Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you(20)

Similar to The impact of improved chickpea adoption on poverty reduction in ethiopia(20)

Advertisement

More from ICRISAT(20)

Advertisement

The impact of improved chickpea adoption on poverty reduction in ethiopia

  1. The impact of improved chickpea adoption on poverty reduction in Ethiopia Presenter: Simone Verkaart Authors: Simone Verkaart, Bernard Munyua, Kai Mausch Event: Poverty Reduction, Equity and Growth Network (PEGNet) Conference 2015, Berlin Date: 8-9 October 2015
  2. Chickpea in Ethiopia - 7th largest producer in the world - 90% of Sub-Saharan Africa‘s production - Two types of chickpea: o Desi: brown smaller seeds, traditionally cultivated o Kabuli: cream coloured larger seeds, recently introduced - Various improved Kabuli and Desi varieties released - Low improved variety adoption: <1% in 2001 & 18% in 2003 - Various initiatives started to accelerate adoption
  3. Benefits of (improved) chickpeas - High price and demand, notably Kabuli - Disease resistant and drought tolerant - Grow on residual moisture, enables double-cropping - Nitrogen fixing improves soil fertility - Source of protein for nutrition and food security
  4. Study area & design - Ethiopia: 3 districts in Shewa region - Debre Zeit, 50km from Addis Ababa - TLII project area - Rounds: 2006/07, 2009/10, 2013/14 - Balanced panel of 607 hhs - Mobile data collection in 3rd round
  5. Adoption trends - Chickpea adoption increased from 30-80%, and 90% of growers - 95% of adoption improved Kabuli and 5% improved Desi - Adoption replaced local Desi and other crops (not shown) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14 Season Improved variety Improved variety, growers Improved Kabuli Improved Desi Local Desi
  6. Poverty and inflation - Nominal income increased but real income decreased (Birr) - Poverty (<1.25 USD PPP) increased by 10% - Income growth could not keep up with double-digit inflation 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14 Income per capita (nominal Birr) Income per capita (real Birr) Poverty (<1.25 USD PPP 2005)
  7. Comparison non-adopters and adopters - Early-adopters wealthier: Own more land and livestock - Differences become less pronounced over time 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter Adopter 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14 Land owned (ha) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter Adopter 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14 Livestock owned (TLU)
  8. Comparison non-adopters and adopters - Income per capita is higher for adopters - Poverty rates are substantially lower for adopters - Differences remain significant at 5% level 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter Adopter 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14 USDPPP2005 Income per capita 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter Adopter 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14 Poverty (<1.25 USD PPP 2005)
  9. Methodology - Estimating impact requires a counterfactual - Concerns of selection bias and endogeneity problems - Individual effects panel model: yit= β1+ β2x2it + β3x3i + (ci + 𝜖it) - Fixed effects panel model: yit - y̅i = β2 (x2it - x̅2i) + β3 (x3i - x̅3i) + (ci - ci) + (𝜖it - 𝜖i) - Unobserved time-constant characteristics differenced out - Time constant observed effects are also removed - Assumption: no endogenous time-variant unobservables
  10. Fixed effects: Income per capita (2005 USD PPP) - Chickpea adoption had a positive impact on income per capita - The effect was stronger for initially non-poor households - Initial poor and bottom quartile households benefited less Improved Improved Initial Initial variety Variety area poor non-poor VARIABLES (1=yes, 0=no) (ha) (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, 0=no) Male head (1=yes, 0=no) 7.507 2.345 88.486 -52.443 Dependents (%) -5.489*** -5.419*** -4.606 -5.292*** Off-farm income (1=yes, 0=no) 139.772*** 128.923*** 108.452*** 141.115** Land owned (ha) 122.769*** 112.360*** 90.339** 134.432*** Improved variety (1=yes, 0=no) 202.455*** - 78.288* 221.388*** Improved variety area (ha) - 279.035*** - - Year 2009/10 -37.447 -16.42 224.396*** -98.834** Year 2013/14 -273.642*** -248.468*** 106.532** -365.554*** Constant 854.201*** 897.772*** 268.106 1,023.296*** Observations 1,821 1,821 396 1,425 Households 607 607 132 475 Rho 0.487 0.47 0.278 0.472 R-squared overall 0.117 0.157 0.109 0.115
  11. Adoption by initial income quartile - Top quartile households adopt more - Bottom quartile allocates less land (growers) - Middle quartiles catch up in terms of adoption but not land 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Improved chickpea adoption 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Improved chickpea area (ha) 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14
  12. Returns and yield by initial income quartile (growers) - Bottom quartile households receive half the returns - Prices, input and labour costs do not differ - Probably related to superior yields wealthy households 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 USDPPP2005/ha Return to land improved varieties 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Improved variety yield (kg / ha) 2006/07 2009/10 2013/14
  13. Discussion and Conclusions - Adoption of improved chickpea varieties increased from 30% to 80% - Adoption had a positive impact on income per capita - Adoption had a stronger effect for initially wealthier households - The poorest allocated less land and had lower returns to adoption - It is likely that lower yields caused these differences in returns - Further research is needed to assess these yield differences - Adoption had a cushioning effect in the context of high inflation
  14. ICRISAT is a member of the CGIAR Consortium Questions ?? Thank you! Pictures courtesy of ICRISAT/Alina Paul-Bossuet
Advertisement