Impact of cowpea breeding and storage research in Cameroon - IITA

Cowpea postharvest and socioeconomic studies
Research and extension costs
Allocation of research and extension costs is one of the most difficult parts of economic
impact assessment. The allocation of such resources is seldom as clear as the theory suggests.
A key problem is the cumulative nature of science. Scientific discoveries today
are built on the research of the past and are the foundation of future work. An additional
problem is the broad responsibility of most public sector agricultural research organizations.
A team, such as the Purdue/IRAD group, is seldom able to focus exclusively on a
narrow set of problems, but must respond to producer and consumer concerns on a wide
range of issues.
In allocating costs, the cumulative nature of science is dealt with following the logic
suggested by Masters et al. (1996). All costs related to decisions that were already made
when the CRSP and IRA decided to initiate cowpea storage research are considered sunk
costs and not charged to the project. Thus, costs incurred by IITA in developing the genetic
materials that became part of the parentage of the new CRSP varieties are not charged
to the Purdue/IRAD project. Similarly, costs incurred by CRSP and other organizations
in developing and extending BR1 and BR2 are not charged to the storage project even if
BR1 and BR2 were among the parents of the new varieties, and even if the extension of
BR1 and BR2 created a precedent that other new varieties can follow.
The principal use in allocation of costs is that the intellectual debt to previous researchers
is acknowledged, but the cost of previous research is not added in. Similarly, benefits
of the project for future research are discussed, but not deducted from the research and
extension costs. The benefits of the “sweet cowpea” variety that was discovered during
the development of the new varieties are not included in this analysis.
The diverse responsibilities of many agricultural researchers are often more difficult
to deal with than previous research and extension. Often there is no good way to allocate
time and resources. Field trials may be done at the same site and cared for by the same
technicians. A computer and software purchased by one organization is also used incidentally
to analyze data from a related effort. For example, after the CRSP collaboration
with IRAD was refocused on storage, some effort continued on the previous agronomy
research, especially in the first few years of the storage effort. For this analysis all costs
incurred by CRSP in Cameroon and for Cameroon, and by IRAD for CRSP collaboration
are treated as being for development of the postharvest technologies and the new varieties.
It is acknowledged that this probably overstates the cost of research, but given the lack of
information on researcher time and resource allocation it is the only practical solution.
Bean–Cowpea CRSP expenditures are taken from accounting records at Purdue University
and at the CRSP Management Office at Michigan State University. The CRSP amounts
represent two categories of expenditure: those in Cameroon by CRSP and by IRAD and
those made in the US explicitly for IRAD. A typical example of the “for Cameroon”
expenditure is the purchase of scientific equipment in the US for shipment to Cameroon.
Expenditure for short-term training is included. Long-term training typically has objectives
beyond the development of specific technology and is not included in research costs for
this analysis. The CRSP is a collaboration with benefits expected on both sides. The US
costs are assumed to be paid for by US side benefits. The IRAD costs are those reported
by the Institute to the CRSP as their contribution to the overall cowpea effort.
In Cameroon, the Purdue/IRAD team worked closely with the National Cereals
Research and Extension (NCRE) project. This occurred in particular with the on-farm
418