Successfully reported this slideshow.

Production Diversity and Market Access for Predicting Animal-source Food Consumption

1

Share

Loading in …3
×
1 of 17
1 of 17

Production Diversity and Market Access for Predicting Animal-source Food Consumption

1

Share

Download to read offline

Description

Production Diversity and Market Access for Predicting Animal-source Food Consumption by Jytoi Felix, Catholic Relief Services. Presented at the ReSAKSS-Asia - MIID conference "Evolving Agrifood Systems in Asia: Achieving food and nutrition security by 2030" on Oct 30-31, 2019 in Yangon, Myanmar.

Transcript

  1. 1. Production Diversity, MarketAccess & Animal Source Food Consumption: Learning from Chin State, Myanmar Evolving Agrifood Systems in Asia 30-31 October 2019 Jyoti Felix (Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture Technical Advisor, CRS ASIA Region) Dr. Marcia Croft (PACE Project Coordinator, CRS Myanmar)
  2. 2. Acknowledgements • Project funding provided by: • Implementation partner: 2
  3. 3. PACE Project Overview • “Productive Agriculture through Community Engagement “ • Donor: Livelihoods & Food Security Fund (LIFT) • Implementing Partner: KMSS Hakha • Location: 60 villages in 3 townships, Chin State • Interventions: – Sustainable intensification of maize & pulses – Dry season home gardening (green leafy veg, vit-A rich veg) – Peer-to-peer nutrition SBC 3 Photo by Jen Hardy/CRS
  4. 4. Research Question What is the relationship between market access, production diversity and dietary diversity for pregnant/lactating women and children aged 6- 23m in Chin State, Myanmar? 4 Photo by Jyoti Felix/CRS
  5. 5. 5 Map ID: MIMU182v04 www.themimu.info Creation Date: 2 July 2015.A3 Wikimedia 2011
  6. 6. 6 Photo by Jyoti Felix/CRS
  7. 7. What Does the Literature Say? • On average, effect of increasing PD on DD is positive, but has a small impact (Sibhatu & Qaim 2018) • Relationship between PD & DD is non-linear – depends on existing production diversity (Jones 2017) – Forgone income benefits associated with specialization (Sibhatu et al 2015) • On-farm PD contributes more to DD when households are located further from markets (Sibhatu & Qaim 2018) – Ethiopia: 3km ‘cut-off’ (Hirvonen & Hoddinott 2016) • Better market access has positive effects on DD – larger than effects of increasing PD (Sibhatu et al 2015) 7 PD = production diversity DD = dietary diversity
  8. 8. Methods • Animal-source food consumption: 24h recall; pregnant/lactating women, children 6-23m; any ASF (FAO & FANTA-III 2016) • Production diversity: count of crop varieties produced [maize + rainy season pulses + dry season nutritious vegetables] • Market access: travel time (min) to food market, open daily, selling meat • Other variables: PACE project, township; HoHH gender; HH size; HH primary occupation (ag/non-ag); ag land size 8 • Regression tree: used to identify ‘cut-off’ point for defining ‘near’ and ‘far’ from markets (Therneau & Atkinson 2018) – 72.5 minutes driving time Photo by Jen Hardy/CRS
  9. 9. Effects of PACE Project PACE Villages Non-PACE Villages PLW ASF Consumption 77% ** 63% C6-23m ASF Consumption 82% *** 45% Production diversity (# varieties) 7.6 *** 5.3 Market distance (min) 111 107 9 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001
  10. 10. Effects of PACE Project by Distance to Market (ASFConsumption) 10 0.649 0.91 0.894 2.198 2.368 2.114 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 All Data Nearer to Market Further from Market EffectonASFConsumption PLW C6-23m *** ** ** • • • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001
  11. 11. ASFConsumption, Production Diversity & MarketAccess 11 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001 C6-23m ASF Consumption No Yes Production diversity (# varieties) 5.6 7.2 * Market distance (minutes) 126 102 •
  12. 12. ASFConsumption, Production Diversity & MarketAccess by Distance to Market ‘Near’ Villages ‘Far’ Villages PLW ASF Consumption 73% 71% C6-23m ASF Consumption 78% 65% Production diversity (# varieties) 6.1 7.5 ** Market distance (minutes) 46 151 *** 12 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001
  13. 13. Effect of Decreasing MarketAccess by Distance to Market (ASFConsumption) 13 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001 -0.24 -4.5 -0.24-0.18 -4.2 -0.018 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 All Data Nearer to Market Further from Market EffectonASFconsumption PLW C6-23m • •
  14. 14. Effects of Increasing Production Diversity by Distance to Market (Dietary Diversity) 14 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001 0.052 -0.059 0.075 0.047 -0.006 0.071 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 All Data Nearer to Market Further from Market Marginaleffectondietarydiverstiyscore PLW C6-23m * * * *
  15. 15. Implications In remote areas with generally poor access to markets (like Chin State): • Market access appears to play a critical role in both ASF consumption and overall dietary diversity – particularly for areas located closer to markets – Market access interventions • Production diversity (/self-sufficiency) appears to be more important for dietary outcomes in areas located further from markets – Production diversification interventions • Nutrition education/SBC has a larger, more significant impact than either market access or production diversity – Investments in nutrition education critical – irrespective of the pathway through which access to nutritious food is improved 15
  16. 16. References FAO & FANTA-III 2016 Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: A Guide to Measurement, Rome Hirvonen & Hoddinott 2016 Agricultural production and children's diets: evidence from rural Ethiopia, Agricultural Economics, 48(4), 469-480 Jones 2017 Critical review of the emerging research evidence on agricultural biodiversity, diet diversity, and nutritional status in low- and middle-income countries, Nutrition Reviews, 75(10), 769- 782 Sibhatu et al 2015 Production diversity and dietary diversity in smallholder farm households, PNAS, 12(34) 10657-10662 Sibhatu & Qaim 2018 Review: Meta-analysis of the association between production diversity, diets, and nutrition in smallholder farm households, Food Policy, 77, 1-18 Malapit et al 2015 Women’s empowerment mitigates the negative effects of low production diversity on maternal and child nutrition in Nepal, The Journal of Development Studies, 51(8), 1097-1123 Therneau & Atkinson 2018 rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees, R package version 4.1- 13. 16
  17. 17. Any Questions? And feel free to get in touch: Jyoti Felix Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture Technical Advisor CRS ASIA Region jyoti.felix@crs.org Dr. Marcia Croft PACE Project Coordinator CRS Myanmar marcia.croft@crs.org Joshua Poole Country Manager CRS Myanmar joshua.poole@crs.org 17 Photo by Jen Hardy/CRS

Description

Production Diversity and Market Access for Predicting Animal-source Food Consumption by Jytoi Felix, Catholic Relief Services. Presented at the ReSAKSS-Asia - MIID conference "Evolving Agrifood Systems in Asia: Achieving food and nutrition security by 2030" on Oct 30-31, 2019 in Yangon, Myanmar.

Transcript

  1. 1. Production Diversity, MarketAccess & Animal Source Food Consumption: Learning from Chin State, Myanmar Evolving Agrifood Systems in Asia 30-31 October 2019 Jyoti Felix (Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture Technical Advisor, CRS ASIA Region) Dr. Marcia Croft (PACE Project Coordinator, CRS Myanmar)
  2. 2. Acknowledgements • Project funding provided by: • Implementation partner: 2
  3. 3. PACE Project Overview • “Productive Agriculture through Community Engagement “ • Donor: Livelihoods & Food Security Fund (LIFT) • Implementing Partner: KMSS Hakha • Location: 60 villages in 3 townships, Chin State • Interventions: – Sustainable intensification of maize & pulses – Dry season home gardening (green leafy veg, vit-A rich veg) – Peer-to-peer nutrition SBC 3 Photo by Jen Hardy/CRS
  4. 4. Research Question What is the relationship between market access, production diversity and dietary diversity for pregnant/lactating women and children aged 6- 23m in Chin State, Myanmar? 4 Photo by Jyoti Felix/CRS
  5. 5. 5 Map ID: MIMU182v04 www.themimu.info Creation Date: 2 July 2015.A3 Wikimedia 2011
  6. 6. 6 Photo by Jyoti Felix/CRS
  7. 7. What Does the Literature Say? • On average, effect of increasing PD on DD is positive, but has a small impact (Sibhatu & Qaim 2018) • Relationship between PD & DD is non-linear – depends on existing production diversity (Jones 2017) – Forgone income benefits associated with specialization (Sibhatu et al 2015) • On-farm PD contributes more to DD when households are located further from markets (Sibhatu & Qaim 2018) – Ethiopia: 3km ‘cut-off’ (Hirvonen & Hoddinott 2016) • Better market access has positive effects on DD – larger than effects of increasing PD (Sibhatu et al 2015) 7 PD = production diversity DD = dietary diversity
  8. 8. Methods • Animal-source food consumption: 24h recall; pregnant/lactating women, children 6-23m; any ASF (FAO & FANTA-III 2016) • Production diversity: count of crop varieties produced [maize + rainy season pulses + dry season nutritious vegetables] • Market access: travel time (min) to food market, open daily, selling meat • Other variables: PACE project, township; HoHH gender; HH size; HH primary occupation (ag/non-ag); ag land size 8 • Regression tree: used to identify ‘cut-off’ point for defining ‘near’ and ‘far’ from markets (Therneau & Atkinson 2018) – 72.5 minutes driving time Photo by Jen Hardy/CRS
  9. 9. Effects of PACE Project PACE Villages Non-PACE Villages PLW ASF Consumption 77% ** 63% C6-23m ASF Consumption 82% *** 45% Production diversity (# varieties) 7.6 *** 5.3 Market distance (min) 111 107 9 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001
  10. 10. Effects of PACE Project by Distance to Market (ASFConsumption) 10 0.649 0.91 0.894 2.198 2.368 2.114 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 All Data Nearer to Market Further from Market EffectonASFConsumption PLW C6-23m *** ** ** • • • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001
  11. 11. ASFConsumption, Production Diversity & MarketAccess 11 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001 C6-23m ASF Consumption No Yes Production diversity (# varieties) 5.6 7.2 * Market distance (minutes) 126 102 •
  12. 12. ASFConsumption, Production Diversity & MarketAccess by Distance to Market ‘Near’ Villages ‘Far’ Villages PLW ASF Consumption 73% 71% C6-23m ASF Consumption 78% 65% Production diversity (# varieties) 6.1 7.5 ** Market distance (minutes) 46 151 *** 12 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001
  13. 13. Effect of Decreasing MarketAccess by Distance to Market (ASFConsumption) 13 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001 -0.24 -4.5 -0.24-0.18 -4.2 -0.018 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 All Data Nearer to Market Further from Market EffectonASFconsumption PLW C6-23m • •
  14. 14. Effects of Increasing Production Diversity by Distance to Market (Dietary Diversity) 14 • = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** = p <0.001 0.052 -0.059 0.075 0.047 -0.006 0.071 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 All Data Nearer to Market Further from Market Marginaleffectondietarydiverstiyscore PLW C6-23m * * * *
  15. 15. Implications In remote areas with generally poor access to markets (like Chin State): • Market access appears to play a critical role in both ASF consumption and overall dietary diversity – particularly for areas located closer to markets – Market access interventions • Production diversity (/self-sufficiency) appears to be more important for dietary outcomes in areas located further from markets – Production diversification interventions • Nutrition education/SBC has a larger, more significant impact than either market access or production diversity – Investments in nutrition education critical – irrespective of the pathway through which access to nutritious food is improved 15
  16. 16. References FAO & FANTA-III 2016 Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: A Guide to Measurement, Rome Hirvonen & Hoddinott 2016 Agricultural production and children's diets: evidence from rural Ethiopia, Agricultural Economics, 48(4), 469-480 Jones 2017 Critical review of the emerging research evidence on agricultural biodiversity, diet diversity, and nutritional status in low- and middle-income countries, Nutrition Reviews, 75(10), 769- 782 Sibhatu et al 2015 Production diversity and dietary diversity in smallholder farm households, PNAS, 12(34) 10657-10662 Sibhatu & Qaim 2018 Review: Meta-analysis of the association between production diversity, diets, and nutrition in smallholder farm households, Food Policy, 77, 1-18 Malapit et al 2015 Women’s empowerment mitigates the negative effects of low production diversity on maternal and child nutrition in Nepal, The Journal of Development Studies, 51(8), 1097-1123 Therneau & Atkinson 2018 rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees, R package version 4.1- 13. 16
  17. 17. Any Questions? And feel free to get in touch: Jyoti Felix Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture Technical Advisor CRS ASIA Region jyoti.felix@crs.org Dr. Marcia Croft PACE Project Coordinator CRS Myanmar marcia.croft@crs.org Joshua Poole Country Manager CRS Myanmar joshua.poole@crs.org 17 Photo by Jen Hardy/CRS

More Related Content

Slideshows for you

Similar to Production Diversity and Market Access for Predicting Animal-source Food Consumption

More from International Food Policy Research Institute

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

×