Adoption of Rainwater Management Practice in the Blue Nile

A Description and Analysis of the IFPRI Farm Survey on Climate Change

Noémie Defourny Ms. in Economics , UCL (Belgium)

Internship Timeline

• ILRI: Static Bio Physical Household level Model

Cikeda (Cirad) - IAT (CSIRO)Solutions Feasability in Boneya

• ILRI-IWMI: NBDC Data set 2005-IFPRI

Nile Basin Development ChallengeObjective: to improve the resilience of rural livelihoods in the Ethiopian highlands through a landscape approach to rainwater management.

• Water scarcity and land degradation – concerns livelihoods of millions households in Sub-Saharan Africa

• Water for agriculture – crop production to feed population and Animal 70 to 90% of the all water used in the region. • Growing populations Need - to reverse land degradation

- to improve water productivity.

Landscape (watershed) approach to rainwater managementTo better target or ‘match’ promising technologies (or whole strategies) with particular environments.

Nile Basin Development Challenge

Objective : creating feasibility maps for rainwater management strategies that include socio-economic constraints.

One approach : Mapping Willingness of Adoption

Procedure : Define adoption rules

Based on census data (=data for the whole basin), simulate “virtual farmers”

Run adoption rules on the simulated farmer

N3 : on Targeting and scaling out

Integrating socio economic into feasibility maps

Bio-physical suitability Willingness to adopt

Feasibility map

Objective of the internship

• Aggregate the IFPRI “Climate Change” survey (phase 1) to farm level

• Describe the dataset in terms of Water Related and Soil Conservation Practices

• Compute Variables

• Run first Adoption Models

IFPRI Farm Survey on Climate Change (2005)

• General features:Geo-referenced (GPS coordinates)

1,000 households (6,168 individuals)3 Regions: Fogera, Jeldu and Dapo areas.

Gender51.4% of male 48.6% of female

Ethnic 40% Oromo Ethnic group31% Amhara15% Tigrayan 15% Beninshangul Gumuz 5.00% from SNPP

Religion 86.7% Christian 13% are Islamic.

Descriptive Statistics • Household level Characteristics

90.10% household heads male Age: head45 years old

spouse 35 yearsSize < 6 personsFarmer’s experience in agriculture 23 yearsEducation 5 years of school

50%

30%

20%

Literacy

IlliterateLiterate-read and write formallyLiterate-read and write in-formally

Household characteristics (cont’d)

Assets Drought power: 72.2% own oxen32.4% donkey

12% own horseLabor Labor intensive: Meher, Livestock, Perennials

Own labor:

Hired labor:

Off-farm jobs: seasonal trends Meher > Belg (trader, paid laborers)

7%

69%

11%

13%

Total Labor Force Distribution

BelgMeherPerennialLivestock

HiredOwn

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

7%

93%

6%

94%

8%

92%

19%

81%

Distribution of Labor Source

BelgMeherPerennialLivestock

Household characteristics (cont’d)

• Land Total 1.9 ha3 plots/H, 0.79 Ha

Water Source Rainfed 95.26%, river 2%

Distance to homestead 1.4 km

Certification

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516170

102030405060708090

Number of Plots Certified per Household

Number of Plot per HH

Percentage of HH

Household characteristics (cont’d)• Fertility 60% moderately

30% plots highly • Use

• Erosion Exposure

50.00%38.33%

11.67% No Erosion

Mild Erosion

High Erosion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

102030405060708090

Number of Plots per household Rented or Shared

Number of plot per HH

Percentage of HH

Access to Water

• Distance 31.7 km • Source of Water

• Pump 2.60 % HhType Diesel ; 23% ManualOwnership 69.20% HH jointlyPurpose Irrigate the crops; garden

36.00%

1.90%13.20%12.40%3.10%

1.00%

30.10%

1.40%

River or lake

Hand-dug or Drilled private borehole/well

Public hand-dug or Drilled borehole/well

Public stand-pipe

Tap water (public supply)

Other (rain water, dam..)

Spring water

Stream water

Access to Water (cont’d)

• Water Storage 8.50% Hh Type

Ownership

Purpose

26.32

14.4738.16

5.262.63 13.16 Hand-dug borehole/well

Drilled borehole/well Pond/Lake Micro reservoir/dam Barrel/cistern Other

10.53

65.79

11.84

1.32 5.26

Irrigation of garden and crops

Livestock watering

Drinking water

Fish

Other

3.95

28.95

21.05

26.32

10.53

9.21

UnknownHH has ownershipwith other households/farFarmer associationWater user associationOther

Access to Advice, Market and Credits

• Access to Advice

• Access to Market

• Transportation 93.83% On foot3.34%. Animal2.43% Motorized vehicle

Crop production Livestock Activities

Training 47.10% 53.30%

Visit 5 4

Input Output

Distance Km 5.66 km 5.70 km Travel Distance 8.91 hrs 11.32 hrs

Access to Advice, Market and Credits (cont’d)• Access to Credit

50.00% have at least borrowed money once. Purpose

Source

Frequency

28%

12%

24%

9%

28%To buy farm inputTo buy livestockTo buy food or household goodTo pay Health ExpensesOther

11.3%

9.0%

5.7%

4.8%

2.1%1.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2%

Governmental Organization NeighborsCredit AssociationFarmer AssociationMicro Finance InstitutionPrivate Money LenderOther sourceWomen AssociationNGO

1 2 3 4 50%

10%20%30%40%50%60%

Number of Credit contracted

Percentage Household

Shocks and Aid

• AidReason for aid activity’ implementation

Type

38.52

9.54

1.41

4.953.89

2.12

2.12

15.55

3.53

3.89

0.710000000000001

11.66

1.77 0.35

Drought

Flood

Hailstorm

Landslide

Pests of crops before harvest

Animal disease

Other (specify)

To prevent malarial outbreak

As part of development activities

Income generation

To increase crop production

Social Security/Health care

protect shocks of drought and flood

To assist new settlers

18.31

53.87

10.92

16.9Cash for work (ETB)

Food for work (kg)

Food,Emergency Relief (kg)

Mosquito (bed) nets

Crop level Characteristics

• Fragmentation

7% 11%18%

24%

30%

35%

43%

45%49%

53%

100%Maize Teff Barley

Wheat Millet Beans

Fieldpeas Oil Seed Sesame

Coffee Potato

1 2 3 40%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%97%

90%77%

59%

43%29%

18%12% 8% 4% 2% 1%

Crop distribution per household

MeherBelg

Number of plot per HH

% of HH

• Type

Crop level Characteristics (cont’d)

• Irrigation

• Fertilizer

15.42

16.74

15.42

5.73

40.53

6.16

Type of Irrigation used for Plot-BergFlood

Furrow

Surface drip

Individual (Hose,Bucket,Watering Can)

Flowing river

Other

Amount of Urea (33.62%)

Amount of DAP (37.16%)

Amount of Manure

(19.46%)

Amount of Compost (9.73%)

0

40

80

120

160

Fertilizer use on Plot-Belg

Mean quantity applied on plot0

100

200

Fertilizer's use on crop -Meher

Mean of quantity ap-

plied on crop

Crop level Characteristics (cont’d)

• Soil Conservation techniques74.5% households practices at least one type

Type

Soil b

und

Stone b

und

Grass s

trip

Water w

ay

Planting t

ree

Ploughing a

long the c

ontour

Others

Do not prac

tice0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Perennials

• Type

• Purpose

8%4% 3%

2%

3%

9%

16%

5%7%

44%

Other Kulkual Banana

Abocado Mango Gesho

Coffee Chat Enset

Eucalyptus

25.14

11.18

12.578.71

0.329999999999999

0.410000000000004

11.18

4.68000000000001

0.980000000000004

1.39999999999999

0.25

22.18Source of income by selling firewood, lSource of income by selling wood as conFor own use as fuel woodFor own use as construction materialSoil conservationShadeIncome security (Eg. In case of crop faMore profitable than annual cropsUsed as fenceFor making instruments of productionMategna (Matint)Consumed as food

Perennials (cont’d)

• Irrigation 4.10% Hh Furrow at 48.44% , sprinkle1 pump

• Fertilizers Only Manure4.30% of household6.20% perennials

• Share 78.2% perennials - 100% plot20.81% perennials - ≤50% plot

• Sell 36.9% of household

Livestock92.3% of household - 3,576 animals. 17.4% of livestock are lost of disease

• Type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

93% 84% 70% 52% 33% 17% 7% 2% 1%

Number of livestock owned

Percentage of household

0.98

17.7

0.981.59

4.36

13.79

3.783.08

9.933.58

20.58

14.46

3.38 1.01 0.799999999999998

Cattle (for meat)Cattle (for milk)Oxen for fatteningBreeding BullsGoatSheepLambBeehivesDonkeyHorseOxenChickenCalfHeiferother

Livestock (cont’d)

• Source of Feed:

• Source of water:

41%

10%15%

12%

4%

18%

Communal grazing

Private grazing

Crop Residue

CR + Communal grazing

Private and Communal grazing

Grain and leftovers

1.5% 0.7%

5.9%

1.2%0.4%

55.6%2.0%3.7%

28.9%

public surface canals from public dam

public well + public pumping

public river storage + private pumping

water harvesting

rain-fed

river

spring

stream

from domestic consumption

Perception of Climate Change (over last 20 yrs)

• Variation of Rainfall Declined according to 61.53% Hh• Variation of Temperature # of Hot Days, 67.72% Hh• Perceived Cause of rainfall variation Poor vegetation cover (78.98% )• Variation of vegetation cover 50% Hh unchanged, for 35%

decreasing. • Major constraints in changing your farming ways

22%

2%

7%

7%

3%

19%

5%2%

24%

0%2% 1%

3% 3%Shortage of land

Poor soil fertility

Shoratge of labor

Shoratge of agricultural input supply

Shoratge of rain

Lack of information/knowledge

Lack of farm animals/oxen

Climate change

Lack of money

lack of environmental immunity

No water potential for irrigation

Lack of farm tools

Lack of professional advice

No constraints/problems

Perception of Climate Change (cont’d)• Adjustments made to LT shifts- in temperature

- in rainfalls

57%

5%

24%

15%

1% 8%2%0%

2% 0% 0% 5%3% 0%NothingImplement soil conservation schemesChanged crop varietyPut trees for shadingWater harvestingAfforestationSought off-farm activitiesLate plantingEarly plantingMigrated to urban areaUsed irrigationSold livestockChanged farming type (from crop to live

42%

41%

18%

7%

9%

1%5%

5% 1% 3%3% 1%NothingImplement soil conservation schemesChanged crop varietyPlanted treesWater harvestingLate plantingEarly plantingUsed irrigationMigrated to urban areaFound off-farm activitiesChanged farming type (from crop to liveReduced number of livestockAdopted new technologiesWater conservation

Willingness to Adopt

Model Specification• The framework can be estimated with a multivariate PROBIT

estimation. Qualitative depend variable Probit: linear probability model

y= α+ βn,i xn,i+ βn+1,i xn+1,i+εi

y= Pr(PumpT)

• Coefficient Estimators are not BLUE • R² is not a good measure of equation performance. Pseudo-r² (goodness-of fit, maximum loglikelihood)

Results:

1. Adoption of Pump as a Water Management Strategy technology Variables computation Explanatory Variable PUMP ADOPTION Marginal Effects of the

Average HouseholdHousehold Size (persons) HHSIZE1 +

0.003889

Distance to Market for Input (hrs) MARKETINPUT2 -

-0.00235

Number of Task for which Labor was Hired HHHIRELABOR +

0.000923

Whether the household owns or not at least one oxen

OXENTBin +0.014394

The number of visit on crop production and livestock

VISITAGG +0.0007689

ConstantCONSTANT -

0.01456

If SlopeFlat >0 Spatial Restriction

Pseudo-R²0.1893

Number of obs. 572

First Adoption Models

2. Adopting Planting tree as a SWC techniqueVariables computation Explanatory Variable Planting Tree

for SWC ADOPTION

Marginal Effects of the Average Household

Age of the Household Leader

HHHEADAGE-

-0.0034156

Religion of the Household Head

RELIGION-

-0.0961367

Total ha of land owned LANDHOLDINGTOTAL+

0.1843855

Squared of Total ha of land owned

LANDHOLDINGTOTAL²-

-0.0370873

The average distance from plot to Homestead

AVERAGEDISTANCEPLOTHOMESTEAD -

-0.0195627

Whether the household has received visit on crop production or livestock activities along if they have attended a training on either two focus

ACCESSTOADVICE

+

0.05388

CONSTANT-

0.09679

ErosionSevereBin>0 or ErosionMildB>0

Spatial Restriction

Pseudo-R² 0.104

Number of obs. 724

3. Adoption of SC Techniques (Soil bunds, Stone bunds, Grass Stripes and Plouhging contour)Variables computation Explanatory Variable SC techniques

ADOPTIONMarginal Effects of the Average Household

Primary Residence with Metal Roof

METALROOF+ 0.1915296

Primary Residence concrete stone/bricks

CONCRETEHOUSE+ 0.2155

Number of Plot HHNUMBERPLOT+ 0.03245

Number of Task for which Labor was Hired

HHHIRELABOR- -0.0045387

Total ha of land owned LANDHOLDINGTOTAL- -0.189

Has received visit (crop & livestock)

VISITBIN+ 0.1438

Soil conservation aid -binary SOILCONSERVAIDBIN+ 0.3734

Distance Market Input (hrs) MARKETINPUT2+ 0.00713

CONSTANT+ 0.05959

SlopeInclinedBinary>0 or SlopeSteepBinary>0

Spatial Restriction

Pseudo-R² 0.2058

Number of obs. 442

Results

• PUMPSMore productive farmers, closer to market, hiring labour, owning oxen and being informed.

• TREE PLANTINGPlot near homestead, middle size farmers

• SC TECHNIQUESPoorer farmers, further from market & more likely to received Aid

Thank you for your Attention

&

Thank you for welcoming

me at ILRI/IWMI!