Upload
essp2
View
72
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Community Assets and Crop Diversification:
Evidence from Ethiopia's PSNP
Getachew A. Abegaz (IFPRI)
Mateusz J. Filipski (IFPRI)
Motivation Crop diversity has welfare and efficiency benefits
Regenerates the environment and sustains varieties of genetic resources (Lipper and Cooper 2009).
Helps for diet diversity and poverty reduction (Hirvonen and Hoddinott 2014; Jeffrey and Josephson 2015).
Risk avoiding strategy (Benin et al. 2003; Falco and Chavas 2009; Mulumbaa et al. 2012).
These ecological, nutritional and efficiency benefits of crop diversification have an impact on improving household food security.
Motivation The public works wing of the PSNP have the potential to increase crop
diversity
Rural road construction-access to markets Soil and water conservation projects Construction of irrigation channels
Impact of projects goes beyond beneficiaries of the program
Previous works in this area Community assets on yield (Mekdim et al., 2013) Economy wide impacts on income through local income multipliers (Mateusz et
al., 2016)
This study attempts to test whether these projects have an impact on crop diversity in areas where these programs are active.
Community Assets and Crop Diversity
Decisions on diversity are limited by cultural, environmental, socio-economic factors and government policies (Bellon and Smale 1998).
The closer farmers are to markets, the more diversity (Metzel and Ateng 1993; Sichoongwe et al. 2014).
Low profitability, high input cost and risk in selling crop outputs limit diverisity (Metzel and Ateng 1993).
Community Assets and Crop Diversity Increasing proximity to markets help them
make seeds accessible for their farms (Lipper et al. 2010; Bellon 1996).
o 1- Market integration might also lead to
specialization and a decrease in crop diversity (Dusen, Eric, and Taylor 2005).
High improved and high yielding seedsEasier ways of selling of crop output
Community Assets and Crop Diversityo 2-Complementarities of inputs for crop diversification
or specialization
Diversity depend on other complementary factors– supply of irrigation water,– soil and water conservation activities.
E.g.: Irrigation water is a variable input that exhibits high degree of complementarities with other variable inputs especially inputs of high yielding crop varieties (Ellis, 1998)
Similar arguments can be made on the role of SWC for crop diversity
Community Assets and Crop Diversity
Community Assets and Crop Diversity
o 3- A U-shaped causal relationship between the extent of the market and the pattern of crop specialization in a village economy (Emran and Shilpi 2012).
Diversity initially increases with the extent of the market.
After the market size reaches a threshold, the production structure starts to specialize again.
So, whether PSNP projects might influence diversity or specialization is unknown a priori.
Data and Methods
The Ethiopian Food Security Surveys (a.k.a. PSNP datasets) collected to evaluate the program.
Surveys: 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012 surveys
Community and price surveys
Other data sets: Rainfall (NASA) and classification of agro-ecology by zone (EDRI SAM)
Data and Methods Crop diversity in terms of – Number of crops– Margalef, Shannon, and Simpson following from
Meng et al (1999),
Indices account for Reachness (i.e. the number of species
encountered in a given sampling)Evenness-distribution/allocation of land
Data and Methods
Data and Methods Making use of the PSNP panel data, a fixed
effects model was specified
Dit =crop diversity within householdCnit= cumulative number of projects in an EAXit =community, socioeconomic and household characteristics
Data and Methods
Possible interactions among projects were taken care of
Other community and household characteristics include – area cultivated, number of parcels, fertilizer applications– Number of livestock (TLU), PSNP payments– Agro-ecology, rainfall
Results
Crop Groups 2006 2008 2010 2012
All Grains 88.8 92.6 93.0 84.0
All Cereals 82.7 84.3 84.6 77.5
Teff 6.9 9.2 10.0 7.4
Other Cereals 75.8 75.0 74.6 70.0
Oil Seeds 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3
Pulses 5.0 7.1 7.3 5.3
Fruits 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Vegetables 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.3
Enset and Tubers 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.9
Cash Crops 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Other Crops 9.3 5.5 4.9 13.7
Patterns-share of area cultivated
Results
Results
Results
2006 2008 2010 20120
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
121
150
115 118114
145137
171
51
80
58
83
1525
19
36
Road Soil Tree planting Well IrrigationClinic & School
Number of PSNP public works projects
ResultsSummary stats of other covariates
Fixed effects estimates-IIndependent Variables
Model -INum. Marg. Shan. Simp.
Roads -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.03(0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)
Irrigation 0.30*** 0.03*** 0.06*** 0.12* (0.08) (0.01) (0.02) (0.06)Soil cons. 0.09*** 0.01** 0.04*** 0.08***
(0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Wells -0.05 -0.01 -0.02* -0.00 (0.04) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Tree planting -0.04 -0.00 -0.01 0.00 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Area of land cultivated 0.23*** 0.01*** 0.01 0.00 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Number of parcels 0.26*** 0.03*** 0.07*** 0.15*** (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Chemical fertilizer 0.00** 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)Number of livestock 0.01** 0.00** 0.00** 0.01*....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Results
Fixed effects estimates-IIIndependent variables Model- II
Num. Marg. Shan. Simp.Roads -0.04 -0.00* -0.00 0.01 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Irrigation 0.23*** 0.02*** 0.05** 0.08 (0.08) (0.01) (0.02) (0.06)Soil cons. 0.08*** 0.01** 0.04*** 0.08*** (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Wells -0.03 -0.00 -0.02* 0.00 (0.04) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Tree planting 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.02 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Roads & irrigation (int.) 0.07*** 0.01*** 0.01** 0.03*** (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Area of land cultivated 0.23*** 0.01*** 0.01 0.00 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Number of parcels 0.26*** 0.03*** 0.07*** 0.15*** (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Chemical fertilizer 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)Number of livestock 0.01** 0.00** 0.00** 0.01**
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Results
ResultsIndependent variables Model -III
Num. Marg. Shan. Simp.Roads -0.06 -0.01 0.01 0.08** (0.05) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Irrigation 0.29*** 0.03*** 0.06*** 0.12* (0.09) (0.01) (0.02) (0.06)Soil cons. 0.10** 0.01** 0.07*** 0.20*** (0.04) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Wells -0.01 -0.00 -0.01 0.07 (0.07) (0.01) (0.02) (0.05)Tree planting 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.01 (0.05) (0.01) (0.02) (0.04)Roads & irrigation (int.) 0.14*** 0.02*** 0.04*** 0.13*** (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Roads & soil cons. (int.) 0.01 0.00 -0.01** -0.03*** (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Irrigation & wells (int.) 0.12*** 0.02*** 0.01 0.04 (0.05) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Roads & wells (int.) -0.02 -0.00 -0.00 -0.03** (0.02) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01)Roads & tree planting (int.) -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 -0.01 (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Area of land cultivated 0.23*** 0.01*** 0.01 0.00 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Number of parcels 0.26*** 0.03*** 0.06*** 0.14*** (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Chemical fertilizer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)Number of livestock 0.01** 0.00** 0.00** 0.01**
Fixed effects estimates-III
Total impact for the average EA
Models Project Average impact per period
Average # of projects per EA in all PSNP
Total for the average EA
Model I
Irrigation 0.30 1.25 0.37
SWC 0.09 2.60 0.23
Public works contribution to diversity (crops/farmer) 0.61
Model II
Irrigation 0.29 1.25 0.36
SWC 0.10 2.60 0.26
Roads and Irrigation 0.07 2.87 0.20
Public works contribution to diversity (crops/farmer) 0.82
Model II
Irrigation 0.23 1.25 0.29
SWC 0.08 2.60 0.21
Roads and Irrigation 0.14 2.87 0.40
Public works contribution to diversity (crops/farmer) 0.90
Results
Conclusion and implications
On average farmers grow 3.8 crops during the four years with
3.6 in 2010 and 4.3 in 2012.
Diversity increases with the number of PSNP irrigation and
soil conservation projects
There is also an interaction among PSNP projects
In implementing these projects, stakeholders identifying
project requirements should consider the interactions among
projects
Thank you