INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Seeing is Believing? Evidence from a Demonstration Plot Experiment in Mozambique

Florence Kondylis

Valerie Mueller (Presenter)

IFPRI Workshop

Mozambique Strategy and Support Program

October 18, 2012

1

Motivation

Extension services used to disseminate ag information

• Quality of information

• Lack of administrative-field work balance

• Source of information is important

• Women lack access

Contact Farmers (Moz and elsewhere)

• Link extension workers to farmers

• Low knowledge-high transaction costs

• Need clear set of activities to encourage visits from extensionist and improve CF knowledge

2

IE of Extension Activities within Smallholders’ Project

Educational agenda for extension agents—SLM (mulching, crop rotation, intercropping, reduced tillage,

micro-basins, contour farming, row planting, and improved

fallowing)

Improve quality of information by training both agents and CFs (October 2010)

Reduce transactional costs associated with CF knowledge transfer

• Demonstration plot within the community

• Toolkit which includes bicycle

Increase access to women—female CF

3

Evaluation Design

Market-led Smallholders Development in the Zambezi valley Project—GOM & World Bank

Census of communities in five districts of Tete, Sofala, and Zambezia provinces

Census of 200 communities to randomize

• 50 communities into control group

• 150 communities have male CF with training and demonstration plot

• 75 (of 150) also have a female CF with a demonstration plot to reach women

4

Survey

Pre and post-harvest survey in 2012 done by INE (February-April & May-June)

4,000 households in 200 communities

Household demographics, male and female knowledge of SLM and non-SLM practices, labor allocation, employment, and income, plot-specific info, and production

• GPS coordinates

• GPS measured adoption rates

Community, extension, and CF surveys

5

Households in Smallholder Survey

6

Variation in Proximity to CFs

7

Similarity of CFs

8

0.5

11

.52

2.5

Den

sity

-.5 0 .5 1Soico-Economic Distance

Farmers in Treatment 1

Farmers in Treatment 2

Farmers in Control 1

Effects of Demonstration Plots

Yi,h,j=β0+β1MCFj+ β2FCFj+β3Xi,h,j+εi,h,j.

Y: Knowledge and Adoption

MCF: Has a male contact farmer (T1 and T2)

FCF: Has a female contact farmer (T2)

X: individual gender, age, grades completed, marital status, number of children, number of males and females by age categories, number of rooms in the house, housing wall and roof materials, average education of adults, total landholdings, enumerator and ap dummies.

9

Knowledge and Adoption Knowledge Score

Self-reported Adoption dummy

SR No. of SLM adopted

Objective No. of SLM adopted

All (N=6078) (N=5395) (N=5395) (N=5395)

MCF -0.001 -0.016 -0.037 -0.065

FCF 0.007 0.024 0.080* 0.081**

Mean 0.24 0.82 1.33 1.06

Females (N=3599) (N=3100) (N=3100) (N=3100)

MCF -0.000 -0.018 -0.026 -0.087*

FCF 0.009* 0.026 0.097** 0.108**

Mean 0.24 0.82 1.28 1.06

Males (N=2479) (N=2295) (N=2295) (N=2295)

MCF -0.001 -0.015 -0.046 -0.039

FCF 0.003 0.022 0.055 0.050

Mean 0.25 0.84 1.39 1.07 10

Source of SLM Learning

MCF FCF Extension agent

All (N=5395)

MCF 0.009 0.006 -0.02*

FCF 0.022 0.037*** 0.03**

Mean 0.14 0.01 0.06

Females (N=3100)

MCF 0.007 0.006 -0.015

FCF 0.020 0.033*** 0.029***

Mean 0.12 0.01 0.04

Males (N=2295)

MCF 0.017 0.008 -0.030*

FCF 0.029 0.042*** 0.033

Mean 0.17 0.01 0.09

11

Learning Channels

Distinctions in access attenuate MCF effect?

• Proximity to the house of male CF affects knowledge

• Females far from male CF in T2 have reduced knowledge

Missing data from 2/3rds CFs

• Extension agents visit sites with FCF more?

NO

• Intensity of Treatment varies by Treatment?

Female contact farmers might have visited farmers more

12

Peer teachers versus CFs

% adopted by Females Males

MCF -0.014 -0.042 -0.007 -0.033

FCF 0.029 -0.016 -0.051 0.105

Share of female peer teachers 0.998* 0.485

MCF*Share of female teachers 0.098 -0.173

FCF*Share of female teachers -0.392 0.631*

Share of male peer teachers -0.464 0.264

MCF*Share of male teachers 0.400 0.120

FCF*Share of male teachers 0.091 -0.728

13

Peer teachers versus CFs

Avg. SLM techniques adopted

Females Males

MCF 0.084 -0.352 -0.338 0.052

FCF 0.079 -0.228 -0.126 0.245

Share of female peer teachers 4.574 -1.356

MCF*Share of female teachers -1.373* 2.189

FCF*Share of female teachers -1.050 1.926

Share of male peer teachers -2.849 4.276**

MCF*Share of male teachers 2.987* -1.607

FCF*Share of male teachers 1.995 -1.479

14

Discussion

Targeting women in extension increased their SLM and non-SLM knowledge and SLM adoption

Male CF may have no effect after 15 months; Evidence of male peers teaching women

Missing 2/3rds of FCFs. Project team verified they exist, so we will survey them soon

Future work

• Labor constraints to adoption

• Explore how to enhance existing CF structure by studying perceptions of contact farmers, the selection process and arrangements made between MCF and FCFs, gender-differentiated issues with trust, sharing information, soliciting advice, and risk aversion in round 2 (January 2013)

15