Exploring the Scope of Cost-Effective Aflatoxin Risk Reduction Strategies in Maize and Groundnut Value Chains to Improve M...
Facilitated by IFPRI<br />With funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation<br />
Motivation for project<br />Economic losses estimated to be large -dearth of systematic studies that empirically estimate<...
Markets/Trade and Aflatoxin<br /> Center for Disease Control has estimated that <br />more than 4.5 billion people in deve...
Project goal<br />	To identify pro-poor cost-effective aflatoxin risk-reduction strategies in order to assess the uptake o...
Study areas<br />Kenya: <br /> Nyanza province (west) – transect from Kisii to Homa Bay (high - low elevations) <br />Uppe...
Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Economic Impact – Obj 1<br /><ul><li>Health
Household level analysis  (Income, Gender)
Trade</li></ul>Perceptions of aflatoxin and WTP– Obj 4<br /><ul><li>KAPP (Knowledge Attitudes Perception Practices)
  Contingent Valuation (Willingness to pay/ to accept)</li></ul>Risk Analysis-Obj 3<br /><ul><li>Risk maps
Risk assessment
Cost benefit/and Cost effectiveness analysis</li></ul>Endpoints of interest: exposure <br />Market access/ income/ poverty...
Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Economic Impact <br /><ul><li>Health
Household level analysis  (Income, Gender)
Trade</li></li></ul><li>Estimate the economic impacts of aflatoxin contamination on health consequences, trade and livelih...
Regulations and trade flows <br />Mycotoxins regulations impose costs on the producers that could take the form of both va...
How to estimate health losses: Aflatoxin risk assessment<br />Dose-response / health effects<br />Dose-response effects we...
Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Economic Impact <br /><ul><li>Health
Household level analysis  (Income, Gender)
Trade</li></ul>Disease Prevalence  <br />-Prevelance of Aflatoxin contamination along value chains in different ecological...
Develop a database of the prevalence of aflatoxin along the value chain and the effectiveness of control strategies for gr...
Household level analysis  (Income, Gender)
Trade</li></ul>Risk Analysis-Obj 3<br /><ul><li>Risk maps
Risk assessment
Cost benefit/and Cost effectiveness analysis</li></ul>Disease Prevalence  <br />-Collection of prevelance data along value...
PERFORM RISK ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY COST-EFFECTIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING AFLATOXIN RISK. <br />How does risk of Af...
Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Perceptions of aflatoxin and WTP– Obj 4<br /><ul><li>KAPP (Knowledge Attitudes Perce...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Exploring the Scope of Cost Effective Aflatoxin Risk Reduction Strategies

1,848 views
1,775 views

Published on

Outline of the Aflacontrol Project: Exploring the Scope of Cost Effective Aflatoxin Risk Reduction Strategies in in Maize and Groundnut Value chains to improve market access and health of the poor in Africa

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,848
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Point – we emphasize market reallocation effect that encompasses the two effects above
  • The WTP (cost and benefit) values that will be captured through SPM can be used in CBA/CEA to identify efficient and effective aflatoxin control and testing technologiesnon-market valuation methods . These methods will be used because most of these technologies are not currently marketed and hence do not have readily available market prices
  • This applies to both Kenya and Mali. In addition there is concern over collecting soil samples in addition to collecting grain samples. Preliminary results from Mali and Kenya, as well as discussions with extension officers in Kenya revealed that there are certain regions with high levels of aflatoxins in the soils. If approved this is going to require bringing in additional funds and also including University of Nairobi as additional partner to the project.
  • Exploring the Scope of Cost Effective Aflatoxin Risk Reduction Strategies

    1. 1. Exploring the Scope of Cost-Effective Aflatoxin Risk Reduction Strategies in Maize and Groundnut Value Chains to Improve Market Access and Health of the Poor in Africa<br />Pippa Chenevix Trench, Project manager, IFPRI<br />Clare Narrod, Project lead researcher, IFPRI<br />International Food Policy Research Institute<br />International Center for the Improvement of Maize<br /> and Wheat <br />International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics <br />University of Pittsburgh<br />Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences <br />ACDI/VOCA/Kenya Maize Development Program<br />Kenya Agricultural Research Institute <br />Institutd’EconomieRurale<br />The Eastern Africa Grain Council <br />
    2. 2. Facilitated by IFPRI<br />With funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation<br />
    3. 3. Motivation for project<br />Economic losses estimated to be large -dearth of systematic studies that empirically estimate<br />economic losses (health, income) for all stakeholders along the value chain<br />economic impact of interventions<br /> socio-economic factors affecting adoption<br />Number of biological studies on control options; hasn’t been large scale adoption.<br />
    4. 4. Markets/Trade and Aflatoxin<br /> Center for Disease Control has estimated that <br />more than 4.5 billion people in developing countries <br />are chronically exposed to aflatoxins in their diets.<br />Market loss occurs when:<br />Food IS monitored for aflatoxin: Buyers pay lower prices for or reject contaminated food (developed nations, local or international trade)<br />Animals become sick from aflatoxin consumption<br />Health loss occurs when:<br />Food IS NOT monitored for aflatoxin: Dangerous levels enter food supply (developing nations)<br />4<br />
    5. 5. Project goal<br /> To identify pro-poor cost-effective aflatoxin risk-reduction strategies in order to assess the uptake of these strategies and to suggest interventions that ensure high rates of adoptability along value chains.<br />
    6. 6. Study areas<br />Kenya: <br /> Nyanza province (west) – transect from Kisii to Homa Bay (high - low elevations) <br />Upper East – transect from Embu to Mbeere (high - low lands) <br />Lower East transect that includes Machakos and Makueni districts. <br />
    7. 7. Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Economic Impact – Obj 1<br /><ul><li>Health
    8. 8. Household level analysis (Income, Gender)
    9. 9. Trade</li></ul>Perceptions of aflatoxin and WTP– Obj 4<br /><ul><li>KAPP (Knowledge Attitudes Perception Practices)
    10. 10. Contingent Valuation (Willingness to pay/ to accept)</li></ul>Risk Analysis-Obj 3<br /><ul><li>Risk maps
    11. 11. Risk assessment
    12. 12. Cost benefit/and Cost effectiveness analysis</li></ul>Endpoints of interest: exposure <br />Market access/ income/ poverty reduction<br />2) Health<br />Disease Prevelance -Obj 2 <br />-Collection of prevelance data along value chains (with and without control measures) in different ecological zones<br />Communication and Advocacy – Obj 5<br />
    13. 13. Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Economic Impact <br /><ul><li>Health
    14. 14. Household level analysis (Income, Gender)
    15. 15. Trade</li></li></ul><li>Estimate the economic impacts of aflatoxin contamination on health consequences, trade and livelihoods. <br />What are the economic costs of Aflatoxin contamination in terms of <br />Lost income at the household level ( Marites Tiongco, IFPRI)<br />Health impacts (Felicia Wu & Clare Narrod, IFPRI)<br />Lost trade at the national level? (Devesh Roy, IFPRI, Abdul Munasib, Oklahoma State University)<br />
    16. 16. Regulations and trade flows <br />Mycotoxins regulations impose costs on the producers that could take the form of both variable and fixed costs. <br />Three types of effects: <br />Volume of trade effect – Already trading could trade less, <br />Missing trade or lost trade effect–Producers/countries could be screened off the export market. The ones to be screened off the export markets would be the ones comparatively less productive <br />Market reallocation effect – Exporters could reallocate their supplies across markets including towards domestic markets. <br />
    17. 17. How to estimate health losses: Aflatoxin risk assessment<br />Dose-response / health effects<br />Dose-response effects well characterized for HCC<br />Global burden of aflatoxin-induced HCC already estimated (Liu & Wu 2010)<br />Increasing characterization for stunting (Gong et al. 2002, 2003, 2004; Okoth & Ohimbo 2006)<br />Exposure assessment<br />Secondary data<br />Primary data gathered from this study will be used to assess aflatoxin exposure in Kenya & Mali<br />Aflatoxin levels in food<br />Possible biomarker-related work<br />Best of all: possibly correlating foodborneaflatoxin with HUMAN aflatoxin biomarkers!<br />
    18. 18. Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Economic Impact <br /><ul><li>Health
    19. 19. Household level analysis (Income, Gender)
    20. 20. Trade</li></ul>Disease Prevalence <br />-Prevelance of Aflatoxin contamination along value chains in different ecological zones<br />
    21. 21. Develop a database of the prevalence of aflatoxin along the value chain and the effectiveness of control strategies for groundnuts in Mali and maize in Kenya.<br />What is the extent of Aflatoxin contamination along the value chain? <br />Where are the risks of Aflatoxin contamination highest?<br />How is contamination affected by farmers’ and traders’ storage practices, production practices, environmental factors?<br /><ul><li>George Mahuku, CIMMYT, Sila Njioki, KARI; Farid Waliyar, ICRISAT; Bamory Diarra, IER</li></li></ul><li>Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Economic Impact <br /><ul><li>Health
    22. 22. Household level analysis (Income, Gender)
    23. 23. Trade</li></ul>Risk Analysis-Obj 3<br /><ul><li>Risk maps
    24. 24. Risk assessment
    25. 25. Cost benefit/and Cost effectiveness analysis</li></ul>Disease Prevalence <br />-Collection of prevelance data along value chains (with and without control measures) in different ecological zones<br />
    26. 26. PERFORM RISK ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY COST-EFFECTIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING AFLATOXIN RISK. <br />How does risk of Aflatoxin contamination relate to environmental or climatic factors, and how does it vary over time and across geographical areas? (Develop predictive risk maps )<br />Howdoes the prevalence alter as the product moves along the value chain (risk assessment)<br />What are the cost and benefits of different technologies to reduce aflatoxin risk? (cost-benefit analysis)<br />Which Aflatoxin mitigation strategies provide the best value for money, and are most likely to be accepted by farmers, consumers and other actors in terms of costs and effectiveness? (cost-effectiveness analysis)<br />
    27. 27. Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Perceptions of aflatoxin and WTP– Obj 4<br /><ul><li>KAPP (Knowledge Attitudes Perception Practices)
    28. 28. Contingent Valuation (Willingness to pay/ to accept)</li></ul>Economic Impact <br /><ul><li>Health
    29. 29. Household level analysis (Income, Gender)
    30. 30. Trade</li></ul>Risk Analysis-Obj 3<br /><ul><li>Risk maps
    31. 31. Risk assessment
    32. 32. Cost benefit/and Cost effectiveness analysis</li></ul>Disease Prevalence <br />-Collection of prevelance data along value chains (with and without control measures) in different ecological zones<br />
    33. 33. Map the maize and groundnut value chain and investigate the knowledge, awareness, and perceptions of aflatoxins by the actors within those value chains as well as their willingness to adopt and pay for aflatoxin testing and control strategies <br />Who are the different value chain actors, and what are their roles and the relationships between them? <br />What knowledge, attitudes and perceptions exist among producers, consumers and other along the value chain about Aflatoxins? <br />What are farmers willing to pay for technologies to reduce aflatoxin risk? <br />And are consumers willing to pay extra for maize that is certified Aflatoxin free? <br />
    34. 34. Knowledge, Attitude, Practices & Perceptions (KAPP) studies<br />Questions related to farmers’ and other value chain actors’ :<br />Knowledge and awareness of aflatoxin (e.g., do they know what aflatoxin is, what causes it, how can it be identified)<br />Aflatoxin risk perceptions (e.g., aflatoxin’s impact on human and livestock health; impact of soil, rain, storage on aflatoxin risk)<br />Maize production/processing/consumption practices related to aflatoxin (e.g., what do they do with moldy maize, who consumes it, how can mold be minimized) <br />
    35. 35. Willingness to pay (WTP) studies<br />The contingent valuation method will be used to capture farmers’ and other value chain actors’ WTP for aflatoxin control technologies (M. Tiongco, IFPRI)<br />metal silos<br />seed less susceptible to aflatoxin<br />biocontrols<br />drying maize off the ground (tarpaulin)<br />BDM Auctions among farmers will be used to assess the willingness of farmers as consumers to pay a premium for maize that has been certified as Aflatoxin-free (H. De Groote, CIMMYT)<br />
    36. 36. 2009<br />Inception and stakeholder workshop<br />Net-mapping exercise<br />importance of various actors, opportunities for aflatoxin control, etc.<br />Identified study areas<br />Methodological briefs<br />
    37. 37. Ongoing work- Economic impacts, KAPP, and WTP<br />Finish risk assessment on health outcomes<br />Surveys almost complete among 2000 households/traders in Kenya<br />Analysis of economic impacts in terms of health consequences, income effects, KAPP, and WTP based on survey data<br />
    38. 38. Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Perceptions of aflatoxin and WTP– Obj 4<br /><ul><li>KAPP (Knowledge Attitudes Perception Practices)
    39. 39. Contingent Valuation (Willingness to pay/ to accept)</li></ul>Economic Impact <br /><ul><li>Health
    40. 40. Household level analysis (Income, Gender)
    41. 41. Trade</li></ul>Risk Analysis-Obj 3<br /><ul><li>Risk maps
    42. 42. Risk assessment
    43. 43. Cost benefit/and Cost effectiveness analysis</li></ul>Recommendations leading to:<br /><ul><li>Reduced contamination
    44. 44. Improved regulatory framework
    45. 45. Improved Public health awareness and reduced exposure to Aflatoxin</li></ul>Disease Prevalence <br />-Collection of prevelance data along value chains (with and without control measures) in different ecological zones<br />
    46. 46. Multi-disciplinary research team<br />Perceptions of aflatoxin and WTP– Obj 4<br /><ul><li>KAPP (Knowledge Attitudes Perception Practices)
    47. 47. Contingent Valuation (Willingness to pay/ to accept)</li></ul>Economic Impact <br /><ul><li>Health
    48. 48. Household level analysis (Income, Gender)
    49. 49. Trade</li></ul>Risk Analysis-Obj 3<br /><ul><li>Risk maps
    50. 50. Risk assessment
    51. 51. Cost benefit/and Cost effectiveness analysis</li></ul>Recommendations leading to:<br /><ul><li>Reduced contamination
    52. 52. Improved regulatory framework
    53. 53. Improved Public health awareness and reduced exposure to Aflatoxin</li></ul>Disease Prevalence <br />-Collection of prevelance data along value chains (with and without control measures) in different ecological zones<br />Communication and Advocacy <br />
    54. 54. Communication and advocacy – obj 5<br /><ul><li>With ACDI/VOCA disseminating results to stakeholders on ground</li></ul>Open for others to join, avoid duplication<br />Transparent, disclosure of interim findings<br />Collaborative & trans-disciplinary<br />Iterative, ongoing adjustments<br />Constructive peer review <br />End-user focused<br />http://programs.ifpri.org/afla/afla.asp<br />
    55. 55. Ongoing work-Prevalence data collection and risk mapping<br />2nd year of data on Aflatoxin prevalence<br />Data collection on effectiveness of control measures<br />Mapping prevalence data against environmental and climatic factors<br />
    56. 56. Maize event tree<br />
    57. 57. Next steps – Risk analysis work<br />Predictive risk maps using 2 years prevalance data<br />Risk assessment using 2 years prevalence data<br />Complete 2000 household and trader surveys<br />Cost-benefit analysis of control options<br />Cost-effectiveness analysis<br />
    58. 58. Current Team:<br />IFPRI: Clare Narrod, Devesh Roy, Marites Tiongco, Pippa Chenevix Trench, Rosie Scott, Will Collier, Maribel Elias<br />CIMMYT: Jonathan Hellin, Hugo DeGroote, George Mahuku, Simon Kimenju<br />ICRISAT: Farid Waliyar, Jupiter Ndjeunga (Mali)<br />University of Pittsburgh: Felicia Wu, Yan Liu, PornsriKhlangwiset<br />Uniformed Health Services: Judith Chamberlin, Penny Masuoka<br />ACDI/VOCA: Steve Collins, Stanley Guantai, Sophie Walker<br />KARI: Sila Nzioki, Charles Bett <br />IER: Bamory Diarra, O. Kodio, A Traore (Mali<br />

    ×