Impacts of aflatoxin contamination    on livelihoods of the poor households                                Marites Tiongco...
Used semi-structuredinterviews and focus groupdiscussions(value chainapproach):• Role of maize in people’s   livelihoods (...
• Conducted household surveys t o 1344 HHs in    Kenya (from 120 sublocations in 6 AEZ)+ 300    HHs from prevalence sample...
Number of                             households                 Number of       per     Number of                 subloca...
All                Dry          Dry Mid-         Moist Mid-       Moist                                        Household  ...
Low     Dry Mid-                                            Moist                      Tropics altitudes    Dry          M...
Dry         Dry Mid-      Moist Mid- Moist       High                         All                       TransitionalAltitu...
Dry          Dry Mid-        Moist Mid- Moist        High                        All                                      ...
dry mid-altitutes  moist mid-altitudes      lowland tropics      dry transitional    moist transitional         high tropi...
Low    Dry Mid-           Dry       Moist      High    Moist Mid-        All                    Tropics   altitudes Transi...
   Share of income from maize production to    total household income on average is small    because of diversified incom...
   Estimate the productivity loss in terms of    human health effects   Investigate if there are differences in income  ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Impacts of aflatoxin contamination on livelihoods of the poor households

987

Published on

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
987
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Impacts of aflatoxin contamination on livelihoods of the poor households

  1. 1. Impacts of aflatoxin contamination on livelihoods of the poor households Marites Tiongco, IFPRI on behalf of the Aflacontrol team November 30, 2011International Food Policy Research Institute Uniformed Services University of the Health SciencesInternational Center for the Improvement of Maize ACDI/VOCA/Kenya Maize Development Programand Wheat Kenya Agricultural Research InstituteInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi- Institut d’Economie RuraleArid Tropics The Eastern Africa Grain CouncilUniversity of Pittsburgh
  2. 2. Used semi-structuredinterviews and focus groupdiscussions(value chainapproach):• Role of maize in people’s livelihoods (diversified by gender)• Production, storage, marketing practices• Sources of information regarding inputs, improving production practices, disease, market information Kenya – 6 villages – 3 east; 3 west• Knowledge about aflatoxin risk
  3. 3. • Conducted household surveys t o 1344 HHs in Kenya (from 120 sublocations in 6 AEZ)+ 300 HHs from prevalence sample;• Main objective is to assess the effect of “aflatoxin contamination” on income and wealth.• We take the farm household as the unit of analysis• Treat aflatoxin contamination as a negative externality to the production function• Measure health costs and production costs (including aflatoxin contamination)
  4. 4. Number of households Number of per Number of sublocation sublocaton householdLowland Tropics 15 6 90Dry mid-altitudes 18 12 217Dry transitional 18 12 203MoistTransitional 30 12 354Moist Mid-altitudes 20 12 240Highlands 20 12 240total 1344 Sample of 217 HHs from districts that experienced aflatoxicosis outbreak in 2004 in Kenya—151 HHs are in dry transitional and 66 are in dry mid altitude)
  5. 5. All Dry Dry Mid- Moist Mid- Moist Household Transitional Altitudes Altitude Transitional High Tropics Low Tropics sProportion offemalehouseholdheads 19% 22% 25% 14% 17% 8% 18%Householdheads age(years) 55 52 52 52 52 52 52Householdheads yearsof education 7 6 7 7 7 7 7Years offarmingexperience 29 28 24 27 26 24 26
  6. 6. Low Dry Mid- Moist Tropics altitudes Dry Moist High Mid- All Transitional Transitional Tropics Altitude HouseholdsHousehold size 6 6 6 6 6 8 6Proportion ofchildren (<15 yearsold) in thehousehold 39% 41% 49% 37% 41% 48% 42% (<5 years old) 11% 12% 12% 10% 10% 12% 11%Annual income (in1000 KShs) 157,961 98,474 106,982 368,925 188,811 142,727 200,298Share of incomefrom maize to totalannual income 20.5% 28.9% 26.2% 9.3% 22.0% 21.7% 16.5%
  7. 7. Dry Dry Mid- Moist Mid- Moist High All TransitionalAltitudes Altitude TransitionalTropics Low Tropics HouseholdsMaize area 2010 (ha) 4.1 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.5Maize produced2010 (kg) 1384 1272 1404 1736 1960 1367 1561Maize yield (kg/ha) 385 316 375 878 1228 487 672Maize sold 2010 (kg) 1321 230 219 1648 369 193 693Households sellingmaize (%) 26% 29% 23% 25% 37% 13% 26%
  8. 8. Dry Dry Mid- Moist Mid- Moist High All Low Tropics Transitional Altitudes Altitude Transitional Tropics HouseholdsCash transfersand others 21.5% 29.4% 27.2% 22.1% 43.0% 26.7% 26.8% Maizeproduction 20.5% 28.9% 26.2% 9.3% 22.0% 21.7% 16.5%Salaryemployment 27.8% 17.6% 22.1% 6.3% 12.5% 26.5% 13.2%Cash crop(tea,coffee) 4.0% 1.1% 5.9% 12.9% 26.0% 1.7% 11.9%Food crops(includes F&V) 6.7% 8.4% 14.8% 5.2% 15.4% 18.0% 8.9%Livestock 2.5% 7.8% 5.1% 3.0% 9.2% 2.5% 4.5%Off-farm work 6.2% 10.0% 5.2% 1.6% 2.8% 4.2% 3.5%Number ofincome sources 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
  9. 9. dry mid-altitutes moist mid-altitudes lowland tropics dry transitional moist transitional high tropics 0 2 4 6 8 p 50 of hfiasNote: The Household Food Insecurity Index (Coates et al) ranges from 0 -27 with 0 being the least food insecure and 27 being the most foodinsecure. Given the food insecurity situation, the most vulnerable todemand shocks would be the poorest among the poor HHs.
  10. 10. Low Dry Mid- Dry Moist High Moist Mid- All Tropics altitudes Transitional Transitional Tropics altitudes Households50% loss inproduction +50% fall in price 17% 21% 18% 12% 13% 16% 14%50% reductionin price of maize 11% 14% 12% 8% 8% 11% 10%70% reductionin price of maize 16% 20% 17% 11% 12% 15% 14%50% increase inprice (effect onnet buyers) 32% 63% 54% 30% 46% 37% 30% Note: Income changes are higher for those HHs with higher share of income from maize; income effects on average are small
  11. 11.  Share of income from maize production to total household income on average is small because of diversified income sources Income changes are higher for those households with higher share of income from maize Income effects due to price changes are significant relative to maize income  increase in prices affects net buyers more
  12. 12.  Estimate the productivity loss in terms of human health effects Investigate if there are differences in income effects between high risk and low risk areas using prevalence data
  1. ¿Le ha llamado la atención una diapositiva en particular?

    Recortar diapositivas es una manera útil de recopilar información importante para consultarla más tarde.

×