![The Blue Nile (Abbay) Basin ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (14)
Similar to Adoption and initial impacts of sustainable land and watershed management practices in the blue nile basin, ethiopia
Similar to Adoption and initial impacts of sustainable land and watershed management practices in the blue nile basin, ethiopia (20)
More from essp2
More from essp2 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Adoption and initial impacts of sustainable land and watershed management practices in the blue nile basin, ethiopia
- 1. Adoption and Initial Impacts of Sustainable Land and Watershed Management Practices in the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia Research Strategy and Initial Findings Emily Schmidt (IFPRI) Fanaye Tadesse (IFPRI) Kibrom Tafere (EDRI) IFPRI – ESSP2 Brown Bag Series December 15 th , 2010
- 7. Survey Sample SLM (World Bank and GTZ Sites) IWMI Nile BDC Sites Total Sample Woreda Ongoing SLM Program GTZ Planned SLM Program No Past or Planned Program Upstream Downstream Alefa 80 79 41 0 0 200 Fogera 0 0 1 160 44 205 Misrak Estie 80 80 39 0 0 199 Gozamin 80 80 40 0 0 200 Dega Damot 142 14 44 0 0 200 Mene Sibu 80 80 40 0 0 200 Diga 0 0 0 51 149 200 Jeldu 0 0 0 100 101 201 Toko Kutaye 83 80 42 0 0 205 Total 545 413 247 311 294 1,810
- 8. Watershed Survey Sample Sites
- 9. Cropping Patterns of Sample (5 main cereals and potatoes) Crop Total Hectares Share of area % farmers growing crop Mean hectares of farmers growing crop teff 719.9 25.8% 55.3% 0.719 barley 431.3 15.5% 45.9% 0.520 wheat 363.7 13.0% 42.5% 0.473 maize 818.9 29.3% 64.4% 0.703 sorghum 319.5 11.5% 27.9% 0.633 potatoes 136.8 4.9% 30.7% 0.246 Total 2,790.1 100.0% -- --
- 10. Cropping Patterns by Woreda (5 main cereals and potatoes) Share of Cultivated Area Alefa Fogera Misrak Estie Gozamin Dega Damot Mene Sibu Diga Jeldu Toko Kutaye Total Teff 32% 47% 31% 42% 5% 24% 7% 18% 38% 26% Barley 13% 11% 23% 12% 33% 0% 0% 35% 19% 15% Wheat 0% 0% 29% 24% 28% 0% 2% 21% 20% 13% Maize 36% 41% 2% 18% 14% 50% 64% 7% 13% 29% Sorghum 19% 0% 1% 0% 0% 25% 26% 8% 9% 11% Potato 1% 1% 14% 4% 21% 1% 1% 10% 0% 5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Hectares 195.4 287.1 262.4 214.5 194.0 315.2 496.5 398.8 426.2 2,790.1
- 11. Production Patterns by Woreda Mean Value Mean Total Mean Total Household Farm Size Production Expenditure Production/ Expenditure Size (hectares Major crops Woreda (Birr/HH/yr) (Birr/HH/yr) Expenditure (Dollars/HH/yr) (persons) / person) (area) Alefa 9,474 11,616 0.816 830 6.05 0.99 Maize (36%), Teff (32%) Fogera 16,246 7,787 2.086 556 5.41 1.44 Teff (47%), Maize (41%) Misrak Estie 5,391 11,316 0.476 808 5.54 1.32 Teff (31%), Wheat (29%) Gozamin 9,120 8,348 1.092 596 5.40 1.08 Teff (42%), Wheat (24%) Dega Damot 4,960 8,425 0.589 602 5.64 1.00 Barley (33%), Wheat (28%), Potatoes (21%) Mene Sibu 7,503 7,574 0.991 541 6.44 1.58 Maize (50%), Sorghum (25%), Teff (24%) Diga 17,580 12,044 1.460 860 5.96 2.48 Maize (64%), Sorghum (26%) Jeldu 8,554 13,407 0.638 958 6.62 1.98 Barley (35%), Wheat (21%) Toko Kutaye 8,142 15,831 0.514 1,131 6.60 2.10 Teff (38%), Wheat (20%), Barley (19%) Average 9,663 10,705 0.96 765 5.96 1.55 -
- 12. Households Using SLM on Private Land Ongoing SLM activities Yes No Total Alefa 50% 50% 100% Fogera 54% 46% 100% Misrak Estie 54% 46% 100% Gozamin 21% 79% 100% Dega Damot 82% 18% 100% Mene Sibu 7% 93% 100% Diga 32% 68% 100% Jeldu 2% 98% 100% Toko Kutaye 79% 21% 100% Total 40% 60% 100%
- 13. Number of households reporting activities implemented in the village Ongoing SLM activities (2)
- 14. Households who received assistance by type of support Ongoing SLM activities (3) Type of support Freq Percent. Advice on how to construct bunds or terraces for soil conservation 1,107 61% Advice on when to apply fertilizer 1,092 60% Advice on how to apply fertilizer 1,086 60% Advice on how to build drainage to reduce erosion 1,085 60% Assistance in obtaining fertilizer 1,031 57% Advice on the best time to plant crops 947 52% Assistance in obtaining improved seeds 920 51% Suggest new crops to grow 913 50% Advise on procurement of livestock vaccines 783 43% Advice or support of other veterinary services, including medicines 740 41% Advice on the construction of irrigation or water harvesting systems 705 39% Advice on how best to deal with insect infestations 689 38%
- 15. Households' perception of most important infrastructure built by public works or community organized programs Perception of SLM activities Most important 2nd Most important 3rd Most important Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent school 410 29.67 90 9.94 32 5.87 stone terrace 275 19.9 89 9.83 50 9.17 soil bund 137 9.91 149 16.46 45 8.26 check dam 104 7.53 50 5.52 30 5.5 access road 94 6.8 73 8.07 73 13.39 health post 82 5.93 77 8.51 18 3.3 trees planted 80 5.79 105 11.6 137 25.14 gully rehabilitation 60 4.34 18 1.99 12 2.2 pipe water 31 2.24 18 1.99 12 2.2
- 16. Households’ Response on Most Important type of Infrastructure Built (Number of Households) Perception of SLM activities (2)
- 17. Households' response on most Successful Sustainable Land Management activities (%) Perception of SLM activities (3)
- 18. Perception of SLM activities (4)
- 19. Average number of years the information providers said the households would have to wait to experience a benefit from program Perception of SLM activities (5) Woreda Construction of bunds or terraces Building drainage Irrigation/water harvesting system Alefa 2.38 2.10 1.29 Fogera 2.12 2.33 1.38 Misrak Estie 1.59 1.35 1.23 Gozamin 1.70 1.38 1.17 Dega Damot 2.12 1.72 1.60 Mene Sibu 1.74 1.47 1.56 Diga 1.17 1.80 1.14 Jeldu 1.50 1.50 2.00 Toko Kutaye 3.98 3.80 1.33
Editor's Notes
- [add mean hectares overall]
- (show 100% column sums)
- Why were the richest sites not using SLM? Initial analysis – income doesn’t correlate with SLM, so wanted to look at this. Mean total expenditure (column 4 varies by site). Think of sources of income: do farmers have larger farm size, higher value of agricultural production, or higher non-agricultural production. So, lets look at production – substantial variation in production: Fogera and Jeldu has very high value of production – Fogera – lot of teff and fairly large farms, and so mean value of production is very high, and the mean value is quite a bit higher than the expenditure value that we have. Possibly unusually good harvest, and invested. Diga also high incomes – it has very large farms – largest farms in sample and growing a lot of maize. Ag incomes are very high relative to expenditures. (bumper harvest?) Further cleaning on yield data which not showing here. Misrak Estie and Dega Damot – same agro-ecological zone, rather small farm sizes and rather large shares of non-farm income.
- This is an important slide!
- Percentage of all households? Can we get percentage of households who actually implemented these activities?
- Explain that dummies have been included for sites (fixed effects)
- What is average farm size; what percentage of sample has farm sizes greater than 2.6 hectares?
- I thought the instrumenting equation could use other exogenous variables that are included in the main regression.
- Add slide that gives mean values and number of observations of variables