Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Impacts of the InovAgro II
Project in Northern Mozambique
Hosaena Ghebru*, Jenny Smart* and Helder Zavale^
*International ...
Presentation Overview
 Introduction
 InovAgro II expected outcomes
 IFPRI’s study design
 Preliminary Results
o Genera...
Introduction
 In this session of the workshop, we are inviting you to learn about and
participate in a discussion concern...
Introduction, continued
 InovAgro II is a development program intended to decrease rural poverty by improving the
connect...
InovAgro II expected outcomes
 The key indicators expected by the end of the InovAgro II project are increased annual net...
InovAgro II expected outcomes, cont.
 Outcome 2: Increase direct transactions between private sector companies and
smallh...
IFPRI Evaluation Study Design
 Initially IFPRI, SDC, and the implementing agency
DAI agreed that a randomized controlled ...
Study Design, cont.
 The household listing exercise in both treatment and
control areas secured information about the
hou...
Study Design, cont.
 Power calculations during the planning stage of this
project—which were based on the more demanding
...
Study Design, cont.
 Enumerators used Tablet Assisted Personal Interviewing to collect the
data.
 The survey instrument ...
Study Design, cont.
 The survey instruments cover
o agricultural production (input usage, most common crops, yields, and
...
Data and empirical strategy
 For the InovAgro project evaluation, we use primary data coming from two
InovAgro-focus dist...
Preliminary Results: General Characteristics
 According to the midline survey, agricultural production is the primary eco...
General Characteristics, cont.
 The use of modern inputs in the study areas is relatively low: 46% of households
in Molum...
PART II
METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
MSD programs & quantitative impact
evaluation challenges
Lack of intensity of intervention in
treatment group & generatin...
Methodological remedies: IE strategy
Lack of intensity of intervention in
treatment group & generating Comparable
control...
InovAgro CORE INTERVENTION AREAS
Access to Agricultural Inputs
Access to Finance
Output Marketing
Land Tenure
INOVAGRO CORE INTERVENTION AREAS
Access to Agricultural Inputs
Access to Finance
Output Marketing
Land Tenure
InovAgro Impact pathway
 Access to Agricultural Inputs
 Access to Finance
 Output Marketing
 Land Tenure
Improved mark...
InovAgro IE strategy: cont…
 Access to Agricultural Inputs
 Access to Finance
 Output Marketing
 Land Tenure
Improved ...
InovAgro IE strategy: Data plan
 Access to Agricultural Inputs
 Access to Finance
 Output Marketing
 Land Tenure
Impro...
InovAgro IE strategy: short-term impact
Improved market perception
& farming practice
Increased Productivity
Increased Inc...
InovAgro IE strategy: long-term impact
Improved market perception
& farming practice
Increased Productivity
Increased Inco...
Biased estimates Positive and
significant
Biased estimates
?
Conclusion
 In conclusion, we find that the InovAgro project is associated with significant
increases in access to agricu...
Policy Implications
 The on-going endline survey (July to August of 2019 - four years after the
launch of the interventio...
Obrigado!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Impacts of the InovAgro II Project in Northern Mozambique

26 views

Published on

Hoseana Ghebru and Jenny Smart
WORKSHOP
Market Systems Development Best Practices Dissemination Workshop
Co-Organized by the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI)
JUL 18, 2019 - 08:00 AM TO 03:15 PM CAT

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Impacts of the InovAgro II Project in Northern Mozambique

  1. 1. Impacts of the InovAgro II Project in Northern Mozambique Hosaena Ghebru*, Jenny Smart* and Helder Zavale^ *International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Development Strategy and Governance Division ^Eduardo Mondlane University (UEM) Maputo, Mozambique | July 18, 2019
  2. 2. Presentation Overview  Introduction  InovAgro II expected outcomes  IFPRI’s study design  Preliminary Results o General Characteristics o Key Findings: • Demonstration plots and field days • Access to market information and extension services • Production of focus value chain crops • Sales of focus value chain crops  Conclusion and Policy Implications
  3. 3. Introduction  In this session of the workshop, we are inviting you to learn about and participate in a discussion concerning the preliminary results of the IFPRI mid-term impact evaluation of the second phase of Innovation for Agribusiness (InovAgro II) project’s interventions in Northern Mozambique.  We believe that high-quality research certainly will have limited impact unless it is communicated to those who can use it, share it, learn from it, build upon it, and adapt it.
  4. 4. Introduction, continued  InovAgro II is a development program intended to decrease rural poverty by improving the connectedness of farmers to market systems.  The InovAgro project is funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and implemented by Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) in partnership with COWI.  The InovAgro project operates in 11 districts—namely Mocuba, Ile, Namarroi, Molumbo, Gurúe and Alto Molócue in Zambézia province; Malema, Ribáuè and Erati in Nampula province; and Namuno and Chiúre in Cabo Delgado province.  The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has carried out an independent quantitative impact evaluation, also funded by SDC, measuring the impact on households of a market system development approach in pigeon pea and soya bean value chains in northern Mozambique.  One of the key anticipated outcomes of IFPRI’s research project is that the Mozambican government, donors and other stakeholders benefit from a scientifically sound impact evaluation demonstrating the benefits of market system development approach which will influence the design of future agricultural policies in Mozambique.
  5. 5. InovAgro II expected outcomes  The key indicators expected by the end of the InovAgro II project are increased annual net profit per hectare of production of soybean, pigeonpea, groundnut and sesame for poor men and women small scale farmers lacking in income and economic security.  To meet this overarching goal, three major outcomes of the project were outlined in the original logframe of the project.  Outcome 1: Increase smallholder participation in commercial value chains and smallholder competitiveness. o The project’s extension intervention strategy and organized field days are the primary vehicles for achieving the objective of improving farmers’ production capacity. o Extension officers help raise demand for quality seed and other yield-enhancing agricultural inputs, and support the promotion of good agricultural practices in general, such as planting in a timely manner, weeding, etc. o The InovAgro project has primarily attempted to increase smallholder farmers’ access to interconnected services such as finance and mechanization by: • facilitating the relationships of financial institutions, • leveraging savings groups to get them to add an additional “savings for seed” product • promoting the relationship between smallholder farmers and mechanization service providers.
  6. 6. InovAgro II expected outcomes, cont.  Outcome 2: Increase direct transactions between private sector companies and smallholder farmers. o The project’s output trading market strategy, as well as the project’s seed market strategy have both been the primary vehicles for achieving the objective of creating market linkages among agricultural output buyers, input suppliers and smallholder farmers.  Outcome 3: Increase commercial transactions, market-oriented relationships and effective supply coordination in the seed industry. o The project’s seed market strategy is the primary means of achieving the objective of increasing the effective demand for certified seed by smallholder farmers. o The InovAgro project also seeks a better enabling environment and services for certified seed production and sales by means of working with the national seed dialogue platform, NSDP, on their operational plan, and supporting Mozambique’s National Directorate of Agrarian Services (DNSA) in management of a website tool for disseminating information to private stakeholders and a seed quality accreditation program.
  7. 7. IFPRI Evaluation Study Design  Initially IFPRI, SDC, and the implementing agency DAI agreed that a randomized controlled trial (or experimental) approach would be used in the impact evaluation, and the research proposal was designed based on this approach.  Shortly before conducting the baseline survey, however, it was determined that the experimental design, in which the treatment and control areas are selected randomly, was not feasible due to limitations faced by DAI.  Instead, DAI selected four communities in each district where InovAgro’s intervention would be carried out. All selected treatment communities were located in the same administrative post within each district.  The control communities were selected from comparable localities in a different administrative post from where the treatment communities are located to reduce spillover effects. District Administrative Posts Treatment Communities Control Communities
  8. 8. Study Design, cont.  The household listing exercise in both treatment and control areas secured information about the households regarding age and gender of household head and their soybean and/or pigeon pea production.  This listing information was used to select the final set of control communities based on the extent of soybean and/or pigeon pea cultivation.  The final sample is drawn from 16 communities in 4 administrative posts in two InovAgro-focus districts in Zambézia province: Alto Molócue and Molumbo,  Within each of these two districts, the study areas are comprised of four beneficiary (treatment) communities and four non-beneficiary (control) communities, totaling eight beneficiary and eight non-beneficiary communities. 2015 2017 District Administrative post Community N % N % Molumbo Treatment Molumbo- Sede Benesse 117 6.2 114 6.5 Macolo- cotxo 100 5.3 89 5.1 Mugoliua 120 6.4 105 6.0 Nandie 108 5.7 97 5.6 Control Corromana -Sede Bediua 96 5.1 78 4.5 Corromana -Sede 119 6.3 107 6.1 Impindula- Sede 121 6.4 109 6.2 Mucoco 125 6.6 116 6.6 Alto Molócue Treatment Nauela Mohiua 124 6.6 123 7.0 Namilepe 120 6.4 114 6.5 Carmano 123 6.5 123 7.0 Caperula 125 6.6 124 7.1 Control Alto- Molócue Sede Murico 119 6.3 116 6.6 Napalaca 122 6.5 108 6.2 Lugela 125 6.6 124 7.1 Inrule 122 6.5 102 5.8 Total 1,886 100 1,749 100
  9. 9. Study Design, cont.  Power calculations during the planning stage of this project—which were based on the more demanding methodology of a randomized controlled trial, rather than the quasi-experimental approach ultimately pursued—indicated that about 2,000 households were needed, which is the approximate number generated when adjusting for design effect and attrition rate.  The baseline data collection obtained 1,886 unique observations, due to cases of duplicate households and other problems identified in the process of data cleaning.  And due to attrition, a total of 1,749 households of the original 1,886 households were re-interviewed during the midline survey (2017): o 889 households from the program beneficiary communities (405 in Molumbo and 484 in Alto Molócue) and o 860 households from non-beneficiary communities (410 in Molumbo and 450 in Alto Molócue). 2015 2017 District Administrative post Community N % N % Molumbo Treatment Molumbo- Sede Benesse 117 6.2 114 6.5 Macolo- cotxo 100 5.3 89 5.1 Mugoliua 120 6.4 105 6.0 Nandie 108 5.7 97 5.6 Control Corromana -Sede Bediua 96 5.1 78 4.5 Corromana -Sede 119 6.3 107 6.1 Impindula- Sede 121 6.4 109 6.2 Mucoco 125 6.6 116 6.6 Alto Molócue Treatment Nauela Mohiua 124 6.6 123 7.0 Namilepe 120 6.4 114 6.5 Carmano 123 6.5 123 7.0 Caperula 125 6.6 124 7.1 Control Alto- Molócue Sede Murico 119 6.3 116 6.6 Napalaca 122 6.5 108 6.2 Lugela 125 6.6 124 7.1 Inrule 122 6.5 102 5.8 Total 1,886 100 1,749 100
  10. 10. Study Design, cont.  Enumerators used Tablet Assisted Personal Interviewing to collect the data.  The survey instrument was designed using CSPro and took an average 45 minutes to register.  The field team consisted of 16 enumerators, supervised by two team leaders, and managed by two field coordinators.  Listing and baseline data collection took place in August–September, 2015.  Data collection for the midline survey took place in October–December, 2017.  And data collection for the endline survey is starting presently, and will finish before the end of August, 2019.
  11. 11. Study Design, cont.  The survey instruments cover o agricultural production (input usage, most common crops, yields, and production) o access to market information and agricultural services (such as extension services and field days). o market access and sales of all crops, particularly the InovAgro value chain crops – soybean, pigeon pea, and maize, while the InovAgro project interventions focus on five value chains in total (maize, soybean, pigeon pea, sesame and groundnut).  We employ difference-in-difference (DID) and propensity score matching (PSM) approaches to assess the impact of the InovAgro project.
  12. 12. Data and empirical strategy  For the InovAgro project evaluation, we use primary data coming from two InovAgro-focus districts in Zambézia province: Alto Molócue and Molumbo,  Within each of these two districts, the study areas are comprised of four beneficiary (treatment) communities and four non-beneficiary (control) communities, totaling eight beneficiary and eight non-beneficiary communities.  The treatment communities are Benesse, Macolocotxo, Mugoliua, and Nandie in Molumbo, and Mohiua, Namilepe, Carmano and Caperula in Alto Molócue, while the control communities are Bediua, Corromana-Sede, Impidula-Sede and Mucoco in Molumbo, and Murico, Napalaca, Lugela and Inrule in Alto Molócue.  A total of 1,749 households were interviewed during the baseline survey (2014/15) and were re-interviewed during a midline survey (2016/17): o 889 households from the program beneficiary communities (405 in Molumbo and 484 in Alto Molócue) and o 860 households from non-beneficiary communities (410 in Molumbo and 450 in Alto Molócue).
  13. 13. Preliminary Results: General Characteristics  According to the midline survey, agricultural production is the primary economic activity of 90% of household heads interviewed and 19% of household heads are female. On average, households have access to 2.3 hectares of land divided across 1.6 parcels.  Most parcels are located within the same neighborhood as the household’s residence, and three quarters of households judge the soil quality of their land as “good” overall.  Overall, maize, pigeon pea, and cassava were the most common crops cultivated in the study areas during the 2016/17 agricultural year – 82%, 79%, and 53% of farmers grow each crop, respectively. The second season, which stretches from March to July, is less productive than the first season. About 30.4% of households use the second season for cultivation, during which, cassava is the most commonly listed primary crop.
  14. 14. General Characteristics, cont.  The use of modern inputs in the study areas is relatively low: 46% of households in Molumbo and 22% of those in Alto Molócue interviewed in 2017 report having used a modern input of some kind – chemical fertilizer, improved seed, pesticide/herbicide or inoculant – in the two years prior to being interviewed.  95% of households have more than one member of the household performing farm work, while only a quarter of our sample reported hiring labor during the 2016/17 agricultural year.  Market information is more accessible in Molumbo than Alto Molócue – 78% of households in Molumbo receive input or output market information, while only 50% of households do in Alto Molócue. At the same time, close to a quarter of households have at least one member in the family who is a member of a farmer association: 16% of households in Molumbo and 29% of households in Alto Molócue.
  15. 15. PART II METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
  16. 16. MSD programs & quantitative impact evaluation challenges Lack of intensity of intervention in treatment group & generating Comparable control groups? o Early beneficiary & late beneficiary; propensity score matching. External (political, economic & environmental shocks) oDifference-in-difference method Spillover effects (public good) o Geographically contagious communities; geographic discontinuity design.
  17. 17. Methodological remedies: IE strategy Lack of intensity of intervention in treatment group & generating Comparable control groups? o Early beneficiary & late beneficiary; propensity score matching. External (political, economic & environmental shocks) oDifference-in-difference method Spillover effects (public good) o Geographically contagious communities; geographic discontinuity design (spatial analysis).
  18. 18. InovAgro CORE INTERVENTION AREAS Access to Agricultural Inputs Access to Finance Output Marketing Land Tenure
  19. 19. INOVAGRO CORE INTERVENTION AREAS Access to Agricultural Inputs Access to Finance Output Marketing Land Tenure
  20. 20. InovAgro Impact pathway  Access to Agricultural Inputs  Access to Finance  Output Marketing  Land Tenure Improved market perception & farming practice Increased Productivity Increased Income Overall household welfare & Food security
  21. 21. InovAgro IE strategy: cont…  Access to Agricultural Inputs  Access to Finance  Output Marketing  Land Tenure Improved market perception & farming practice Increased Productivity Increased Income Overall household welfare & Food security Short-term outcomes long-term outcomes
  22. 22. InovAgro IE strategy: Data plan  Access to Agricultural Inputs  Access to Finance  Output Marketing  Land Tenure Improved market perception & farming practice Increased Productivity Increased Income Overall household welfare & Food security Short-term outcomes long-term outcomes Midline 2016/17 Endline 2018/19 Baseline 2014/15 Short-term outcomes long-term outcomes
  23. 23. InovAgro IE strategy: short-term impact Improved market perception & farming practice Increased Productivity Increased Income Overall household welfare & Food security long-term outcomes Short-term outcome variables - Access to input market information - Access to output market information - Participation in field days - Adoption of improved seeds
  24. 24. InovAgro IE strategy: long-term impact Improved market perception & farming practice Increased Productivity Increased Income Overall household welfare & Food security Short-term outcomes long-term outcome variables - Use of hired labor - Sell of agricultural produce - Volume of production - Non-farm income activity - Household welfare index
  25. 25. Biased estimates Positive and significant
  26. 26. Biased estimates ?
  27. 27. Conclusion  In conclusion, we find that the InovAgro project is associated with significant increases in access to agricultural output market information from formal sources (5%) and hired labor for farming activities (8%).  We also find that exposure to the InovAgro project increases the proportion of households selling soybean and pigeon pea by about 5% and 16%, respectively.  Exposure to the InovAgro project also results in higher shares of smallholder farmers using improved seed for soybean and pigeon pea (an increase of 6% for soybean and 2% for pigeon pea).  Despite the significant impacts on short term outcome variables, the results show that exposure to the InovAgro project has limited impact on long term outcome variables (such as farm productivity, household income diversification and overall welfare outcomes).  This finding is not surprising given the midline impact evaluation covers only two years span – relatively short to bring about the long-term impacts expected to eventually emanate from a Market System Development (MSD) project.
  28. 28. Policy Implications  The on-going endline survey (July to August of 2019 - four years after the launch of the intervention) is expected to shed light on the potential implication of the program in the longterm project outcomes.  Participation in field days, attending demonstration plots, receiving extension services are found to be main channels for the impact of the InovAgro II project.  Moreover, program impact in influencing small-holder’s attitudes and behaviors towards market has resulted in positive implications on agricultural productivity.  Overall, the intermediary results from our evaluation show that the market systems development methodology is appropriate and helps maintain the sustainability of service deliveries to smallholders.
  29. 29. Obrigado!

×