Moz agric extension-contact-farmers_zambezi-valley

  • 74 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
74
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Seeing is Believing? Evidence from aDemonstration Plot Experiment inMozambique Florence Kondylis Valerie Mueller (Presenter) IFPRI Workshop Mozambique Strategy and Support Program October 18, 2012INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1
  • 2. 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
  • 3. IE of Extension Activities withinSmallholders’ 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
  • 4. 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
  • 5. 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
  • 6. Households in Smallholder Survey 6
  • 7. Variation in Proximity to CFs 7
  • 8. Similarity of CFs 2.5 2 1.5Density 1 .5 0 -.5 0 .5 1 Soico-Economic Distance Farmers in Treatment 1 Farmers in Treatment 2 Farmers in Control 1 8
  • 9. Effects of Demonstration PlotsYi,h,j=β0+β1MCFj+ β2FCFj+β3Xi,h,j+εi,h,j. Y: Knowledge and AdoptionMCF: 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 ofmales and females by age categories, numberof rooms in the house, housing wall and roofmaterials, average education of adults, totallandholdings, enumerator and ap dummies. 9
  • 10. Knowledge and Adoption Knowledge Self-reported SR Objective Score Adoption No. of No. of dummy SLM SLM adopted adoptedAll (N=6078) (N=5395) (N=5395) (N=5395)MCF -0.001 -0.016 -0.037 -0.065FCF 0.007 0.024 0.080* 0.081**Mean 0.24 0.82 1.33 1.06Females (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 1.06Males (N=2479) (N=2295) (N=2295) (N=2295)MCF -0.001 -0.015 -0.046 -0.039FCF 0.003 0.022 0.055 0.050Mean 0.25 0.84 1.39 1.07 10
  • 11. Source of SLM Learning MCF FCF Extension agentAll (N=5395)MCF 0.009 0.006 -0.02*FCF 0.022 0.037*** 0.03**Mean 0.14 0.01 0.06Females (N=3100)MCF 0.007 0.006 -0.015FCF 0.020 0.033*** 0.029***Mean 0.12 0.01 0.04Males (N=2295)MCF 0.017 0.008 -0.030*FCF 0.029 0.042*** 0.033Mean 0.17 0.01 0.09 11
  • 12. 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
  • 13. Peer teachers versus CFs% adopted by Females MalesMCF -0.014 -0.042 -0.007 -0.033FCF 0.029 -0.016 -0.051 0.105Share of female peer teachers 0.998* 0.485MCF*Share of female teachers 0.098 -0.173FCF*Share of female teachers -0.392 0.631*Share of male peer teachers -0.464 0.264MCF*Share of male teachers 0.400 0.120FCF*Share of male teachers 0.091 -0.728 13
  • 14. Peer teachers versus CFsAvg. SLM techniques Females MalesadoptedMCF 0.084 -0.352 -0.338 0.052FCF 0.079 -0.228 -0.126 0.245Share of female peer teachers 4.574 -1.356MCF*Share of female teachers -1.373* 2.189FCF*Share of female teachers -1.050 1.926Share of male peer teachers -2.849 4.276**MCF*Share of male teachers 2.987* -1.607FCF*Share of male teachers 1.995 -1.479 14
  • 15. 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