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. Acknowledgements
• Project funding provided by:
• Implementation partner:
2

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. 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
Map ID: MIMU182v04
www.themimu.info
Creation Date: 2 July
2015.A3
Wikimedia 2011

6. 6
Photo by Jyoti Felix/CRS

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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