expected poverty reduction.
6.2. Results from cost-benefit analysis using economic surplus model

For the estimation of benefits resulting from technology adoption we used a 25-year horizon and the computation of the Net Present Value (NPV) is based on a discount rate of 10%.  To correct for potential overestimation of benefits, we ran the model for a second, more conservative adoption scenario for which the adoption ceiling estimated by the resource persons was reduced by 50% while all other parameters were held constant.

The scenario with the original adoption ceiling estimates is referred to as “higher adoption” and the more conservative (50% adoption) scenario as “lower adoption.”

The results of the economic surplus modelling and cost-benefit analysis are displayed in the following table:

Technology

Adoption area

All benefits

Lower
Adoption

Higher
Adoption

Lower
Adoption

Higher
Adoption

(‘000 ha)

(‘000 ha)

NPV
($’000)

IRR
(%)

NPV
($’000)

IRR
(%)

Recovery from BBTV

404

807

1,340,032

63

2,740,802

79

BXW management: GM-resistant varieties

436

872

105,619

38

216,028

46

BXW management: cultural practices

643

1,287

1,980,437

76

4,083,161

95

Cropping system intensification*

627

1,253

547,506

43

1,127,387

54

Resistant EAHB (NEW)

592

1,185

98,516

23

214,366

28

Resistant EAHB (RELEASE)

397

795

300,974

51

612,477

61

Resistant plantain (NEW)

524

1,049

295,359

29

618,668

34

Resistant plantain (RELEASE)

449

898

1,110,961

64

2,264,126

75

Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 1**

441

– 300,739 14 – –

Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 2***

396

– 193,661 13 – –

Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 3****

330 – 69,627 11 – –

Foc B: Integrated Management

172 344 505,714 30 1,052,200 36

Foc C: Resistant cultivars

307 614 186,519 20 424,864 25

Foc D: GM resistant cultivars

63 127 137,024 28 286,030 34

BBTV = Banana Bunchy Top virus; BXW = Banana Xanthomonas wilt; Foc = Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense

Remarks: Lower adoption scenario: analysis with 50% lower adoption ceiling; NPV calculated using a real interest rate of 10%; *Benefits from reduced yield variability and improved status of (on-farm) natural resources (e.g., soil fertility) have not been included in this assessment, which thus likely shows an underestimation or lower boundary of the effect;
**Scenario 1: Doubling of arrival time and 50 percent reduced increase of loss rate (12.50%) once Foc reaches the country as compared to a scenario without intervention;
***Scenario 2: Arrival time as in Scenario 1 minus 5 years; 50 percent reduced increase of loss rate (12.50%) once Foc reaches the country;
****Scenario 3: Arrival time as in Scenario 1 minus 5 years; 25 percent reduced increase of loss rate (18.75%) once Foc reaches the country;

Source: Results of Strategic Assessment of Banana Research Priorities

In a nutshell, all assessed research options yield sizeable positive Internal Rates of Return (i.e., returns on the investment well above a standard 10% interest rate). Internal Rates of Returns are positive and above 10%, even under the (50%) lower adoption scenario. There is, however, considerable variation in the return on investment between research options, with “BXW management: cultural practices” yielding an estimated 76% and the “Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 3” an estimated 11%.

Estimated Net Present Values are positive throughout, confirming profitable investments. Since Research and Development costs (i.e., the level of investment) vary substantially across research options, the two indicators Internal Rate of Return and Net Present Value produce somewhat different rankings of the research options in terms of their profitability.

The table also displays the estimated area on which the new technology will be adopted under both the lower and higher adoption scenarios. As per definition of the scenarios, the adoption ceiling reached under the lower adoption scenario is half of the higher adoption scenario area. The estimated adoption area is an additional indicator to be considered when making funding decisions as it translates into the likely number of beneficiaries of the new technology.

Download the PDF Here

6.3. Number of beneficiaries, poverty reduction and regional distribution of impacts

The following table shows the estimated number of households and persons who will benefit from each of the research options. These figures are determined by the adoption ceiling in each of the countries, the number of countries included, and the production area within those countries.

Similar to the Net Present Value results, this information should be interpreted with respect to the different magnitude of the investments required/assumed across research options.

Technology Number of beneficiaries Poverty reduction

Lower
Adoption

Higher
Adoption

Lower Adoption

Higher Adoption

Households
[‘000]

Persons [‘000]

Households [‘000]

Persons [‘000]

Persons
[‘000]

Persons
[‘000]

Recovery from BBTV

2,018 9,674 4,036 19,348 638 1,285

BXW management: GM-resistant varieties

2,173 10,745 4,346 21,489 155 311

BXW management: cultural practices

3,217 15,665 6,434 31,329 1,611 3,287

Cropping system intensification

1,397 6,428 2,794 12,856 342 686

Resistant EAHB (NEW)

934 4,326 1,869 8,652 953 1,935

Resistant EAHB (RELEASE)

634 2,937 1,267 5,874 389 782

Resistant plantain (NEW)

1,979 8,820 3,957 17,641 390 800

Resistant plantain (RELEASE)

1,696 7,566 3,393 15,133 247 50

Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 1*

2,014 9,772 – – 836 –

Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 2**

1,810 8,799 – – 738 –

Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 3***

1,489 7,200 – – 639 –

Foc B: Integrated Management

817 3,938 1,634 7,875 79 157

Foc C: Resistant cultivars

1,475 7,204 2,950 14,408 430 865

Foc D: GM resistant cultivars

306 1,371 612 2,743 44 89

BBTV = Banana Bunchy Top virus; BXW = Banana Xanthomonas wilt; Foc = Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense
Remarks: Lower adoption scenario: analysis with 50% lower adoption ceiling; *Scenario 1: Doubling of arrival time and 50 percent reduced increase of loss rate (12.50%) once Foc reaches the country as compared to a scenario without intervention; **Scenario 2: Arrival time as in Scenario 1 minus 5 years; 50 percent reduced increase of loss rate (12.50%) once Foc reaches the country; ***Scenario 3: Arrival time as in Scenario 1 minus 5 years; 25 percent reduced increase of loss rate (18.75%) once Foc reaches the country;
Source: Results of Strategic Assessment of Banana Research Priorities

The last two columns in the table show the results of the calculation of the estimated poverty reduction effects of the different research options. These results show a different “ranking” of research options. The expected number of poor persons lifted out of poverty is partly determined by the magnitude of the Net Present Value, which is an input used for the calculation.

The model also adjusts for the specific region where benefits will occur by including national poverty indicators and region-specific elasticities. As a consequence, research options that have a high share of adoption predicted within Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., breeding for resistant EAHB) rank higher using this performance indicator and those with larger share of adoption in Latin America and the Caribbean (e.g., breeding for resistant plantain varieties) rank lower.

The following table displays information about the regional distribution of the adoption area for the different research options. We note that these numbers are determined by the choice of countries to be included and, although resource persons have compiled the lists of countries to be included based on the severity/presence of the constraint or the suitability of the new technology, there may be scope to broaden the target region(s) and/or adapt the innovations in question to other areas. Also, the regional distribution of benefits is not only driven by the adoption area, but also by other parameters used in the model, such as productivity and cost effects, crop prices, and likely success rate.

Technology

Adoption area after 25 years (higher adoption scenario)

Africa

Latin America & Carribean

Asia/Pacific

ALL

[‘000 ha]

Share [%]

[‘000 ha]

Share [%]

[‘000 ha]

Share [%]

[‘000 ha]

Recovery from BBTV

706 87 – – 101 13 807

BXW management: GM-resistant varieties

872 100 – – – – 872

BXW management: cultural practices

1,287 100 – – – – 1,287

Cropping system intensification

1,051 84 69 5 134 11 1,253

Resistant EAHB (NEW)

1,185 100 – – – – 1,185

Resistant EAHB (RELEASE)

795 100 – – – – 795

Resistant plantain (NEW)

646 62 371 35 31 3 1,049

Resistant plantain (RELEASE)

548 61 315 35 35 4 898

Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 1*

203 46 44 10 194 44 441

Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 2**

181 46 39 10 175 44 396

Foc A: Quarantine – Scenario 3***

157

47 39 12 135 41 330

Foc B: Integrated Management

6 2 21 6 317 92 344

Foc C: Resistant cultivars

217 35 23 4 373 61 614

Foc D: GM resistant cultivars

18 14 3 2 106 83 127

BBTV = Banana Bunchy Top virus; BXW = Banana Xanthomonas wilt; Foc = Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense

Remarks: Lower adoption scenario: analysis with 50% lower adoption ceiling; *Scenario 1: Doubling of arrival time and 50 percent reduced increase of loss rate (12.50%) once Foc reaches the country as compared to a scenario without intervention; **Scenario 2: Arrival time as in Scenario 1 minus 5 years; 50 percent reduced increase of loss rate (12.50%) once Foc reaches the country; ***Scenario 3: Arrival time as in Scenario 1 minus 5 years; 25 percent reduced increase of loss rate (18.75%) once Foc reaches the country; Given that quarantine and surveillance measures are executed at the national level, we assumed that all farmers “adopt” or benefit from the technology once the country implements the Foc A quarantine schemes. The Foc A figures in this table represent only the area where Foc would spread and could be contained;

Source: Results of Strategic Assessment of Banana Research Priorities

Download the PDF Here

6.4. Sensitivity analysis

Photo Credit: R. Swennen KU Leuven/Bioversity International

All ex ante assessments are trying to predict future outcomes of (hypothetical) investments and the results are based on (expert) estimates of the costs and effects. It is thus very reasonable to ask how robust the results of the priority assessment are considering the large uncertainty involved in estimating parameters and making assumptions on future events. In most cases, the experts are too optimistic with regard to the future adoption and the effect of a new technology. To address this problem, it is good practise to conduct a sensitivity analysis which helps explore how sensitive the results of the assessment are to changes in the estimates of key variables.

For the sensitivity analysis we have focused on those parameters which we have elicited from the resource persons (i.e. experts) rather than model inherent parameters (such as elasticities or discount rates) or those parameters populated based on (inter)national statistics (e.g. banana production area, yield or  farm-gate prices). In order to keep this section (and the number of scenarios) manageable, we focused on the most crucial parameters which at the same time seem most prone to overly optimistic assumptions.

  • The key parameter driving the assessment is the adoption area of the new technology. In the results section you have seen that we have already included a much more conservative “low adoption” scenario which assumes a 50% lower adoption ceiling. For the purpose of testing the robustness of our results, we have gone even further and tested if investments would still be profitable if adoption was only 25% of what experts predicted. Even under this extremely conservative scenario, all assessed research options reach positive Net Present Values and the Internal Rates of Return are well above the 10% benchmark level. Since a reduced adoption ceiling affects all research options in the same way, the ranking of the research options is not changed.
  • Furthermore, everything always takes more time than initially anticipated, thus we considered a later start of benefits. Delays in adoption are common and could be caused by e.g. a longer research period than anticipated, and/or delays in the subsequent out-scaling and dissemination efforts which ensure the technology is available to the farmers. We assumed that adoption would start 2 years later than originally planned, while keeping the adoption ceiling and pace at the same level. While this reduces Net Present Values and Internal Rates of Return for all research options (and considerably so for some), all research options would still be ranked as economically viable investments.
  • Only when combining the two scenarios outlined above, i.e. computing the results for much reduced adoption AND a delay, the Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return indicators slip for some research options.

In summary, our sensitivity analysis shows that the results of the priority assessment are robust even under rather extreme scenarios such as much lower (only 25%) adoption or delays. If you are interested in the detailed results of the sensitivity analysis for (a) specific research option(s), please have a look at the sensitivity analysis section of our report.

Knowledge toolkit

  • 1. Identification of major constraints and opportunities
    • 1.1. Summary of expert survey process
    • 1.2. Kampala workshop outcome
  • 2. Formulation of research options
  • 3. Methodology for assessment
    • 3.1. Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • 3.2. Poverty effects model
    • 3.3. Estimation of the number of potential beneficiares
  • 4. Elicitation process and information sources
  • 5. Parameter estimates and underlying assumptions
  • 6. Results
  • 7. Limitations and lessons learned
  • 8. Survey
file_downloadDownload full Report
                             
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.