ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT
RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The Impact of Productive Safety Net
Program (PSNP) Community Assets
on Yield Gro...
Introduction
•Addressing persistent food insecurity remains a major
problem in many parts of Ethiopia
•To address such pro...
Objective
• Assess the impact of community assets built by PSNP,
particularly road construction and soil and water
conserv...
Data
• Ethiopian Food Security Survey (EFSS) of four year
longitudinal data (2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012); including both
• ...
Methodology
• Descriptive statistics
• Econometrics analysis:
 Fixed effect estimation

5
Descriptive Statistics
• The study areas are known for prevalence of chronic poverty and
for being drought prone.
Prevalen...
Prevalence of shocks relate to input and output prices, lack of
input access, crop disease or pest damage in the last two ...
Prevalence individual and natural shocks in the last two years
•The incidence of drought in the areas is reported by more ...
Yield values by crop categories
• The average yield level of the top five cereals has declined from 2006 to
2010.
• The av...
Growth rate of yield
• The average aggregate yield value shows an 8 percent increase in 2012
from 2010
• In 2012 the growt...
Value of yield growth rate by PSNP beneficiary status
•The PSNP beneficiaries have lower yield growth in 2012 and no
diffe...
Percentage of households benefitting from road and Soil and
Water Conservation (SWC) constructions by PSNP
• Market access...
Estimation Result
Dependent variable is yield growth rate
 
Lag of ln (yield real value)
Benefited from road construction
...
Robustness Check
 
Lag of ln (Yield real value)
Benefited from road construction

Model III
-0.117***
-0.011

Model IV
-0....
Discussion
• The effect of road construction through market access
benefits is not statistically significant on yield grow...
Conclusion
• The soil and water conservation (SWC) activities such as the
building of bund and terracing, tree planting, a...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Impact of Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) Community Assets on Yield Growth

422 views

Published on

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI). Conference on "Towards what works in Rural Development in Ethiopia: Evidence on the Impact of Investments and Policies". December 13, 2013. Hilton Hotel, Addis Ababa.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
422
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Impact of Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) Community Assets on Yield Growth

  1. 1. ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE The Impact of Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) Community Assets on Yield Growth Feiruz Yimer, Mekidim Dereje, Alemayehu seyoum Taffesse, Fanaye Tadesse and Bethelhem Koru IFPRI ESSP-II Hilton December 13, 2013 Addis Ababa 1
  2. 2. Introduction •Addressing persistent food insecurity remains a major problem in many parts of Ethiopia •To address such problem the government of Ethiopia in collaboration with others introduced the Food Security Program (FSP) in 2005. •The program combines a safety-net component that aims at closing the household food gap and at eliminating distress assets sales with food security interventions to bring households out of chronic insecurity •It includes providing food or cash for work and also direct support to households who are not able to participate in the public works. 2
  3. 3. Objective • Assess the impact of community assets built by PSNP, particularly road construction and soil and water conservation, on the yield growth of both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. 3
  4. 4. Data • Ethiopian Food Security Survey (EFSS) of four year longitudinal data (2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012); including both • Household level data • Community level data • Sampling is done in multiple stages – Woredas were chosen from each of the four regions – Kebeles with active PSNP are randomly selected (which serve as enumeration areas (EA)) – In each EA, 15 beneficiary and 10 non-beneficiary households, for a total of 25 households are selected - The number of households for this study are 2,545 in 2006 and 3,702 in the rest of the rounds; we only use those who produce cereals, pulses and oilseeds 4
  5. 5. Methodology • Descriptive statistics • Econometrics analysis:  Fixed effect estimation 5
  6. 6. Descriptive Statistics • The study areas are known for prevalence of chronic poverty and for being drought prone. Prevalence of rainfall shock and crop damage in the last 12 months 6
  7. 7. Prevalence of shocks relate to input and output prices, lack of input access, crop disease or pest damage in the last two years • Significant percentage of households that faced input price increase and lack of input access in 2008 and 2010. • More than 30% of households have also faced crop disease/pest damage 7
  8. 8. Prevalence individual and natural shocks in the last two years •The incidence of drought in the areas is reported by more than 50% of households in the first three year. 8
  9. 9. Yield values by crop categories • The average yield level of the top five cereals has declined from 2006 to 2010. • The average yield level of the other cereals have also shown decline in the four rounds Crop categories Top 5 cereals Other cereals Pulses Oil seeds Statistics Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 2006 5091 3953 5879 4249 8782 5900 8089 4776 Year 2008 4753 3704 5619 4317 5813 4461 4178 2480 2010 4303 3323 3835 2677 6086 3956 4100 2641 2012 4898 3704 2966 238 6638 4334 5792 2365 9
  10. 10. Growth rate of yield • The average aggregate yield value shows an 8 percent increase in 2012 from 2010 • In 2012 the growth rate of yield is positive in value unlike the previous two rounds. Year   Statistics Mean Real yield value Median Mean Growth rate of real yield value Median 2006 2008 2010 2012 13,169 11,537 9,814 12,100 8,971 8,396 6,739 8,277   -5% -9% 8% -2% -9% 8% 10
  11. 11. Value of yield growth rate by PSNP beneficiary status •The PSNP beneficiaries have lower yield growth in 2012 and no difference in 2010 •In 2008 PSNP beneficiaries have slightly better growth rates than their non- beneficiary counterparts.   Year 2006 Mean 2008 Median Mean 2010 Median Mean 2012 Median Public work Direct Direct nonPublic work support non- support PSNP non- PSNP beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary -5% -4% -9% -8% 9% 8% -3% 1% -9% -9% 6% 6% -4% 0% -9% -8% 9% 8% -7% -9% -9% -12% 0% 3% -5% -3% -9% -7% 11% 9% -4% 0% -9% -10% 5% 5% 11
  12. 12. Percentage of households benefitting from road and Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) constructions by PSNP • Market access benefit from road construction through PSNP work is higher in 2008 and 2010. • Those who benefited productivity gain from SWC construction is the highest in 2012 Year   2006 2008 2010 2012 % of households that benefitted from improved market access through road construction Household %age 12.9 22.2 24.3 18.7 % of households that benefitted from improved productivity through SWC construction Household %age 10.5 20.9 26.4 27.9 12
  13. 13. Estimation Result Dependent variable is yield growth rate   Lag of ln (yield real value) Benefited from road construction Model I -0.099*** -0.009 Model II -0.116*** -0.012 Benefited from SWC 0.023** 0.020** -0.006 0.002 -0.010* -0.001 0.001*** 0.001 1.032*** DS beneficiary PW beneficiary Log (fertilizer per ha) Hired labor Constant 0.872*** -SWC (soil and water conservation) -DS beneficiary (Direct support beneficiary -PW beneficiary (Public work beneficiary) - *** stands for 1% level of significance; ** stands for 5% level of significance and * for 10 % level of significance 13
  14. 14. Robustness Check   Lag of ln (Yield real value) Benefited from road construction Model III -0.117*** -0.011 Model IV -0.130*** -0.011 Model V -0.133*** -0.012 Benefited from SWC 0.020** 0.020** 0.021** DS beneficiary PW beneficiary Log (fertilizer per ha) Hired labor Rainfall shock Crop diseasepest damage Death Input price shock Output price shock Constant -0.010* -0.001 0.001*** 0.001 -0.051** -0.001 -0.01 -0.001 0.001*** 0.011 -0.055** -0.003 -0.003 1.087*** 1.201*** -0.011* -0.001 0.001*** 0.013 -0.055** -0.001 0.000 0.011 -0.061 1.237*** 14
  15. 15. Discussion • The effect of road construction through market access benefits is not statistically significant on yield growth. • Communal asset of soil and water conservation positively changes the yield growth through productivity gain. • The inclusion of fertilizer use, labor and different shocks in the model changes the result only slightly. 15
  16. 16. Conclusion • The soil and water conservation (SWC) activities such as the building of bund and terracing, tree planting, and irrigation help rehabilitate the soil and water resources within the community. • Communities that have implemented SWC projects may have lower level of flooding and erosion hazards. • They also benefit from increased biodiversity and carbon sequestration resulting from forestry activities. • As the areas under study are characterized as drought prone areas, the works on soil and water conservation in particular might have greater impact on productivity gains. 16

×