1) The study assesses the impact of road construction and soil and water conservation (SWC) projects on agricultural yield growth in Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) areas between 2006-2012. 2) It finds that while road construction did not significantly increase yields, SWC projects like terracing and tree planting had a positive 2.8% effect on yield growth. 3) SWC projects help rehabilitate soil and water resources, reducing flooding and erosion hazards while increasing moisture and biodiversity - important in Ethiopia's drought-prone PSNP areas.

1. ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The Impact of Productive Safety Net
Program (PSNP) Community Assets
on Yield Growth
Feiruz Yimer, Mekidim Dereje, Alemayehu seyoum Taffesse, Fanaye Tadesse and
Bethelhem Koru
IFPRI ESSP
Transformation and vulnerability in Ethiopia: New evidence to inform policy
and investments
Getfam Hotel, Addis Ababa
May 27, 2016
1

2. 2
Introduction
• Persistent food insecurity remains a major problem in many
parts of Ethiopia
• The Government in collaboration with donors introduced
the Food Security Program (FSP) in 2005.
• The program aims at closing food gap and eliminating
distress assets sales.

3. 3
• Two of the components of the program:
– Public Works
– Direct Support (DS)
Objective
• Assess the impact of road construction and Soil and Water
Conservation (SWC) on the yield growth.
Introduction

4. 4
Data
• Ethiopian Food Security Survey (EFSS) of four year
longitudinal data (2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012).
• Community level data
• Household level data
- The number of households for this study are 2,545 in 2006
and 3,702 in the rest of the rounds.
- We only use those who produce cereals, pulses and oilseeds

5. 5
Description of PSNP area
• The study areas are known for prevalence of chronic poverty
and for being drought prone.
• More than 25% of households also faced crop disease/pest
damage
Prevalence of rainfall shock and crop damage
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rainfall shock Crop disease Pest Damage
%ofhouseholds
2006
2008
2010
2012

6. 6
• Significant percentage of households faced input price
increase and lack of input access in 2008 and 2010.
• Output price shock was also reported mainly in 2010/2011
-
10
20
30
40
50
Lack of input access Output price shock Input price shock
%ofhouseholds
Input and Output price shock & access to inputs
2006
2008
2010
2012
Description of PSNP area

7. 7
Description of PSNP area
• The incidence of drought in the areas is reported by more than 50%
of households in the first three year.
• Though not as notable, soil erosion is also a huge problem in the area
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Death Erosion Drought
%ofhouseholds
2006
2008
2010
2012

8. 8
Yield values by crop categories
Average value of yield in Birr/Hectare
Crop
categories
Year
2006 2008 2010 2012
Top 5 cereals 5091 4753 4303 4898
Pulses 8782 5813 6086 6638
Oil seeds 8089 4178 4100 5792
• The average yield level of the top five cereals has
declined from 2006 to 2010.

9. 9
Growth rate of yield
Statistics
Year
2006 2008 2010 2012
Yield value
Mean 13,169 11,537 9,814 12,100
Median 8,971 8,396 6,739 8,277
Growth Rate
Mean -5% -9% 8%
Median -2% -9% 8%
• In 2008 and 2010, the yield level was not only low but
also lower than the previous rounds.
• The average aggregate yield value shows an 8 percent
increase in 2012 from 2010

10. 10
Value of yield growth rate by PSNP beneficiary status
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2008 2010 2012
Public Work
non-beneficiary beneficiary
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
2008 2010 2012
Direct Support
non-beneficiary beneficiary

11. 11
Households benefitting from road & SWC constructions by
PSNP
Year
2006 2008 2010 2012
% of households that benefitted from improved market access
through road construction
12.9 22.2 24.3 18.7
% of households that benefitted from improved productivity
through SWC construction
10.5 20.9 26.4 27.9

12. 12
Results
The econometric result shows that:
• Roads constructed/maintained through Public works does
not show significant effect on productivity growth.
• Soil & Water Conservation, however, has a positive effect
on yield growth (2.8%).
• The positive effect of SWC on yield is robust to
alternative specifications and additional variables.

13. Results
Other Variables
• Fertilizer use shows positive effect on yield growth (1%)
• Rainfall shock has large & negative effect on yield growth
(6%).

14. 14
Conclusion
• The SWC activities such as the building of bund and terracing,
tree planting, and irrigation help rehabilitate the soil and water
resources within the community.
• Communities that have implemented SWC projects may have
lower level of flooding, erosion hazards, and increased
moisture in the soil.
• They also benefit from increased biodiversity and carbon
sequestration resulting from forestry activities.

15. Conclusion
• As PSNP areas are characterized as drought and erosion
prone, the works on SWC in particular seems to have
greater impact on productivity gains.
• The insignificant effect of roads should be taken with
caution as it has a lot of economic values other than yield
growth.