Cooperatives, urban proximity, and efficiency in teff production

380 views

Published on

International Food Policy Research Institute/ Ethiopia Strategy Support Program (IFPRI/ ESSP)and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI) Coordinated a conference with Agriculutral Transformation Agency (ATA) and Ministry of Agriculutrue (MoA) on Teff Value Chain at Hilton Hotel Addis Ababa on October 10, 2013.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
380
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cooperatives, urban proximity, and efficiency in teff production

  1. 1. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Cooperatives, urban proximity, and efficiency in teff production Getu Hailu 1 and Bart Minten 2 1University of Guelph, Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics 2International Food Policy Research Institute, Ethiopia Strategy Support Program Conference on improved evidence towards better policies for the teff value chain Thursday October 10th, 2013, Hilton, Addis Ababa
  2. 2. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Motivation Motivations Food security Trade and competitiveness Cooperatives and community groups Investment in road construction, R&D Benefits of urban proximity - agglomeration economies Mechanisms Technology adoptions Increase in scale of operation Improvement in efficiency or management of technology
  3. 3. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Research questions Does co-operative membership have effect on technical efficiency of teff producers? Does proximity to urban areas have effect on technical efficiency of teff producers? Do participation in teff producer community meetings have effect on technical efficiency of teff producers?
  4. 4. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Data and method Survey of teff producers in major producing areas: 1,200 teff farmers were selected, 240 farmers per zone (i.e., East Gojjam, West Gojjam, East Shoa, West Shoa, South West Shoa) Teff inputs (e.g., seed, fertilizer) and output Plot and farmer characteristics Land (plot) productivity is measured as teff yield per hectare productivity = Teff output land input (1) Technical efficiency is measured using stochastic frontier: a measure of best management practice for a given technology
  5. 5. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Land productivity distribution (Quintal per ha)
  6. 6. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Seed variety and land productivity (Quintal per ha) East Gojjam West Gojjam East Shoa West Shoa S.West Shoa All Quncho 17 13 16 10 9 14 Traditional 14 10 11 9 7 10 Diff (%) 18 37 44 7 24 35
  7. 7. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Co-operatives, community meetings and land productivity Agricultural Cooperatives East Gojjam West Gojjam East Shoa West Shoa S. West Shoa Member 13.94 11.67 12.20 9.14 7.86 Not member 13.86 8.26 11.16 8.46 7.88 Diff(%) 0.57 41.28 9.31 7.99 -0.26 Community meetings < 5meetings 13.73 9.77 11.62 8.87 7.69 ≥ 5meetings 14.68 13.67 12.91 8.63 8.89 Diff(%) 6.96 39.95 11.10 -2.68 15.58
  8. 8. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Proximity to market and productivity Market East Gojjam West Gojjam East Shoa West Shoa S. West Shoa < 100min 14.05 11.43 12.48 9.43 7.71 ≥ 100min 13.65 6.27 10.53 8.27 8.27 Diff(%) 2.89 82.46 18.53 14.12 -6.72 All Weather East Gojjam West Gojjam East Shoa West Shoa S West Shoa < 100min 14.76 11.66 11.76 8.86 7.77 ≥ 100min 11.08 7.30 10.80 8.67 8.61 Diff(%) 33.17 59.61 8.91 2.15 -9.79
  9. 9. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Factor affecting teff land productivity Seed: variety (Quncho) and color (Magna) (+) Fertilizer: DAP and UREA (+) Location: east Gojjam higher yield per hectare (+) Ploughing: ease and frequency (+) Producer club: participation in teff related community meetings (+) Urban proximity: proximity to market and all weather road (+) Mobile phone ownership (+) Transport: donkey ownership (+) Household head age (−)
  10. 10. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Teff producers’ technical efficiency distribution
  11. 11. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Cooperatives, community meetings and technical efficiency Coop Member East Gojjam West Gojjam East Shoa West Shoa S West Shoa member 72.37 72.93 73.83 77.45 74.23 Not member 69.13 67.12 73.80 77.60 75.55 Diff(%) 3.24 5.81 0.03 -0.15 -1.31 Club Member East Gojjam West Gojjam East Shoa West Shoa S West Shoa ≥ meetings 76.00 76.47 78.80 79.22 79.23 < 5meetings 70.79 69.66 73.58 77.08 73.90 Diff(%) 5.21 6.81 5.22 2.15 5.34
  12. 12. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Proximity and technical efficiency Market East Gojjam West Gojjam East Shoa West Shoa S West Shoa ≥ 100 72.79 65.03 73.44 75.74 75.55 < 100 71.33 72.25 74.08 79.53 74.24 Diff(%) 1.46 -7.22 -0.64 -3.79 1.31 All weather ≥ 100 65.98 65.84 70.10 77.05 73.96 < 100 73.33 72.81 74.12 77.65 74.66 Diff(%) -7.35 -6.97 -4.03 -0.60 -0.70
  13. 13. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Factors affecting technical efficiency Producer Club: participation in teff related community meetings (+) Urban proximity: proximity to market and all weather road (+) Mobile phone ownership (+) Transport: Donkey ownership Household head age (−) Being a model farmer (+)
  14. 14. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Major findings Potential gains from improvement in land productivity On average, Teff land productivity is 10% higher for improved variety (i.e., Quncho) Grains from efficiency of resource management is also important, on average, approximately 25% inefficiency Farm community discussion groups - clubs - have important implication for improvement in productivity Proximity to market, all weather road, and input suppliers enhance productivity Ownership of communication technology (i.e., mobile phone) On farm transportation means (i.e., donkey)
  15. 15. Introduction Results 1: Land productivity Results 2: Technical efficiency Summary of major findings and conclusions Take-home message Enhancing timely access to improved seeds and chemical fertilizer in land productivity Providing technical support on best management practices of the existing production technologies or processes Encouraging the formation and providing support for farm community discussion groups- producer clubs Continued investment in R&D, road and other communication infrastructures

×