Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you(20)

Similar to ESA Social Sciences(20)

Advertisement

More from ICRISAT(20)

Advertisement

ESA Social Sciences

  1. Social Sciences A. Orr, K. Mausch, A. Gierend, T. Tsusaka, S. Homann Kee-Tui, H. Msere, C. Mwema, B. Munyua Regional Planning and Strategy Meeting Harare 26-27 April 2016
  2. What’s ahead 1. Foresight Analysis & Priority Setting 2. Adoption 3. Post-harvest losses 4. Gender-Plus 5. Plans for 2016
  3. Sorghum and Millets in ESA: Facts, Trends and Outlook Source: Orr, Mwema, Gierend, and Nedumaran (2016) ICRISAT Working Paper No. 62 A.Orr,C.Mwema,A.Gierend,S.Nedumaran
  4. Sorghum and Millets in ESA: Facts, Trends and Outlook A.Orr,C.Mwema,A.Gierend,S.Nedumaran Results, 2015-2050:  Faster growth in income and slower population growth reduces projected production of sorghum by 9%.  25 % faster yield growth for maize reduces the projected production of sorghum by 1%.  Climate change increases the projected production of sorghum by 11-13 %.  25% faster yield growth for sorghum increases the projected production of sorghum by 31%.  Combined scenario: sorghum production increases by 33% over the baseline projection. Key messages:  Outlook is positive with upward trend  Positive effects outweigh the negative effects  Climate change and R&D offset effects of higher income and faster maize yields
  5. Consumer Demand for Sorghum and Millets in ESA Objectives  Improved understanding of consumer demand for sorghum and millets in four ESA countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda).  Consumption disaggregated by rural/urban, income, and proximity to centres of production  Trends in cereal prices, price and income elasticities of consumption  Set research priorities for CGIAR research program for Dryland Cereals Methods and data sources  Analysis of raw data from nationally-representative household expenditure surveys conducted by national statistical offices  Secondary literature on food expenditure and price/income elasticities AlbertGierend,AlastairOrr
  6. Key results Consumption pattern: Rural/urban & proximity to production AlbertGierend,AlastairOrr Source: Gierend and Orr (2015). Consumer Demand for Sorghum and Millets in ESA. Priorities for the CGIAR Research Program for Dryland Cereals. ICRISAT Socio-Economics Discussion Paper # 35. Sorghum:  Ethiopia (highest # consumers, per capita consumption, potential urban demand)  Tanzania, Uganda: Urban consumers  Kenya: market for clear beer Millets:  Niche markets (Smart Foods)  Middle-class consumers ($4-20/day)  Will have 46% of total consumer expenditure on food by 2040
  7. Can sorghum compete with maize? A time-space analysis for Ethiopia Methods:  Update MapSpam grid cells with CSA crop statistics (2000, 2005, 2014/15)  Add zonal data on input levels and costs from CSA and calculate Gross Margins (GMs) for all sorghum/maize grid cells  Blend MapSpam crop data including GMs info with temp, rainfall, elevation and LGP maps Data: MapSpam spatial crop data set (version 2014), CSA (Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia), Input level and costs for maize (CIMMYT), GIS material (temperature and precipitation maps from worldclim.org, altitude map from CGIAR-CSI GeoPortal, length of growing period maps from ILRI/ICRAF Research questions:  Is sorghum a niche crop confined only to the SAT?  Has maize displaced sorghum from high-potential agro-ecological zones?  Is sorghum more profitable than maize?  Has sorghum become less competitive over time?  Does sorghum compete with maize or complement it? AlbertGierend
  8. Is sorghum a niche crop confined to the SAT? Has maize displaced sorghum from high-potential AEZs?  Sorghum and maize increased their share of the area planted in high- potential AEZs, while the share of millets, wheat and barley declined Semi- humid 180-269 Moist semi-arid 120-179 Dry semi- arid 75-119 Arid < 75 Humid >270 low potential high potential 2014/15 26.0 25.9 26.1 2005 23.0 22.9 23.4 2000/01 22.8 23.0 22.2 sorghum area in % of cereal area Nat Av LGP sorghum 4.7 38.3 36.0 15.8 0.8 4.4 maize 6.8 23.5 39.2 20.7 1.6 8.2 millet 0.4 9.9 61.0 28.2 0.1 0.5 barley 4.9 44.6 38.5 5.9 1.4 4.7 wheat 4.2 44.7 39.3 6.1 2.7 3.0 Moist semi-arid 120-179 Dry semi- arid 75-119 Arid < 75 Humid >270 Moist semi- humid 240-269 Dry semi- humid 180-239  Sorghum is grown in ALL agro- ecologies: in the arid Tigray region, the cold highlands > 3000 m in the dry and wet eastern lowlands, and in the humid areas in the South with rainfall > 1500 mm  More than 20% of sorghum is cultivated in the semi-humid and humid areas AlbertGierend
  9. Is sorghum more profitable than maize and if so, where?  Gross margins (cash-cost) include costs of seeds, pesticides, fertilizer, and hired labour.  Pairwise comparison of gross margins ONLY for those grid cells where both crops are grown.  Graphs show gross margin differences between sorghum and maize by LGP for the 2014/15 Meher season.  Positive values show where sorghum has a higher gross margin than maize  On a cash-cost basis, sorghum is more profitable than maize across a range of AEZs.  On a full-cost basis, sorghum is more profitable than maize in arid and dry semi-arid AEZs. AlbertGierend
  10. Objectives:  Verify adoption and diffusion of new varieties for selected priority countries and food crops in SSA  Minimize time and cost of future adoption studies Comparative analysis of adoption patterns across ESA, WCA and Asia KaiMausch,FranklinSimtowe 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Kenya Malawi Tanzania Uganda Zambia Kenya Malawi Tanzania Kenya Tanzania Sudan Groundnut Pigeonpea Sorghum % Area MVs
  11. Methods:  Compare community, expert-based and survey estimates of adoption Results:  Mixed results - Tanzania: no correlation: experts, household and community; Malawi: better match: experts and households  Experts overestimate adoption of widely adopted varieties and underestimate adoption of less common ones MV pigeonpea, Tanzania 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% household community Expert Source: Walker, T. and Alwang, J. (eds.) (2015). Crop Improvement, Adoption, and Impact of Improved Varieties in Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa, CAB International, Wallingford, UK. KaiMausch,FranklinSimtowe
  12. KaiMausch,DaveHarris,UniversityofBangor Smallholder income diversity and effects on technology preferences and adoption Research problem:  “Smallholders” a diverse group  Growing reliance on off-farm, especially non-farm, employment  Reduced demand for new agricultural technologies to meet basic needs? Objective: • Understand motives, incentives and barriers for smallholders to adopt new agricultural technologies Methods: • Household Survey, 2015
  13.  Perceptions on importance and reliability of income sources vary greatly KaiMausch,DaveHarris,UniversityofBangor  The assumption is that this will influence the technology attributes households are looking for • Influence on decision making will be investigated in 2016  Crop sales are ranked the most important income source, but non-farm wage employment plays a major role in livelihoods  Aspirations are towards farming rather than moving out of farming even though wage employment offers important and stable income Importance (rank) of income sources Increase Decrease No change Ambitions for change in engagement by source Preliminary results:
  14. Research Question: What is the post-harvest loss in quantity and quality of groundnuts among smallholders, and how can we mitigate it? Methods:  2015: On-farm assessment of quantity loss with a small sample by on-site enumerators and extension staff, in partnership with DARS.  2016: Interviews with producers and buyers on value loss using survey tool and analytical program developed by IFPRI and ICRISAT.  Methods in 2015 and 2016 complementary in scope and nodes of value chain. Post-harvest loss for Groundnuts in MalawiTakuTsusaka,HarryMsere,SeethaAnitha
  15. Key results for 2015: Quantity Loss (% Weight) Mchinji Lilongwe Kasungu Average Factors Lifting 22.9 9.8 6.8 14.9 hoe damage, weed, theft Drying & Stripping na 2.3 17.3 4.3 spillage (children), eating, rodents Transport to Homestead 0.20 0.66 0.02 0.29 torn sacks, no use of sacks on ox-cart Sum ~27.4 12.8 24.2 19.4 Value Loss (US$/ha) 113 63 104 76 Aflatoxin in crop sample (ppb) Mchinji Lilongwe Kasungu Average Factors After Drying 1.08 0.54 na 0.87 termite, hoe damage, post-harvest rainfall After 1-month Storage 0.68 1.80 0.16 0.88 storage condition (humidity, temperature) Value Loss (US$/ha) Will be studied in 2016 using price-differential tool Significant loss in quantity. The extent and factors differ by district. TakuTsusaka,HarryMsere,SeethaAnitha
  16. What do we mean by ‘women’s crops’? A mixed methods approach Research question: does commercialization of ICRISAT’s mandate crops disempower women? Methods: Development of ‘Women’s Crop Tool’, tested with: 1. FGDs with groundnut seed- producer groups, with and without access to the machine sheller (2014) 2. Household survey of groundnut growers with and without access to machine sheller (2014, 2015) Location: Eastern Province, Zambia The Women’s Crop Tool A.Orr,T.Tsusaka,S.HomannKee-Tui,HarryMsere
  17. Dependent Variable: Women’s Gender Control Index (WGCIf) for groundnuts Treatment Variable: Sheller Group (yes=1) Variable Coefficient t-statistic p-value Sheller Group (yes=1) 6.56 *** 3.17 0.002 Area planted to groundnuts 1.82 1.37 0.172 Spouses of same religion (yes=1) 0.88 0.41 0.681 Husband has official position in EPFC group (yes=1) -2.00 -0.53 0.594 Wife has official position in EPFC group (yes=1) 1.80 0.48 0.632 Polygamy (yes=1) 10.71 ** 2.31 0.022 Sum of age 0.11 ** 2.00 0.047 Gap in age (age of husband – age of wife) -0.37 ** -1.79 0.076 Sum of experience with groundnuts -0.11 -1.42 0.157 Gap in experience with groundnuts Experience of husband – experience of wife) 0.09 0.28 0.782 Household size -0.37 -0.74 0.462 Household adult female ratio -31.60 ** -1.71 0.089 Area planted to improved seed, all crops (%) -8.57 ** -2.16 0.033 Constant 59.69 5.68 0.000 Household survey results, 2014-2015: Access to a machine sheller increases women’s control over groundnuts… A.Orr,T.Tsusaka,S.HomannKee-Tui,HarryMsere
  18. 0 20 40 60 80 Area planted Land preparation Hired labour Weeding Inputs Harvesting Selling Use of income Focus Group Discussions Groundnuts Cotton Maize Sunflower Results 1. Both men and women perceived groundnuts as a women’s crop. 2. Different perceptions between men and women on degree of women’s control. 3. Women with access to machine sheller perceived they had greater control over shelling, marketing and use of income. 4. Women willing to trade some control in exchange for men’s help with shelling and higher income from groundnuts. 5. These are short-run effects. Future research will focus on longer-term consequences. Orr, Tsusaka, Homann Kee-Tui & Msere (in press). What do we mean by women’s crops? Commercialisation, gender and the power to name, Journal of International Development A.Orr,T.Tsusaka,S.HomannKee-Tui,HarryMsere Tsusaka, Msere, Orr & Homann Kee-Tui "Do Mechanization and Commercialization Disempower Women Farmers? Panel Evidence from Malawi and Zambia“. Accepted for American Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, 2016.
  19. Plans for 2016 Foresight Analysis & Priority Setting Value Chains for Sorghum and Millets in ESA. Priorities for the CGIAR Research Program for Dryland Cereals. A. Orr, A. Gierend, D. Choudhary (CGIAR Research Program, DC) Smallholder Value Chains as Complex Adaptive Systems: Case studies. A. Orr, J. Donovan (ICRAF), D. Stoian (Bioversity), R. Lamboll (NRI) (CGIAR Research Program, PIM) Typology for subsistence- and market-oriented smallholders, Tanzania, Ethiopia. K. Mausch, A. Orr + 2 MSc. Students (BEAF) Adoption Baseline Survey, Feed the Future, Kenya. D. Choudhary, K. Mausch (USAID) Smallholder Income Diversity and Adoption. K. Mausch, D. Harris (CGIAR Research Program, PIM) Verifying adoption rates using DNA fingerprinting, selected TL3 crops & countries. K. Mausch (TL3, BMGF) Tracking adoption by seed distribution, and farmer feedback on small seed packs, Ethiopia. A. Gierend (HOPE 2, BMGF)
  20. Plans for 2016 Adoption (cont.) Synthesis of adoption constraints for sorghum and millets, target countries. A. Gierend, A. Orr (HOPE 2, BMGF). Gender-Plus Gender disaggregated impact for selected TL3 crops & countries. K. Mausch (TL3, BMGF) Gender and commercialization, using experimental games. T. Tsusaka, A. Orr (CGIAR Research Program, PIM) Post-harvest losses Producer and buyer survey on groundnut post-harvest losses. T. Tsusaka (CGIAR Research Program, PIM) Farmer sensitization and post-harvest technology demonstration for NASFAM, FUM, and ICRISAT groundnut producers. T. Tsusaka (McKnight Foundation)
Advertisement